alexqr1

I'm interested. alexqr1 is my Skype name. Thanks

I do have to say to be fair that I do see a genuine affection for children here, probably more than in the US (I lived in the US for 5 years), but people find it hard to get over that cultural bullshit of treating children like property. I don't think it comes from a lack of love but from a lack of philosophical inquiry and curiosity. This can be applied to Spaniards not only in their relationship with children but also in their relationship with themselves. It is a cultural viscous cycle. Also, I am speaking of northern Spain and assuming it is true for the rest of the country but I am not sure.

In this video I take a look at how the media is covering the situation in Ukraine and compare it to the situation last year in Syria. At the end of the video I propose a potential scenario that is not usually brought up and I wonder why. It's not a scenario that I can prove to be true or even believe to be true but one that I think is important to analyze by those who understand that we don't have all the knowledge necessary to understand the whole situation. I hope you guys like it and as always, I appreciate the feedback. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM2EC4ox3VQ&list=UUICLhy-IVD58jGRsb8leiiw

I really is brilliant. I live in northern Spain and there is a lot of child abuse here, but not necessarily physical abuse, so the child rarely ever understand he/she is being abused. It is easier to understand your parents are abusing you if they physically hurt you, but it is harder when they treat you like a lesser type of human being whose ideas, desires and goals mean next to nothing compared to those of the adults. It's funny how so many people tell me "your son is such a happy kid" (he is 2 and a half) but then they stare with bewilderment and sometimes rejection when me and my wife try to reason with him (yes, you can reason with a 2 year old) and when we eventually let him do what he wants to do even if we would prefer otherwise. Many people look at us like "what are you doing? you own him, you do with him what you want!, he should not be calling the shots!"

This is a tough one, because the mother made a decision about her own body when she decided to gestate, so in that sense, how could she obtain a positive obligation if her decision was about her body?On the other hand, her decision DIRECTLY affects the child, this may be the only situation in which a person's decision about her own body directly affects someone else. I say "directly" because there is no moral obligation when it comes to indirect consequences.I think that the child in this case (and I hate the comparison) is an intruder or a parasite if the mother does not willfully accept responsibility for its life, so even if she goes on with gestation, she would have no positive moral obligation to the child. That is the way I see it, but I feel there might be a lot more to explore here. It sure is, but I think it is precisely these type of experiments that need to be brought forward because they are the ones that ultimately test the validity of a principle. I mean, it is very simple to see how stealing is wrong but there is no real test to the the ethical principle at hand.

Well, if she chooses not to abort and arrange for adoption then she would only gain a positive obligation to gestate the child and to put him/her safely in the hands of those who knowingly and willingly acquired positive obligations to the child by wanting to adopt him or her. Well I have to say I agreed with this 100% when I first read it, even my previous post goes along these lines, but then I thought about it a bit more.If the woman is raped and becomes pregnant, she never acquires a positive obligation to the child unless she willingly accepts it. She does not even acquire the obligation to take care of the child even if he is born. This may be one of those situations where I don't like the outcome of logical ethics, but I don't think the mother has any obligation to the child even if the child is born if she did not willingly accept that obligation.This goes against my previous post, so yes, I have changed my mind upon further examination.You could say "if the mom decided not to abort then she willingly accepted the responsibility" but you would be assuming that she had a previous positive obligation to decide, which she did not.I'm curious to hear both (dsayers and Daniel) of your ideas here, or anyone else's for that matter.

Yes because the child is there as a result of the parents' decisions and actions that directly resulted in the child's birth. The same would not be true for a woman that was raped as the child would not be there as a result of the woman's actions and decisions. You can not acquire a positive obligations that you never agreed to or to someone who your actions have never directly affected.

I certainly do not need a very in depth blue print in order point out that people are stealing from me and even claiming partial ownership over me.Did the slaves need a very in depth blue print to point out that slavery was immoral? Well this is interesting, care to present any example?Besides, would you not say that state "security" has proven to be a bad idea?

This is obviously wrong.

I think you might both be missing the point. It is not a question about her willingness to give the money, it is about the violence the state initiates against those who don't give their money willingly. So if she wants to give the government her money that is just fine, it is her money. But if she is against theft, then what does she think about the government taking the money from those who would not give it willingly to the state?

Bitcoin holders must love this kind of stuff

I was browsing the web and stumbled upon this gem:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school#Peter_SchiffHere's the introduction:"Austrian economics (or the Austrian school of economics) is a school of economic thought that eschews mathematical modeling and empirical testing in favor of a narrative approach termed "praxeology."[2][3]As the claims of Austrian economists are difficult to verify through empirical testing (and the same economists openly admit to it), it is generally considered to be a heterodox approach[4] or outright pseudoscience.[5] Austrian arguments as to why statistical methods cannot adequately describe human behavior can seem intuitively compelling, but they fail to provide the mathematical proof demonstrating why normally unbiased estimates suddenly become biased simply because they are dealing with people who make decisions. Perhaps one reason they are so uncomfortable with empiricism is that Austrian economists are more interested in defending the political ideology of libertarianism than they are in advancing economic understanding,[6] and rigorous testing can sometimes undermine deeply held political beliefs.Can we take anything positive from it? Well, to start, its use can be found in no economy in the world... except Somalia.[7] " I could not help but to laugh at the irony that the site is called RationalWiki. We could play find the fallacy and have a field day with it. Just thought I'd share it.

I may be reinventing the wheel with this one. I don't think there are many original claims or arguments but I do think this video is a good addition to my channel. What do you think?

I find many wholes in other things you said, but this is specially important.Are you implying that value can be somehow objective?

