alexqr1

I'm sorry if that is how I came across, I've never meant to say that people have an obligation to talk to someone else. I'm not sure how I implied that but that is certainly not what I meant. My point is that IF people want to advance unpopular ideas like the ones we tend to hold, then they OUGHT to engage those with opposite points of view even (and especially) when those points of view are based on invalid arguments and even (and especially) when those arguments are regarding important issues, like spanking. In the example above though, I did say that it is I who was interested in the green candy, not that it is wrong not to be interested in the green candy.

Hey man, I've noticed that. Thank you for that, I am very glad it helped you and I hope it can help other people. I started thinking about that issue when I heard people say that you can't argue against self-ownership without proving it, and I think that approach is not valid. Quick question, should I just call you dsayers or is there a name I can use?

That question is not really relevant to what you quoted, I hope that is just a mistake on your part and not a disingenuous statement. Let me explain, Here is what you quoted“You see, it is one thing to initiate a thread with just insults and slander, it is another to do it with an invalid argument. And again, he DID have an argument in his OP, that is the part I was interested in.”To make it clearer lets substitute insults with blue candy and arguments with green candy.So we would have something like this:“You see, it is one thing for someone to bring JUST blue candy, it is another to bring green candy. And again, he did bring green candy, which is the candy I was interested in”Would you think that this answer would make sense:“Did he not bring both blue and green candy?”That question does not follow, a short reply would be: YesA longer reply would be: Yes, so what about it? The green candy is the one I was interested in. In either case, the question does not advance the conversation.I’ve tried to say this before many times in this thread: when there is a message accompanied by noise, and the message is an invalid argument that is of paramount importance to debunk, one like spanking. And the noise is in form of insults, then I am a lot more interested in addressing the argument in order to dismantle it than I am in the insults. The issue is too important for me to focus on the noise.

Sure, I should had done this earlier, sorry about that:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31PfA_bATr4&list=UUICLhy-IVD58jGRsb8leiiw Control alone is not sufficient because it does not address the issue of how you gain control of a person. If you watch the video you'll get a much better idea of what I am talking about.

What I meant is that it would not be necessarily true, if another potential scenario could be both applicable to reality and universal. If that were the case then self-ownership could potentially be false Oh sorry, then I guess the answer is simpler: it means that each individual has the moral right to do with him or herself ans he/she pleases as long as there is no violation of someone else's negative rights.That moral right is the only possible solution to the question of who owns who, to which i refereed in my 1st post. Self-ownership is only a logical conclusion to a series of arguments.

I don't see how a positive obligation to help could be a logical conclusion.

I'll give it a goWhat is self-ownership?Self-ownership is the only possible universal moral solution to the question regarding the ownership of reasoning individuals.There are 4 different potential solutions to the question:1) No one owns anyone, which ultimately reverts to self-ownership2) Everyone owns everyone, which is invalid because it is not possible in reality3) Some own others, which is not universally applicable and thus invalid4) Every person owns his/herself, which is the only valid conclusionwhat would have to be true for self ownership to be false? Either another potential scenario regarding the ownership of individuals would have to be applicable and universal, or self-ownership would have to be non-universal or non-applicable or both. I don't see a need to separate the body and the mind. I think the self is the whole I agree

Sorry, I think I was not precise. When I said "do not misinterpret my position" I was referring to your question about there being other important things to do. What I meant is I think this is an important conversation. If I did not think it was I would had stopped long ago. But my questions remain, should we only converse with those who agree completely or disagree in minor issues? Was there no argument in the OP? Again, that is just a straw man. I never said I thought he was willing to defend his argument (which he had), I said I was hoping to find out.Someone presenting an invalid argument should be no reason to ban him. Someone not willing to use reason to defend it should. I don't know if he was willing to use reason. He presented and argument, some (including myself) objected to it and he was banned. We never found out if he had a reply to our objection.You see, it is one thing to initiate a thread with just insults and slander, it is another to do it with an invalid argument. And again, he DID have an argument in his OP, that is the part I was interested in.As much as I like chatting with most of you guys (And I do enjoy it) about issues on which we usually agree on or have minor differences, I value much more a debate with someone who disagrees with me. A debate is a beautiful thing, you never know what you can learn and you never know what you can teach.As much as I like chatting with most of you guys (And I do enjoy it) about issues on which we usually agree on or have minor differences, I value much more a debate with someone who disagrees with me. A debate is a beautiful thing, you never know what you can learn and you never know what you can teach.Also, I think it is very telling that I continue to get bad reputation for disagreeing even when we are having a civil and mostly amicable conversation. Not that I care about my reputation level, I think it is more important that people think that disagreeing is enough to put someone down. (sorry I'm not sure if that is the right phrase "put down" but I'm sure you know what I mean)Also, I think it is very telling that I continue to get bad reputation for disagreeing even when we are having a civil and mostly amicable conversation. Not that I care about my reputation level, I think it is more important that people think that disagreeing is enough to put someone down. (sorry I'm not sure if that is the right phrase "put down" but I'm sure you know what I mean)

