Rick Horton

They have the same effect. I'd argue that those with more money will always control the politics of an area, and that means they are The State.

Interestingly, my girlfriend is a Vegan, and her and I have this debate once in a while. She's quite compelling, and a great vegan cook.

Why? Jeez, man....

It is foundational for economics that all voluntary trade has two winners and no losers. As Balo said, he wants the iPod more than the money, while the merchant wants the money more than the iPod. Another example. You would probably see no reason to trade a $10 bil for a ten dollar bill. It would just be a waste of time. But if I asked you if you had a five and five ones for my ten, then you might make the trade knowing that the only 'profit' you will make is the satisfaction of helping me pay the parking meter. But is is still a win win situation. Also, there was no talk about stealing, so again you equivocate. We are talking about the fact that all voluntary economic activity is good for all the participants, while you prat on about stealing things. You are really good at that equivovation It grows tiring. And to finish up, you also talk about capitalism as competition without acknowledging the other obvious fact about capitalism, namely the cooperation inherent in the division of labor. Yeah, in principle it all sounds right, but in practice Capitalism just leads to a State. The biggest winners become the ones who have more power, control, leverage. They become the rulers. In a Capitolist society stuff (whether needs or wants) is obtained in greater amounts by people with more money. This includes property as well. People with the most money get the most attention because they can pay more, so society reflects the rich and not the poor. There is absolutely no evidence that the hardest workers make the most money. There's no evidence that the workers who create the things needed most make more money. There is no evidence that the people who create the most honest goods, and perpetuate the most meaningful contributions make the most money. There is no moral structure in Capitalism aside from reputation, which in itself doesn't cover all of the bases. A guy who works really hard cleaning pools all day in the 100 degree weather, and is honest, doesn't have equal access to things compared to the great nephew of some guy who created the paper clip back in the 1800's. Capitalism is a reflection of nature, and competition. Nobody ever says that the free market is or wouldn't be competitive. Competition leads to losers. That's all fine and dandy, but I don't see why there is a need to try and morally justify it like it is fair, and that everybody wins. That's not supported by reality.

Unless a child is a rape-baby, the parent chose to produce or adopt them. Starting a parent-child relationship is voluntary for the parent, and involuntary for the child (as the child does not yet exist and cannot give consent). Presumably, starting a parent-child relationship is mutually voluntary in the case of adoption. A child is only unable to care for themselves for...say the first 15 years of life (I think it's sooner, but I want a good buffer). A parent (or child) could walk away after that without anyone dieing. At most, the no-quitsies portion of the relationship lasts as long as the child requires something from the parent to continue living. I suspect that you are only referring to the portion of the relationship when the child cannot tend to their own needs. This is not the whole parent-child relationship, though it is the only portion in which the parent cannot choose to disassociate from the child. Speaking chronologically, that portion is 30-40% of the parent-child relationship. People live to be about 85. Most people have kids between the ages of 20 and 35. There are somewhere between 20 and 40 years of parent-child relationship which occur after a child has become self-sustaining. I think we both agree that adult children are not required to be in a submissive role to their parents. You seem to be suggesting there is an implicit relationship between dependance and dominance. That's what I get from your statements about food, shelter, and medical care creating the foundation for a power imbalance between parent and child. Could you elaborate on why that should be so? Why does one person's dependance on another necessarily result in domination? I do agree that adults have no obligation to engage people they don't want to engage, but still we do have to in our everyday dealings. But yeah, I do agree that if you are an adult and don't like your parents you should bolt. When someone is dependent on another person they are automatically in submission.

So you believe you would be justified in impeding upon that parent's right to teach their child as the parent sees fit? Yes. Because they are endangering the life of another.

In a voluntary trade, all that participate are winners, with no losers. This is a fundamental fact of economics. If you start from faulty premises, you will arrive at faulty conculsions. There is NO evidence for your claim. Your claim is not varifiable, and I donnot accept it. On the other hand my claim is verifiable because it's all around us, every day. If you want the Ipod more than you want the money and Apple want the money more than the Ipod, who exactly loses? I can't afford either, but taking yours wouldn't make you happy. That would be stealing. Of course when a lot of people can't afford stuff any more stealing bread becomes survival. If you can't handle this simple angle without talking about toys then I don't want to have this discussion with you.

