ThomasTheIdealist

I was really confused by this when watching the video of some guy talking about a bunch of pedophiles being killed. I thought he was referring to something else, but it was just the same homosexuals. I suppose calling someone a pedophile helps to demonize and discredit your opposition. Indeed. As I see it, they generally pick the sins that tempt them the least. It's very easy for a straight person to avoid homosexual acts, and they cannot escape their narrow perspective to imagine it could be different for others. However, when it comes to prostitution/adultery/etc they can easily sympathize and it's therefore more comforting to be less strict on those sins, heaven forbid you remind yourself that you're no better than those you condemn. Additionally, it's very easy for everyone to hate pedophiles while they're sexually attracted to adults. Amazing how Christians have deviated so much from Christ.

Funny how visceral the reaction is when you just change the victim. People will still consider his comments about killing all pedophiles to be good without any sense of irony. People everywhere really want to assert their authoritarianism, they just need to pick the right victims. And apparently being non-white and/or non-Christian theist means you shouldn't be the victim of hate regardless of your bigotries or violence.

So you're in favor of the death penalty for anyone who physically threatens someone? They could just carefully plot after a trial or prison sentence...

There are plenty of non-fatal way to incapacitate living beings. It's sad that people, primarily in the US, consider fatal weapons as first course of action when in danger. Of course, it doesn't help that such weapons research is trampled by the implausibility of getting new weapons passed through the government approval loops.

Depends, but probably not. But if you deal with the prevention of a disease with debatably ineffective methods, it's worth chastisement. For what it's worth, I'm not necessarily suggesting they're doing something wrong or should stop what they're doing. It's probably the only way they know how to help. Though I do have a problem with them helping people before the conclusion of a trial; it's blatant bias. I can agree that I'm over-generalizing. I know nothing about this specific biker group.

Wasn't the point. The point is that they aren't properly addressing the problem because they allegedly aren't familiar with it, and the designation of "against child abuse" is worthless when there exists nobody who is "for child abuse". Depending on your definition of child abuse (e.g. you support parental right of spanking) you could very well call them "Bikers against parental rights". While I admire their intents, I think it's mostly worthless for children. The biggest benefit from their actions seems to be improving "biker gang" PR, so that upsets me a little. It's like "Mafia against domestic abuse" or "Government against rape"... yeah, am I supposed to praise you for finally doing a decent thing and not merely being a delinquent drain on society?

No, they aren't. Complete non sequitur. Just because someone doesn't want you taking food from them doesn't mean they're asserting a property claim. And he said "your version of property" because it's a completely subjective term. Your version could include intellectual property, human trafficking, etc. Or it could consider all those forms of property unacceptable. It could consider the ownership of the means of production likewise unacceptable.

So you think it's inaccurate to say someone is "upping their game" by becoming more attractive to the majority of those they're pursuing? Unless you're claiming that "their game" should be defined as exclusively pleasing you, then it seems accurate to me.

If it's a strawman, then please explain why you asked "Says who?" If you believed that most men like some makeup on women, you'd have to be pretty stupid to ask that. The answer is clearly: most men.

And? It's also objective to say "featuring half-naked women in your music videos will boost your rap career" but nothing about that it is invalidated by me saying I don't like rap. Do you honestly think most men clicking on that link prefer the photos before added makeup? Even on many of the before photos they have makeup on. I find it hard to believe that one could possibly think that the majority of men do not prefer the aesthetics of makeup reducing blemishes in an attempt to look younger/healthier. That would have significant evolutionary implications.

We should resort to violence to prevent violent action from those who threaten. My point is that while all property is a threat of violence, some property is needed for one to live, and therefore the threat is one of self-defense. As you accumulate more, there exists a point where it has nothing to do with your self-preservation and only serves to deprive others and broaden your personal empire. I don't deny that finding solutions to this is challenging, I just find it disturbing that libertarians think indefinite property accumulation is conducive to individual liberty and not just a microcosm of statism. I tend to agree with the more specific goals of early individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker. Namely that people should accumulate property only to the extent that they themselves use it. Absentee ownership, or otherwise forms of literal rent seeking, should not be considered valid property claims. Though the capitalist argument isn't entirely wrong that making everything privately owned (as opposed to lots of land being unowned) would put resources to maximum use and it benefits people on a broader scale, there exists a line where that ceases to be true. And the line closes in as the population of the world increases and heirs increase their wealth while others are penniless. But more striking, it deviates from the individualism libertarians purport. It's the same argument used in support of healthcare mandates and such, or any greater good case. Libertarians should be fighting to minimize the domain of violence individuals can use to compel others to do things, not increase it. Your tax comments remind me of the Geolibertarian/Georgist's LVT (land-value tax). Milton Friedman said that this tax on the unimproved land value was the least bad tax (along with his negative-income tax). So while it would be an improvement, I don't consider minarchism to be ideal.

Who cares? My dislike of rap music doesn't make it any less liked/popular.

Neither, I hope. Though that's equally a logical non-sequitur. So explain how he was making a property claim by making use of something (his body or otherwise).

You implied he was making a property claim by making use of his body and his computer, did you not? Perhaps I jumped to the wrong conclusion because you didn't explain why you felt he was making a property claim. So it would help if you did explain.

