Mister Mister

Can you give some examples? Do you mean like fraud?

But if that's the case how can there be billions of fiery balls of highly condensed matter in space? Isn't gravitation the flow from cold to hot?

Great question. This stuff is horrifying when you first see it, and it is everywhere. It's even more frustrating because it's the opposite of what everyone says - violence against men is normalized whereas violence against women is exaggerated. I think to some extent, this is biological. Historically, women survive by cooperating with other women, and with society, to have networks which will support them through pregnancy and nursing. Men survive by competing with other men to gather resources, and win the affections of women. Women tend to be seen more as an amorphous blob, while there is more emphasis on the differences among men. This is why most CEOs and politicians are men, but the homeless and imprisoned are also mostly men. Women emphasize the differences in men because it means the difference between their kids having good genes, and having food, or not. Men emphasize the differences amongst themselves, because it is what is different about them that gets them laid. Does that make sense? When we see women harmed, this means one less potential breeder for the genepool, and women see this as potential harm to them, so people tend to recoil. But when men are harmed, women see this as a loser they don't want to breed with anyway, and men see him as one less competitor. Karen Straughan talks about the "one good man" phenomenon, where men talk about other men as if they are so horrible to women, as a way to one-up those men and improve their standing. And when there is a conflict between man and woman, people of both sexes tend to favor the woman. As this psych study says, "women like women more than men like men". So it's totally fine to see Uma Thurman slice through 100 young men, but not the other way around. This is part of what's tricky about this issue, is the way we are wired. So when you express frustration with the way men are being portrayed rather than, "fuck yea, that guy got what was coming to him", women perceive you as a whiny loser rather than an alpha who will throw other men under the bus, and other men will take it as an opportunity to put you down and elevate themselves. I don't know if this can change in the general culture until women feel they need men as much or more than men need women. Until then, however, you can find the rare women who actually have empathy for men.

Well thanks for your pity, but I don't understand how you are in a position to tell me or anyone else what we should or shouldn't do. I wasn't trying to be condescending, only pointing out that your behavior isn't consistent with the content of your argument, something which I see quite a lot, and which fascinates me. Especially because when you point this out to people, you generally encounter rage and slander. Why do you think this is?

Sorry it's really annoying that you come on here, presenting yourself as if you want to have an honest conversation. I put some time and energy into crafting a response, that I thought would be thought-provoking, and instead of respond to ANY of the content of what I said, you just continue to push some agenda. And you've done the same thing to many others here. It's like talking to a television.

And yet you're on a philosophy forum investing lots of time and energy arguing a position, trying to change people's mind. Simply fascinating...Again, thanks for the discussion, it's been very instructive

See, this is what I was getting at. I had a feeling that you were just BSing, but I had to see it through to make sure. I'm totally done with this. I've asked you multiple times, what value there is in the principles you're putting forth, what important conclusions they lead to, and you want to argue over the definition of "chair". If that's an important philosophical issue to you, great, but it's not for me. Have fun with all that, thanks for the discussion.

I don't quite follow. As I understand, UPB is similar but fundamentally different from Kant's categorical imperative. Have you ever spent time around children? You teach them a word, like say, "guitar", and they will quickly get that, other, similar objects are "guitar". In a similar way, when you give them a moral command, like, "don't hit", or "share", they will then apply that to others. For example, older siblings often model the parents behavior for younger siblings, repeating the commands that their parents have given them. In particular, when they see parents violating the "rules" they have inflicted on the children, they get very upset. So I think there is a strong argument to be made, that UPB is how we naturally process moral arguments, and only through corruption do we become confused, as so many people are. But I still don't understand what you are saying outside of abstractions, in any practical sense. Can you just get to the point already? What exceptions do you think should be made, as a result of this "clarification" in the philosophy of meaning, to the NAP, private property, free trade, peaceful parenting, etc..? In particular I don't get this sentence - "In defining a word, you are limiting the potential uses of a word erroneously." Can you give an example? If I call things with for legs that you sit on, "chair", I have made some error?

Yes I think I get the general idea, but it doesn't answer my question, you've just alluded to something about universalization. Sorry, again, this is somewhat new to me, and I'm asking you to walk me through it, so I can see the value in it. Otherwise, this stuff is no different to me than any other obscure academic pursuit, like the history of hydraulics, crystallography, or the anthropology of French Polynesian island tribes. Maybe it's interesting, but I don't see what bearing it has on widely communicable and accesible, actionable, essential, moral philosophy.

Hi and welcome, where specifically are you from? I don't know that I've ever talked with any FDR person from the middle east, I would love to hear about your experience. How did you find the show, and what have you found the most challenging?