Step 1. Create successful hospital/road/bank/ipad/whatever business Step 2. Profit Step 3. Use profits to write constitutions, acts and statutes and hire employees to enforce them Step 4. Convince the population that regulation, counterfitting and theft done by you is moral and good Step 5. Profit... more? How does step 4 get done? I don't see why you quoted me. You didn't respond to what is quoted.

The true self, false self is really non varifiable. It's just another made up concept. There is the conscious and the subconscious. The subconscious acts without analysis from the conscious, but the conscious can reason its way into the subconscious to work out malfunctions. I "guess" he's kind of just taking that concept and renaming it and repackaging it as something new. Being overweight can be a sign of insecurity, self hate, laziness, bad health, slow metabolism, genetics, diet, and many other things.

This is no discussion based on your involvement. Just self projections from bitterness, most probably caused by something outside of the conversation which I cannot effect. I don't think you and I discussing this has any benefit either. You resorted to the usual "shaming" technique that those not fond of rigor end up using to try and seem more righteous. Total bullcrap, and the sign of a controller.

How would you respond to a parent that says "I love my child with all my heart, and the force I have deemed necessary to aid my childs mental growth is to spank them with a rod until blood is drawn."? I would say that is abuse. I'd call the police.

As I understand, evolution guides the human immune system -- the death of the least immune provides future generations with strengthened genes, survival of the fittest. I agree that not vaccinating is not going to be somehow helpful to a randomly selected child. But on large scale we have passed on vulneratbilities for a long time and people will be weaker with each generation. That main flaw of a long-term vaccine program seems scientifically undeniable,it is sabotage of naturally evolved immunity. It is similar to antibiotics, their overuse is now being admitted. Evolution proves treatment methods helpful in the short run can become harmful in the long run. People live longer and healthier in modern times that at any previous time. You have no evidence for your claim.

In a voluntary trade, all that participate are winners, with no losers. This is a fundamental fact of economics. If you start from faulty premises, you will arrive at faulty conculsions. There is NO evidence for your claim. Your claim is not varifiable, and I donnot accept it. On the other hand my claim is verifiable because it's all around us, every day.

Is that from personal experience, or you got a source? Loving your child, is teaching them a skill (spanking) that they only can use on other helpless kids in another generation. Is that what you really call "love"? This sounds like a projection, did you finally say no in your teen years? Meybe becouse the kid grows up in their power, while the parent is loosing power, and beatings cant give the parants any more power? How well do you respond to spanking, especially from people you did not chose to be around, who would be around 4 times bigger than you and had full authority over you? Source? Beat them over a phone book? What is real pain, and fake pain? Why would you want to teach a kid about 2 different punishment pains, and confuse them even more? So the spanking works on the youngest and weakest the most? In ther most delicate age? Assuming that you wanted to have the kid, and learned up upon it, there should be no surprise that it is your own fault in preparation that deserves the spanking, not the kid who gets spanked for your mistakes. In one way I really do feel for you, what you must have goten through to have those thoughts against the most helpless people. But on the other side, I know that people like you will try to screw the weaker people in a second, just as your false self is conditioned to do from your early spanking. Nothing changes, it is called the cycle of violence. This is from personal experience and the experience I've seen everywhere in life around me. Spankings are not abuse. I know not all children respond to spankings because I responded to them, and other kids I knew didn't respond to them. A spanking causes very momentary pain. Anything more than that gets into the grey areas and anything that leaves marks is getting closer to abuse. It's easy for me to draw personal distinctions because I myself know what levels of sensation leave long lasting pain, and what leave no lasting pain, and I also know which kinds of pain "feel" to painful. The idea isn't to beat a child. Spankings don't work on the youngest and weakest. Before a certain age there wouldn't be a reason to spank, since a baby can't walk his way into dangerous situations, or climb. A child isn't as delicate at the toddler age, as an infant, BUT they can get themselves into deadly situations which reason and lectures provid no results, or results that aren't as effective. Again, spankings happen with children, by the Parents. Not out of anger, but to stop them from repeating dangerous things that they can't conceptualize. Don't have concern for me. I love my parents. Do you? I have a great bond with them and I'm grateful for all of the love, care, attention, time, money, shelter, food, clothing, outings, etc that they gave to me. They couldn't just walk away from this obligation. It's not a voluntary relationship from either perspective, the child OR the parents. It's not violence if neither myself or my parents call it violence, and I sure do NOT call anything they do or have done in my lifetime to be violent. They aren't violent people and they never abused me. You can yell from the outside looking in whatever you want, but as an anarchist you really can't make a moral claim that has any bearing on me or my family's desires. We love each other. I can't account for other people's mindsets but as far as I'm concerned spanking is a solid tool to use in keeping toddlers safe, "by a parent". There is no trust or bond strong enough between a stranger and a toddler to permit spanking in my view. That's "my" child is my answer. I only trust myself with my child's welfare. I cannot know the mechanisms of other people's motives. When a person tells me what to do with my children, they are barking up the wrong tree. I can and will keep my children safer than anybody else, and I will love them and care for them with more dedication and stick to it-ness than you. You are shouting at my family from your own roof-top, but we all know in my family that spankings aren't abuse. If you don't like spanking then don't do it. I "very, very" rarely ever had to, and now my children are all old enough to not ever need spankings to keep them out of danger. But they will willingly decide at times to put themselves in danger, and that I have to respect.