1. As you admit, this is an assumption so you would have to prove it as objective truth in order for anything that follows to have any value outside of your personal preference. 2. Same as #1. Also, value is subjective like dsayers said. 3. I do not like the wording but I will not disagree. 4. How do you arrive to this? Also, saying there is no know difference between us and them invalidates #3 when you said we are biologically similar, not equal, and again, biology is not all of who we are. About valuation, not only is it subjective, but I think it is fair to say that many people, and I can say it is true for myself , value themselves more that they do others and those dear to him/her more that they value those who are not. 5. Agreed, but there is a huge IF in that statement 6. I don't understand the relevance of this one. “So when we assign value according to reason, we prevent the possibility of violating moral rules that might exist” Do you mean to say that everyone should value everyone else the same?

OK then there is your answer.

So you can force everyone into contracts as long as you do it when they are born? Could you renounce your citizenship without leaving? If you could not then you were not allowed to own land and thus others owned you, if you could then there was no need for the constitution. How does it relate to the question about the constitution being a tool to claim ownership over people?If we were discussing the morality of slavery and I made this argument:"Well X was pretty nice to his slaves, who would you have rather had as your slave-owner X or somebody else?"Would you consider that a relevant statement about the morality of slavery? You mean like when people come together to invest in or create an enterprise?

There's a name, an institution and a phone number. Is there something we can do? We always speak of how things would work without the "justice" of the state, well, the state is not providing justice here. But is there a way that we can help get this person away from children?

OK, so are if I were begging for it I'd willfully agree to it and there would be no need to impose it upon me. Just like going to McDonalds and buying a meal.Not to mention that this claim does not address the fact that the constitution is a tool to claim ownership over people living in a geographical area. This is totally irrelevant and subjective. This is a great point.

Sure it does, It imposes rules an laws on people who have not previously agreed to those rules.The fact that the constitution was a lot more permissive than the current laws in the US in irrelevant. I don't need my neighbors or you or even my parents or wives to unilaterally come up with a document that that describes what I am allowed and not allowed to do and even what I must do, no matter how permissive it is. If they did that and they were willing to violently impose those rules then they would be claiming ownership over me.

Exactly. Lack of experience does not debunk logic. Experience will only likely give you more information to apply logic to and come up with logical conclusions.The argument against abuse is an easy one to make without the experience of being a parent.

This is basically where we disagree. You may be referring to rights in the lawful sense? I mean rights in an ethical context, which are are proven by logic and are objective and the are derived from axioms. I said earlier that they derive from self-ownership, however a conversation I've been having with someone has lead me to think that self-ownership in any sense other than just the ability to control our body is not an axiom.However, I do think it is still valid because you can introduce the term (of self-ownership) to a theory of ethics as an objective concept because of the axiom that everyone rationally attempts to move from a state of less gratification or value to another one of more gratification by acting.

So person A is raping person B and person C who is capable of helping does not help. According to your statement, person C is being violent towards person A? If that is the case, the only way to stop C's violence towards A is to force him to help. Only conceptually in the same sense that a society exists. In reality, it is a group of people claiming ownership over a geographical area and its inhabitants. Sure, If I had to be violent to defend myself or someone else from the initiation of force then I would not be initiating force but I would still be violent.Maybe this part is just semantics though.

OK I'll engage, why not?You did not address #1, if all humans are similar then they are not all equal. Besides focusing only on biology arbitrarily disregards other human aspects like psychology. Do you mean to say that in order for a theory of ethics to be valid it has to be applied the same to everyone, i.e. universal? OK, agreed. But how do you go from your opinion to establishing a fact? It is also my opinion or personal preference to use reason and for my actions to be consistent with reason, but how do you universalize that into a principle for everyone. Is it immoral for someone to be irrational?So I guess you and I could engage in a debate because we both value these things. “Value” is the operative word here, value is subjective. Then you would have to resolve the issue with proposition 5, also the original proposition 4 is not the same as the one you stated above, with which I agreed. Also, proposition 6 is irrelevant, how do we use “The vast majority of people regard it as very important that their basic needs are met” ? We have not established that what the vast majority of people regard as very important is moral. I think there is plenty of information online. I'd recommend researching the is/ought problem, and just research ethics, even on Wikipedia if you haven't. If you really like this stuff then you won't stop. The more you research, the more you want to know. That is what I am doing, I do most of my research online.I'd also recommend deontology and consequentionalism, but if you research ethics your momentum will certainly get you to that part.

You can't, but the less incentives the larger group of people has the less possibility there is that this will happen. Also, if the incentives of the smaller group are in place, it is more likely that the market will provide a solution. This is true for an anarchistic world as it is for a statist one, but the incentives are better aligned in a situation of freedom and anarchy. Well this is like saying what if the restaurant owner was not able to produce good food? Who would eat there then, and why should someone else be forced to produce good food for the restaurant?Maybe the owner should had not started a restaurant business. So if the proprietor is not able to protect the customers how does it follow that others, not involved int the interaction, must provide security?Besides, in a free society this would also create an incentive to come up with efficient solutions. One idea might be a firm that specializes in recovering from the attackers for a percentage of what is recovered, this would lower the incentives to attack. That is just one solution, the market would provide many and the best would stick. I would agree, except that you don't hire the police, hiring implies mutual agreement and there is no such thing with the police. I'd agree that a community is free to hire a group to protect them. You are not considering the implicit contradiction. In order to make the person help, you would have to initiate force against him. You are making someone responsible for someone else's actions here. The initiation of force is the positive action of one person using force in an otherwise non-violent interaction. And this is an argument against anarchism? N. Korea is certainly not an anarchist paradise. I agree that the polish people have the right to defend against germans. There is no initiating force in defense. Defense may be violent but it certainly is not the initiation of force.