The fact that you are willing to reduce your position to a straw man is very telling to me. (Wesley)I never said what I think a sensible argument is. In fact, I don't think the OP was close to having a sensible argument, but you fail to address my position. To me a sensible argument is a true and logical argument.Are we only going to address those who make sensible arguments? Now that is what I'd call mental masturbation… Mental MUTUAL masturbation if you will.Again, the argument in favor of the state is not a sensible one, and yet it is an argument worth debating and debunking. The OP had an argument and I posted it in my previous post. Hey Kevin, glad you came back.I would not defend spanking, but I certainly defend the right of other people to defend their arguments whatever they are as long as they defend it in a rational conversation.Sure there are other important things to do, but please, do not misinterpret my position here. I think it is of most important for us to be open to debating anyone who is willing to engage in a rational debate, that is, who is willing to defend their position. When I first replied to the OP, I presented him with a counter argument to the 3rd proposition of my last post, I wanted to see what his response to that was.So there are other topics worth debating, and I am all for that too. But that does not keep me from engaging proponents of evil, for example the state or spanking.Now I'd like to know if you guys see the argument in the OP. I'm not asking if you agree with it, only if you see it. (see my last post and tell me if you agree that that is in fact an argument)

I understand that in a vacuum, the sentences you highlighted would be a knockout punch to my position. However, instead of being in a vacuum, they are part of an argument. The argument (as I understand it) being:1. Spanking is evil2. Preventing a child from having a reference for evil and empathy is a greater evil3. Spanking is necessary to give children that reference4. If a parent wants to do what is best for a child, when presented with a situation when there are 2 alternatives which both imply evil, the parent should decide for the lesser of evils. 5. Therefore, parents should spank their children. I can't state enough that I disagree with the argument, mainly because I don't buy the 3rd premise. But the argument is kinda like a minarchist saying that the state is a necessary evil, because anarchy is a greater evil than minarchy. The OP is not saying that evil is good, he is saying that spanking is the lesser of two evils.

Wesley, thanks for your post, I think it is a very good one.I think the difference between me and the other posters is that I do see an abstraction for "I think hitting kids is good", It is discipline. Irrationality and barbarism is constantly inflicted and engraved in the minds of individuals to the point that many believe spanking is not hitting or violence. They see a difference between spanking and hitting a child the same way they see a difference between stealing directly and using the state to take someone else's property.I also think that once someone has been faced with the reality that spanking IS in fact using violent force and they continue to support it, then it is obvious they are not willing to use reason and thus a debate is impossible. I think being wrong is not the same as being irrational, and since the OP did have an argument, it would had been positive to see how he reacted to being faced with the fact that spanking is the use of violent force against a child.

Livemike what you're saying is if someone supports a position that is in contrast to evidence, we should not engage them. We can say the same thing about statists and yet people have no problem debating statists. Are we banning those who support the state too? I would not think so since Stefan himself engages in debates with statists, as he should if he wants to spread the message of liberty and he does a great job at that. I mean you yourself had a reply for the OP, why? It seems to me that your position is contradictory.

I guess I missed your reply because I was quoted after your post again. Sorry about that. So here it is: OK Is that what I am saying?I said the OP did have an argument and I was hoping to find out if he was willing to defend it. A few things here:I am the judge of what is and what is not a waste of my time is. I am sure you agree with that.I don't see what is wrong about me wanting to converse with those that present the most opposition.You have not proven the OP was uninterested in learning. You keep saying that, but it was not established that the OP was not willing to debate. You see, I find an argument in his 1st post so I replied to see if he was interested in debating. If he had come back with an answer that was relevant to my reply then we would had had a debate, if he had come back with only insults and charlatanry then would had been the end of that for me. Evidence, yes, proof, no. This is something I wrote on a different thread: “In this example, there is evidence that suggests that if I put my finger into the liquid I may expect burning, however, I have no proof for that. I can come up with many potential scenarios that would prove that evidence to be wrong. “Anecdotes are not evidence” is wrong, but “Anecdotes are no proof” is 100% right.”You ask “Do you tolerate a lot of abusive people in your life?” and that is a legitimate question, however, you base it on the “evidence” you seem to have that I tolerate abusive people in my life, which you have not established.I recommend that you think if focusing on the noise in a message is more important than focusing on the argument. I remember that debate Stefan had with Peter Joseph where Joseph had a lot of arguments and a lot of noise (back-handed insults and such) and instead of Stefan backing away from the debate, he asked Joseph to stop with the insults if he wanted to continue the debate.I'm pretty sure that if all Joseph was doing was insulting Stefan, then Stefan would had just left. But he recognized the arguments in Joseph's words and also recognized the importance of debunking them even if that meant to mute the noise or ask Joseph to stop with it.Again, the OP may had been here only to insult, but besides the insults he had an argument worth debating. All I am saying is I wanted to find out if he was willing to defend the argument or not.

