ResidingOnEarth

You didn't answer my questions, so I'm not sure why I should answer yours. Also: are you trying to make a point with that question? If not, then it's a truly pointless question. I'm not aware of a single society/tribe on this planet where people don't care whenever their property is stolen from them. I don't expect such a society/tribe of people with that attitude will ever exist. Why waste brain cycles considering scenarios like that which are nothing to do with humans, earth or this universe that we live in? Something valuable I have learnt from Stef is that it is wise to use philosophy to solve real and practical problems. It's very easy to fall into the trap of considering and trying to solve hypothetical scenarios which have no baring on reality.

WasatchMan: I'm a little bit stuck on the recursive nature of your original statement ("you cannot get an Is without an ought"). If you cannot get an is without an ought, then how do you decide which out (IE the scientific method or the rain dance) is better? Surely you will be deciding that based on an is (truth/observations of reality). But once again... you cannot get an is from an ought so... ... and it goes on. Another thing that has come to mind is this... It's my understanding that the universe we live in is a consistent, shared reality. It operates on fixed rules and is made up of waves and particles. No matter whether I have correct or incorrect beliefs about the nature of the universe, the universe still is. If I was one of the most intelligent people on the planet and my understanding of the scientific method and the various scientific disciplines was very good, I am still not granted the ability to create an is purely from my thoughts about it. It's quite likely that I will be able to accurately describe the universe in many instances, but none of those accurate descriptions produce an is. On the occasion where I fail to accurately describe the universe, the universe does not change and bend to fit my description. Do you see my point? Forgive my ignorance if I'm missing something obvious. I'm finding this topic testing! ^ I like that

Reality does not allow for you to use tea leaves to measure the speed of a car. Reality does allow you to use the speedo on your dashboard or your GPS-enabled mobile phone to determine the speed of a car. This isn't about preferred behaviour (ought). You could try and make a case that other people "ought" to use a specific method for determining the speed of a car.

It took me a few reads of this paragraph to understand why it is so hard to grok. I have realised that the problem with your paragraph is that you have claimed that "ought" is about "behaviour". In-fact, "ought" is about preferred behaviour. So if you factor that into your example of the speeding car it becomes obvious that it doesn't make sense to claim there is a "preferred behaviour" needed to measure speed. It is true that in order to measure the speed of a car there is necessary behaviour that a person must perform. That's two uses of "is" though. It is true that cars exist and can make relative movements. It is true that a person can measure the speed of a car using a dashboard speedometer. Neither of those two objective statements about reality imply any kind of preferred behaviour.

Moral relativism is a moral system which is not universal but only applies to a single individual or a group. A moral relativist might say: "I believe that it is wrong to prohibit women from travelling freely. However the degree to which women are prohibited from travelling freely in the Middle East is none of my business. It's a different culture out there with different values. Their idea of right and wrong is different from ours and I accept that." That's been my long-standing understanding of the term anyway. I could be wrong.

I'd be interested to hear his arguments on determinism! I know that Stef has concluded that we are not living in a deterministic universe, but I don't think he has made a good case for why he has that conclusion. It's one of the few arguments I've heard from Stef that I don't think are sound. I actually feel that we are living in a non-deterministic universe, but I have no proof of that and I don't have a good argument to support it. One thing Stef has said which I do agree with is that victims of parental child abuse may be drawn to that idea of living in a deterministic universe as it removes moral culpability from their parents. If that theory is true, that obviously does not prove that the universe is or is not deterministic.

I haven't heard of Sam Harris before. From one FDR listener to another: do you recommend him? Either way I've downloaded that podcast and will check him out!

Sesame: Slave Electronic Submission And Manipulation Experiment I expect the experiment will fail as I'm sure that any value associated with these points will result in people gaming the system and black market credit improvement services becoming available to game it for you. Do you hate waiting in the sub-100-point-citizen lines? Do you want to increase the chance of your home planning application being accepted? Are you tired of going through a full tax audit every year? If you answered Yes, Yes, Yes then you're in luck! Check out our site on the deep-web today! Only ¥650 for a 200 Sesame credit increase OR YOUR MONEY BACK! (probably)

Yeah. I think the fact that "the truth is concise already" (IE the word "killing"), suggests that all avoidance of using that word during a philosophical discussion are likely to be knowing or unknowing attempts at manipulation/sophistry. At best; the usage of terms like "taking out" add a layer obfuscation. I understand the words "theft" and "tax" to essentially, be equivalent in meaning. It's amazing how differently though, those words are interpreted by, what seems to be, the majority of people. So I agree. Better to stick with the proper term "killing" to keep the conversation philosophical and avoid unnecessary obfuscation. Side note: I think you're a good teacher; one of my favourite on this forum! I am enjoying learning from you.