And again, sorry. I disgard made up definitions that can only be found through a small audience, and not in any dictionary. I use the dictionary definition of things when I argue, OR I use many words to describe an idea that I can't find one word for that is from the common lexicon of my language. I handily throw out Stefans definition of State, and Government as manipulation of words, and not definitions of words. One person doesn't get to override the definition of a word. Thousands don't either. It takes a huge number of consensus before words are defined and entered into dictionaries. I will not accept your definition because it is not the definition.

Capitalism is a diverse free market of providers funded by voluntary exchange maintained by being attractive. A state is a violent monopoly of services funded by theft that maintains itself by obfuscating its immorality with propaganda and caging/killing those who disagree. Isn't it just the idea that violent theft can be moral and good for a certain group that divides the two? What are the steps that you see taking place that turns capitalism into a state? Stef made up his own definition for State. Or actually I think he referred to Government as what you defined. It doesn't matter though because there will never be equality. There will always be people who game the shit out of any system and they become the State, whether from inside of one building or from behind cloaked hiding places of philosophical convergence. The steps are blatant in why Capitalism would turn into a State. The people who win the most, and most often will gain the most leverage. How wouldn't they. Then they will game every other player in the "free" market.

...what about choosing a better partner? That's fine. But your partner can change her mind. Then you're screwed. Sorry. Again you'd lose.

I AGREE. . And it's refreshing to read this amongst so many crackpots that say they are somehow helping their children by NOT vaccinating them. Scientifically speaking, that seems far more abusive than a "spanking, or slap on a wrist". It's like people have never learned what great terrors vaccinations prevent, and have prevented in the past. Small Pox, Polio, The Flu, Papaloma, etc... Vaccines are very important. Too important to let people who are simply paranoid, ignorant, and irresponsible, pursuade you as a parent.

Yeah. I agree. There's absolutely no distinguishing between what capitalism inevitably brings, and what the State brings. They use each other. Both are the State as far as I can tell. And who controls who? Meh, it's a wash. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Capitalism breeds competition. Competition breeds winners. Winners means losers. This is a reflection of life itself, and how every organism on Earth competes. There is no "fair". There is will, comprimise, winning, losing, strategy, conformity, individuality, progress, regress, pain, pleasure, BUT nobody is equal. No lifeform is equal to another. Not in it's own species, and not outside of its own species.