The OP did have an argument for sure, although I think it was a flawed one and very easy to debunk. In psychology, as in all other social sciences, prediction is only achieved through logic and not through empiricism.Empirical evidence only allows us to explain historical events in social sciences.The statement "studies show that X therefore X is true" is only valid in natural sciences, anyone who argues this way in matters involving human action is ignoring its praxeological aspect.

To initiate violence against or treat with cruelty, especially regularly or repeatedly[/size] OK, so there is a pretty standard and I'd say accurate definition. Would you agree with it amilojko?

How would you define abuse? Are you a parent?

Well you can't but poems and gods in the same category.Poets use words metaphorically to communicate, if a poet says "tree of knowledge" he or she is not saying that knowledge factually grows in trees right?Religions do not use their gods as metaphors, when they talk about omnipotent superhuman beings that we can't reach using our senses, they mean that quite literally.We don't need proof that knowledge grows on trees because we all know it is not meant literally, but gods are, so we need proof.

This is one of the easiest things parents don't do enough and could prevent a lot of frustration from both parents and children. And this is another one. If my son wants it really bad, then I try as much as I can to let him do it. Not only does this help resolve the issue but also creates a certain trust so that when I've had to tell my kid definetely not to do something he tends to understand. I think it is because he know if it were possible, I'd try my best to let him do it.And then another thing that works for my wife, my son and me is negotiation. I think there is a line to be drawn between negotiation and bribing, and the the better the parents get at drawing that line in the right place, the better the relationship with the kid will be.

These fucking assholes!!!When a child-bully bullies a child they blame the bully, when an adult-bully bullies a child it is funny as hell.'What if instead of a child they were bulling a black guy or a woman or a Hispanic person? That would be a problem because bullying adults is just wrong.This legitimizes laughing at a kid and taking advantage of him, but since it is a child and it is on TV then it is OK, hell it is better than OK, it is funny TV.I mean look at the kid's face, especially on the second half of the video. Does it look like he is having a share of the fun? or is he just the object at which sick fucks are having fun at the expense of?

Thanks Daniel, I think you're right. I've made the change. I really appreciate the feedback.

In this example, there is evidence that suggests that if I put my finger into the liquid I may expect burning, however, I have no proof for that. I can come up with many potential scenarios that would prove that evidence to be wrong. “Anecdotes are not evidence” is wrong, but “Anecdotes are no proof” is 100% right. Then it is not science, you are attacking a straw man. The decision to take a risk is an economic one and thus subjective. The ultimate test is really the predicting capacity of a theory. How long is an “extended period of time”? Who determines that and why? Are you talking about the theory of evolution or the fact of evolution? It is easy to confuse the two.Like you could be skeptic about a theory that attempts to explain how gravity works, but that does not mean that you hold a belief that gravity is not real.

I think this is great advise. It's taken me a long time to understand it and more time to be able to apply it in my life. It is very important to understand why she does not "get it" and maybe start from there.

Mothers calling their kids stupid is so funny, I was hoping the camera man would spit on the kids faces too that would have been hilarious... What a sick society we live in.

That is not what I said at all. What I said is that the OP is just a presentation of the argument, if the person is willing to engage in debate, we will know by how he answers to our rebuttal. There is clearly an argument made in the OP, a flawed one, but still an argument. We did not find out if the OP was willing to defend the argument or if he/she was only interested in trolling. Also, not what I said at all. My previous post should clarify that. I mean, can it be more clear than this: "If this is a philosophy board, then surely banning should be justified for someone who can't or is not willing to use reason in a conversation."

There is no such thing as a republic or a democratic republic. Sure, there's titles but in reality, there is no such thing.