A property claim is indirectly a threat of violence. If you use the things I claim as property, I will bring violence against you. This is typically done because the usage of the property is considered aggression by the person making the property claim. However, if the person using the property doesn't consider the property claim valid (e.g. they make a copy of a DVD, violating the intellectual property claim they don't consider valid), then from that persons perspective, the one protecting "their property" is the aggressor. So when I make reference to MY mother and MY country, I'm making a property claim? You can have a relative relationship to something without having property. Perhaps he ignored the existence of the opportunity, but you're ignoring the massive disparity of opportunity. Slaves had the opportunity to attain freedom/wealth just like everyone else, but they weren't born with it like others were. How does property accumulation not inherently reduce opportunity of others? That accumulation limiting that which can be possessed and used by others who aren't even using it themselves. What's the libertarian justification for permitting people to make a property claim on scarce resources they don't plan on using themselves?

How is giving someone liberty different from refraining from interfering with their liberty? As I see it, they are the same course of action. I'm not sure why you think I suggested that soverenigty is something inherent. I clearly said "There is no inherent reason to give [people] the sovereignty ..." I think rights (including individual sovereignty) should be contingent on the actions of an individual, not on any inherent attribute (e.g. species, age, nationality). Rights today are already partially contingent on actions, after all people in prison for violating the rights of others don't exactly have the right to liberty. Natural rights advocates will often claim that prisoners still do have an inherent right to liberty, but that really flies in the face of reality, and that's said to avoid mentioning the fact that an individual's rights were taken away, something supposedly inalienable. Not a contradiction. I merely said I alone likely don't have the ability to take away someone's sovereignty, because that sovereignty must necessarily have wide social support, something I alone likely cannot combat. Nobody has soverenity in a society that opposes them, it comes directly from the social "might" and ability to enforce it. But I agree with the rest of your observations regarding the modernity of strength. I certainly don't mean to imply that "might" merely means physical strength.

Well, still doesn't explain why men aren't called shitty locks for being opened by anything with a skirt. Of course, men are commonly expected to be the key, to initiate all courtship. So if you accept that norm, then the comment makes sense. Though I'd hope that's not an acceptable norm here.

Which is the other way around? You discussing ownership or you discussing it outside the context of a legal framework?

I mean refrain from restraining them from making their own decisions/actions. I alone likely don't, but society at large does. The sovereignty comes from the ability and willingness to assert. A mere variation of the "might makes right" sentiment. I don't see how having rights is any more natural and inherent to mankind than not having rights. Indeed, which is one of the consequences making it desirable to recognize some form of self-ownership. I know. So you're discussing ownership, a property relationship, outside the context of a legal framework on which property is contingent? What purpose does such philosophical musing serve? You may as well disregard the laws of physics and discuss the ideal speed of light.

Multiple people, I'd say. If you define ownership as the state of legally having control over something, then a consciousness only has partial ownership over their body. The state has significant claim they exercise over you and the body you inhabit. In fact, your property rights largely come from the state assuming society at large respects their authority. Believing you have a right to do something is as pointless as believing you have a lambourgini when you clearly do not. It's illogical to assert a right to do something that's illegal, it is by definition not a right. Unless you appeal to the natural rights mysticism of many enlightenment thinkers who believed God had a hand in things. I think it's useful and desirable to give a consciousness sovereignty over the body they seem to inhabit. There is no inherent reason to give them the sovereignty, but I like the consequences.

A shame. I thought perhaps you were interested in actually improving yourself and absorbing advice/feedback. But I see you're truly invested in being a perpetual victim and never taking responsibility, expecting someone else to make you better. Reminds me of the stereotypical Bernie supporter and triggered tumblr feminist. I could be wrong, that's just the impression I get from your sharing of this experience along with the experience itself. I'm abrasive, but it's my intent to help. It's never helped me to have people pat me on the back and affirm my victimhood. I'm not sure what responses you were expecting.

Do you think you're going to improve yourself by blaming your parents' actions for all your shortcomings and failures? Surely people have experienced worse abuse than you have and don't share your issues. I don't think it's going to be helpful to ignore your own role in defining your life and dwelling on every external misdeed... Your parents fucked up, and I don't understand what you think they should be doing now. They figuratively pissed in the pool and it's not like they can forage through the water to remove the piss. We've all been abused to varying extents and we should bring it to light and make sure we don't perpetuate it. I have no clue what you want from your parents, for them to stop criticizing you?

When did I said this? I'm perfectly willing to revise my positions, but this isn't one of my positions and it's therefore impossible to revise. I didn't assume consent. It's quite involuntary, and everything I have said has been, if any thing at all, under the assumption most things are involuntary and non-consensual. You have the option to leave the nation and you have chose not to. You're the one assuming that all choice implies consent. And I already destroyed that nonsense.

No, some people own the land and charge the others to use it.

If you flee into the woods of the landlord's property, how do you consider that leaving their property? Though even if you do leave, the landlord has right to follow you for a number of reasons (e.g. if you flee and avoid paying your back-rents). Then they have the legal right to use force (or get someone else to) which many would consider initiatory, but you only consider it initiation of violence when the state does it. The idea that the state is "initiating" violence is directly dependent on your belief that they don't have just claim over their nation. And many people have similar disagreement with much of the institution of landlordism and their claims.