You can't "force" people to stop this behavior, but you can influence it. How does an anarchist's influence change the majority of people's opinions on the matter? It's really not just an anarchist issue. It's an issue of justice. An anarchist totally lacks the ability to bring justice to situations outside of his family, and many times within his own family if he gets a girl pregnant and she doesn't want you in her or your child's life. An anarchist must turn to law and the legal force that the State provides to even remotely have a chance in this situation. If he takes any other route and she is not aggreable or compliant, an anarchist is TOTALLY ineffective. This is how it is across the spectrum of law, disputes, rights, etc.... An anarchist is ineffective outside of "himself" if a dispute arises that cannot be resolved through aggreement. So it does no good for anybody, or anybody else for a person to try and be an anarchist. It immobilizes him into a position where he can preach from a mountain top, but be ignored, mistreated, and abused. And there's no fix outside of legal action, which would be ironic for an anarchist to utilize.

The study data I have seen suggest spanking ought to be viewed with neutrality or mild suspicion. In your wildest fantasies, did this really not occur to you?! And this conclusion could be easily deduced from the OP. There are two ways one could go with the spanking question (and this is a general theme, if you look at philosophy/science papers on any topic): 1) Is spanking good, or bad? 2) Can we prove hypothesis X regarding spanking? (e.g. hypothesis: spanking a child causes their IQ to drop). Failing to prove a hypothesis doesn't say anything except that you failed to prove the hypothesis (maybe you're just bad at collecting or analyzing data). Succeeding in proving the hypothesis doesn't answer question 1), because question 1) is such an all-encompassing question. There could be dozens or hundreds or facts regarding spanking to consider. And facts aren't even necessary. You could talk in abstract terms about the dignity of a person, or, as you have, you could appeal to our moral instincts, i.e. that spanking an adult seems wrong, and what makes a child any different? If you want to go after question 1) (pretzelogik and Stef), and facts aren't the most important thing to you, be bold and say so. Don't just grab onto stats that seem to support your argument, but are actually built on shaky studies. Doing so will only distract and detract from your overall point. Pretzelogik, if serious (which I'm sometimes doubting), appears to think that when you claim a study is not valid or reliable, it is relevant what the implications of that are. As if we should let pass shaky studies if we like what they support and not call them into question if doing so might help an argument we don't like. Pretzelogik is not apparently able to separate simply requiring data to be accurately reported from taking stances on issues. He thinks if you call out a study that supports a particular viewpoint then you are supporting its opposite. In fact, I think when you support a particular viewpoint but call out the studies that support it just as much as ones against it when merited, you gain credibility. Pretzelogik's view is that of biased people everywhere who call out studies that go against their view but want the ones that support their view to not be questioned. In other words, confirmation bias rather than an honest search for truth whatever it is regardless of the implications. As I've already said, it's completely irrelevant what OP's viewpoint is. He could be the most horrible terrible person on the face of the earth, whose viewpoints we all disagree with vehemently. But if he is correct that Stefan was referencing a faulty study, then that's all that matters in this particular discussion. Feel free to start a new thread where the topic is OP's particular viewpoints. This thread was about the validity of a study Stefan referenced. It may be Pretzel is just pushing buttons. But luckily I think this is worth saying anyways since it is relevant to philosophy in general. This above is so laden with projection and cherry-picking and a multiplicity of fallacies it boggles (it would likely fit comfortably as a counter on some hyperbolic MSM rant about the inherent evil of guns or the like. Which is what passes as argument these days). Yet, these defenses and rationalizations are done in the name of philosophy. I do declare. The OP was a judgment and an opinion, an attempt to set the record straight as it were, about the merits/faults of spanking. The simple and obvious answer to questions about the motivation behind setting the record straight would be something along the lines of: "Spanking is logically contradictory and morally repugnant, but in the interest of the greater good of philosophy, I think it's important to call attention to faulty research." "I am carrying the mantle of factual accountability for Stef and am going to see to it that when a statistic is referenced in his videos, they are accurate, by gum!" And so on. Judgement was introduced in the OP, as has been repeatedly pointed out and studiously ignored. When faced with inquiry, the responses were ad hominems and value projections. If one's intention is to come to the rescue of philosophical integrity, eliminating contradictions from one's own arguments might be a good place to start. I do declare, I agree, lol. Furthermore, It really bothers me when Stef starts rattling of statistics and facts without referencing EACH one. I know it might be hard work and take more time and effort, but damned if it isn't totally necessary when you start stating facts that you get from somewhere. When he doesn't (and it's often) reference the facts by source I handily MUST throw out the facts he gives. That is the only right way to proceed with integrity. Philosophic arguments are different, but when you start with facts, and statistics, it's irresponsible to not source EVERY single fact. Where did you get the fact? If you don't tell me I don't listen to the fact because then I'd be irresponsible too. If Stef doesn't like that added red tape then it shows me that he is unwilling to be rigorous in his videos. I, myself, try not to give statistics because I'm less interested in the populous POV. My interest is in the individual. Statistics REALLY obscure that. It doesn't matter what others do, or how they feel, if you don't agree with them and you are rigorous in pursuit of how to live the way you want. More-over, all of these statistics fall under the Umbrella of "some" STATE's effect on the populous, which really fucks things up, too. We, in a society are not acting merely as individuals, but as members of some State, (or) hostages of it as it is in some cases. The way people behave in this environment depends on The State itself and its very effect over the populous, since many fine mutations and contingencies are inherently effecting every single behavior in the State's grip, for better or/and often worse, although not in all situations.