Hey, welcome and thanks for your question. I had a few thoughts to offer. I don't entirely understand this. How do you require a politician to provide you with rights? The whole problem with democracy and the social contract is that it is completely lopsided. In a Common Law Contract, if one party violates the agreement, the contract is void. Like you said, there ought to be a money back guarantee. In the "social contract", however, the fact that a politician failed to fulfill a promise, or that the government violates the constitution (which you and I never signed in the first place), is not a legal justification to not pay taxes. The sandwich metaphor is entirely inappropriate, because I can choose from many sandwich restaurants, make my own sandwich from ingredients I get from the grocery store, or not buy a sandwich at all. Why shouldn't it also be this way for security, education, roads, banking, currency, charity, and so on? The appropriate metaphor for the government is the mafia and their protection racket, except the mafia doesn't have the propaganda of flags and speeches and constitutions to convince people that it is moral and necessary. Another issue with democracy that really cuts right to the heart of what this show is about, is that, often people are voting for the government to do things which are immoral. To take an extreme example, in Uganda recently, the majority of people voted for a law which would put homosexuals to death. Is that a "functioning democracy"? If you, like me, are appalled at this, then wouldn't you say there is a higher standard of what is right and wrong than what the majority opinion is? Just like there is a higher standard of what is true and false than what people believe throughout history. If Stef is right, that there is an objective means to determine morality, then having people vote on laws is as crazy as having people in the Middle Ages vote on science. I understand the appeal of something like this SMART-voter thing, the idea that if we can just tweak the system it can work!!! But as long as most people don't have a basic understanding about right and wrong, and DON'T KNOW that they don't know, there is no substitute for the spread of rational ethics, which is still in it's very early stages.

I don't even see why this is a question. What would you accept as an adequate answer? How can we possibly know? If we don't satisfy your need/opinion for people to have cheap or free housing, then will you reject the NAP and respect for property? It just feels like another distraction in the endless series of obstacles people put in front of human freedom.

But by that logic, wouldn't it be okay to kill people who are comatose or have dementia, because they are inconvenient? What about adoption? Jeez, that's really tragic J.D., I'm so sorry for whatever happened that would make you say that. But even if your parents are bad people, can't you have your own purpose, live life for yourself and seek love and happiness? I don't entirely understand how you've come to this conclusion.

I don't mean to be condescending, but can I ask what is your familiarity with basic economic principles like opportunity cost, supply and demand, division of labor, and so on?

Hi Kris, thanks for the nice introduction. When/how did you discover the show and what do you think/feel about it so far? Also, what's the Little Apple?

Yes, point taken, what I'm saying is that while there is controversy over what is a medical procedure, and what is murder, there ought to be a truce between both sides, which would cut public funding from these organizations.

That's really sad to me, that you wish you had never been born. Do you think those feelings have some impact on your views on this issue? The fact remains that you and most children of unhappy families choose to remain alive. Emotions aside, the real question in this issue, is when does a fetus become a person? Some say conception, some say birth, but most people figure it is somewhere in between. I agree that I am not sure where I stand on this issue, because I have heard many compelling arguments from all sides. I am also quite horrified by late-term abortions, the kind where the fetus is mostly formed, has a heartbeat, and the mobility to avoid a needle full of poison being injected into it. In time I hope that science will shed some light on the answer to this question. As far as the politics and law go, I think the libertarian position is pretty obvious - laws outlawing abortion are a terrible idea, and will not fix the problem anymore than the prohibition of alcohol, drugs, gambling, prostitution, guns, etc., have done anything positive. At the same time, public money should never be spent on abortions, or given to any organization that provides abortions. Only when both sides put the guns down, can we make any headway on this issue. Having written this, and accused J.D. of some emotional bis, I think it's fair to admit that I myself am friendly with some women who have had early term abortions, and once, after stupid unprotected drunken sex, a girl I slept with used Plan B contraceptive.

Okay, well like most people I am not well versed on the nuances of epistemology that you were explaining before, so can you distill down to me in common English what is the flaw or hurdle in thinking you are talking about, and how it affects conclusions like the NAP, property rights, anarchism, parenting, and so on?

No, I am asking if your "clarification" on the philosophy of language has any bearing on any important issues.

Does any of this have any bearings on any of Stef's main arguments? I mean, you can always point at someone and claim they're not going into enough detail in one particular area. Academia is full of excessive terminology and analysis in every little field, but most of it doesn't lead anywhere useful. This show is unique and popular, because it balances the analytical and rational, with the emotional and actionable.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make Will. It sounds nice like 19th century poetry, but I don't see what philosophical claim you are making.

I don't agree the pendulum has swung to the left, I think both left and right have escalated, they are two wings of an ugly collectivist bird that grow together. Looking at the empire and the influence of fundamentalist religion and the corporate welfare, protectionist sentiment and nationalism, it's hard to argue that the right is entirely losing.

Well the problem with saying "we shouldn't criticize" is that you are kind of implicitly criticizing those who criticize, so it's kind of a UPB fail.

I found some of the jokes, and his mock workout guy persona kind of funny, but I didn't find watching a crippled person struggle with a treadmill funny at all.

The presumption is that if you compromise with evil and injustice, then it will back off, rather than escalate.