I interpreted "security firm" as shorthand for "a group of people working for a security firm". A "security firm" being an organisation that provides physical security services to others. I think it's acceptable to use the word as shorthand in that way. When someone asks me "who made your computer?" I might reply "IBM". I'm using "IBM" as shorthand for "the people who work as part of the IBM organisation." I don't think it's misleading, ambiguous or confusing to say "security firm" or "IBM" in those respective contexts. I do however fully agree that it is not possible for "Israel" to attack someone or some group of people. The reason being: there is no clear way of determining who is a member of the "Israel" organisation. Worse than that: when people say "America attacked", "Israel attacked", "America has decided" or "Israel has decided" they are usually attempting to assign complicity to all citizens of those respective governments. I have not given consent or will-full support to the people working in the UK government organisation who have been attacking people in the middle east. Unfortunately people (especially in people in mainstream media) have been incorrectly claiming or implying that I have by saying phrases like "the United Kingdom has agreed to assist America in the fight against..." blah. I think it is better to say "The Israel government organisation attacked". That removes the confusing, inconsistent and ambiguous concept of the nation from the phrase. Using the term "organisation" also does not imply that all people on the land referred to as "Israel" are somehow involved/morally-complicit. It's only people claiming to be part of the Israel organisation that are involved and to greater and lesser to degrees, morally-complicit. Referring to "Israel" as an organisation also makes it obvious that Israel, Pepsi, IBM and Oxfam are all just orgs, but 1 of those orgs is different from the others in that it uses extreme violence to achieve its organisational goals. "Taking out" someone is a euphemism for killing someone. It's an unnecessary avoidance of using the term "killing", but I don't think it's ambiguous.

regevdl: it teared me up reading about the tragedy that is that 8 year old boy's childhood. It also teared me up reading about the peaceful parenting efforts of you and your community. You are making the world better Thanks for the recommendations. I will read them.

EmptyMellon: I second this question! I may check out this guy's gold report when he releases it at the beginning of the new year.

I gotta say: you have a very charismatic writing style Mantis! I'm enjoying it and in some forums I think your personality and flair would be a great aid in propagating your theory. I really don't think it's working for you in here. I think if you want to convince people here of the correctness of your conclusions, you've got to make a good argument for them. You've got to bring reason and evidence to the table.

I had a conversation with shirgall about when it is justified to kill in self-defence. This was the thread: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45844-donald-trump-on-terrorists-take-out-their-families/ He made the following claim: I raised some objections to it and in doing so realised that some of my objections were not valid on account of me not having a clear idea of what an immediate threat is. Specifically, how important "opportunity" is when it comes to a threat. IE does the person attacking you have the opportunity to harm you or kill you. There may be some things said in our conversation which overlap with your interest in pre-emptive attacks.

Same here! I actually met the real Santa as a kid: the actual immortal, beard-donning, flying, physics defying, magical man himself. I had strong sense data to suggest he was real and my younger siblings were there to bear witness: confirming my experience was real. I later discovered that the existence of Santa was a lie perpetrated by multiple actors all cooperating, as part of a vast conspiracy to deceive me and other people my age. The man who I thought was Santa turned out to be a co-worker of one of my parents who was standing on a ladder (not hovering on a sleigh as he claimed he was at the time). Maybe if the local church had paid someone to dress up as god (or the second coming) I would have believed that as a child. They didn't though; and their church hymns, stories, fancy dress and fancy buildings didn't work on me.

Even though the term "faith of atheism" is unusual (I haven't heard someone use the word faith in that way before), I agree that atheism is a faith. The definition of faith is: a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. It is true that you cannot logically prove that a god does not exist and there is also no way of providing material evidence for a god's non-existence. However: I think your use of your term "faith of Atheism" is a type of sophistry designed to mislead people who lack critical thinking skills. I think you are using the word "faith" to paint a picture where atheism and theism seem equally plausible and that it's just a matter of picking which one feels right. In other words: It's just a matter of where you place your faith. You actually suggested that your childhood experience may affect your feeling about which is right. So: it all rests on just faith... right? Wrong. The fact is: theists are making the claim that there is a god or gods (they don't all agree on what god is or how many there are), and they are making that claim without rational or material evidence. Atheists take the more reasonable position of assuming there is no god, on account of there being no evidence for one (or more). As an atheist myself who has not seen any evidence of unicorns or clangers on the moon, I not only do not believe in god, but I also don't believe in the existence of unicorns or clangers.

Great post by Laforge! One thing you didn't mention (which you're probably aware of) is that coins are preferable to bars for trading as the popular coins have well known physical properties (weight, sound, diameter, design etc), so they can be more easily verified when you are buying with them or selling for them. This is obviously very important if you actually want to buy a bag of potatoes with your precious metal money. It's not so easy to verify the gold/silver content bars.