Well my question is what can an Anarchist do to force people to stop this behavior? Observing the problem is one thing, but you can only try and prevent it in your own situation. Outside of that an anarchist has absolutely no affect on the trend.

Fun facts. Humans (whether or not you admit it) EAT MEAT. I do. My friends do. Hell, there are restaurants everywhere that serve it, so I guess people do eat it. Aside from arguments about the benefits of eating meat (which bore the shit out of me) it seems pretty obvious by looking around that humans eat meat. Not all, but most. So...... Humans are omnivores (at present time at lest) This is FACT. Spending thousands of hours studying nutrition to find out what is best for humans to eat is so pointless to me that I can't understand the angle there. One look around and the answer is clear. Humans "are" and "do" eat meat, so humans "are" omnivores. Hello...... Now, "morally" speaking, I could have some "Arius" fun and distort the shit out of the argument. Here it goes. Mind you, this is how Arius tries to fraudulently win arguments..... I'm sorry I know this is offensive. Bare with me for the sake of the exercise, and remember that I do eat meat. With all the caveats up front that I have a great fondness for you. I rarely eat meat from humans these days as I have embarked on a vegan diet myself of recent months. I have drifted towards this diet more out of good health than for ethical reasons. Although the mistreatment of you is something I personally do not like. However, I can negotiate with myself in complex ways I can never do with you. You may well experience pain but it's difficult to know whether you understand the causes of pain. I am unique in my ability to understand that you will eventually die one day. This is not the case for you. Trying to attach morality to you who is unable to share or even understand that morality back is the most obvious conundrum facing me when I try to assert universal ethics towards you. I have a very unique relationship with myself, insofar as I have the ability to think and have empathy for myself. Therefore choosing whether or not to eat another human is not a moral choice, it is a subjective one. Agreed that my choice to eat yuou may make for unpleasant company for some vegans who find the idea abhorrent. This may appear to be a moral conclusion you are making of me and indeed you may even suggest it is one. But it really isn't in the 'objective' sense of the word. You are free of course to disassociate from me if you so desire. Anecdotally mind, I have noticed that as I've developed my empathy for myself and others that I began to experience empathy for humans. Whereas in the past I never gave humans much interest or any harm either. I now consider (in part) my relationship with you as emblematic of my relationships with myself. However, that is an entirely subjective and personal conclusion I have come to, which may have no bearing on how you experience it.

Yes. I LOVE this song. It has an amazing spiritual meaning. Depending on what year I hear it, it makes more sense or not to me, though. Right now, I'm not feeling the deep transcending nature of it because it brings about a lot of hard questions that "I" can't answer, BUT when I hear the song and the words it does hit a spot deep inside that "something" in me does recognize as true. So, I think you hit the nail on the head with using this as an example to express the dilemna.

I think I used the quotes all wrong, sorry. Right? I "think" you and I seem to be on the same page.