I respectfully decline. I feel I don't know enough about the core, classical logical principles that are used in logic to have a good discussion with you about it. Or at least: I don't know the widely used terms to describe them. I looked up the "Principle of identity". I understand and accept that. I'd rather just learn this stuff on my own in, in my own time. That's some very powerful & vivid imagery. These very weak and subservient statesmen in your example are exactly the kind of people that I think the sociopathic controllers want us (their slaves, their victims and their citizens) to adopt. I've met many people who embody the mindset of these statesmen. I had that mindset to some degree when I was younger. I feel like i still have some remnants of it left in me now. Now that I have named it and I can see it for what it is and where it came from; it is loosing it's hold. There is a colloquial term used widely on the web to describe these kind of people: sheeple! To further the metaphor: that would make the sociopathic controllers, the farmer and the wolves (the farmer being the powerful manipulators at the top of the food chain: eg the Soros: Open Society Foundation).

I understand your point. I like this idea of "ability + opportunity + jeopardy" as a means of analysing the situation. I think killing someone is a very drastic measure, so it's important that we know when it is acceptable to resort to it. I hope I never get into a situation like this, but I acknowledge that hope doesn't help you if you're in that situation. I personally want to know and understand in advance how to deal with a terrible situation like this. I want to survive and I want to be virtuous. I do think that even though the interlocutor you described is hotheaded, that doesn't mean he isn't going to come back and shoot you. His hotheadedness also doesn't nullify his threat. It's my understanding that a death threat is the initiation of force. This interlocutor has initiated force against you and stated plainly his intent to kill you. His gun -- in your example -- is far away so he does not have the opportunity to kill you, but I think you are still clearly in great danger and under attack at this point. I've thought about what you said and I now agree that you shouldn't kill the interlocutor (as he does not have the opportunity to kill you), but I do think though that it is acceptable to physically incapacitate him (or her). This would fall under self-defence. In a self-defence situation you don't have to wait to be punched or shot at before it is acceptable to defend yourself by striking or shooting. All you know (as the survivalist) is that someone has issued a death threat to you and is claiming to be in the process of carrying it out. You have the moral right to defend yourself from attack. Practically speaking: if you let the interlocutor leave then he gains a great advantage over you. He knows where your camp is and he can strike at any time day or night and from one of many directions. He also knows you can't carry all your food and water away to somewhere else in one go, so you must either stay with it or take only some of it away with you to find safety. So if you physically incapacitate him in defence, you can then secure your winter supplies and your personal safety. This is what it's all about: ensuring that empathetic people have a reasonable moral code to live by that allows them to peaceful interact with one another and to also be able to respond to those who do not want peace: the aggressive sociopaths (the interlocutor).

I don't think it's a benevolent position. It's basically rule-of-the-jungle. I for one don't want that. There's probably a bunch of anarchists that live by that Crowley principle. Just because you're an anarchist doesn't mean you are virtuous and you live by universal, moral principles. I think there are probably a lot of nihilistic, do what thou wilt anarchists out there. I don't care for them. I think Crowley was a clever man, but to put it mildly: I wouldn't want to be friends with him! I like it. To extend that idea. I see a solid, rational set of moral principles as being more than just the armour. I see it also as the sword, as you can know with confidence when it is acceptable to strike back and how to strike.

Sarcasm mode ACTIVATED!

How could someone do that to themselves? To me, that seems horrible and crazy. Who is lending them all this money? What is their plan if they can no longer service the interest on their debts? How could you even consider buying a house and having a baby in that financial state? They are literally borrowing their entire future so that they can experience a fake and flimsy, vizard of wealth in the present.

Thanks. I think there are times when principles aren't required eg when it's only preference that's involved. What colour would you like to buy your pillow in? <-- no principles needed there. I expect some sociopaths live by principles. Their principles might not be UPB though. Those principles may not facilitate the creation of a healthy society/community. An example I can think of, of a sociopathic principle is the famous "moral principle" put forward by Aleister Crowley: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." I think of sociopaths as people who lack the feelings of empathy, compassion and remorse. I think that is what separates them from the rest of us. I use the term "empathetic people" for people who (to some degree) have those feelings. I don't think if you lack those feelings you are necessarily bad. I do think though that people who experience those feelings can be very easily manipulated by those who don't experience them, if they don't have a solid, rational set of moral principles that they live by.

shirgall: Thanks for your clarification on your other points and for being patient with me. I think I struggled with the use of the word "immediate", because to me it is very obvious that you cannot justifying killing because of an imagined future, life-threatening danger (a non-immediate danger). I guess though; it might not be obvious to everyone, so it makes sense to explicitly state it. Regarding this point; if the interlocutor then immediately turns and walks in the direction of his camp (which in this kind of situation I expect he would do), then surely the survivalist is in immediate danger. There is a known life-threatening, danger (not imagined) and the survivalist likely has no way of getting his [necessary for winter] food and water out of the area before the other guy returns to kill him and steal it. I don't think the survivalist should have to wait until the other guy returns with and draws his gun. Note: I'm only asking about the moral component of this situation, not the legality of it. For me, the morality of a situation is always more important than the legality. I will assess my moral obligations first and then I will consider the practical and legal aspects to it second and as subordinate to the moral obligations. I don't think a moral system should be designed around or constrained by what is provable and what is not provable in a court of law.