Nerburg

...so another student made an un-blockable chrome extension to do the same thing. Reminds me of Stefan's talk of academia being opposed to the free-market, whether they give lip service or not. http://haufler.org/2014/01/19/i-hope-i-dont-get-kicked-out-of-yale-for-this/

I haven't seen this particular Hulse video and I'll watch it later when I'm not on the phone, but I find that he almost fills the same role as Stefan for a different type of person. The message is always self-knowledge, self-growth, happiness. I kind of want to see them do a show together. Whether Stefan goes and does a Strongman workout or Elliot just comes onto FDR

I think you have good advice LovePrevails, but not specifically what the OP was asking about, which would explain the roughness of the exchange. Please correct me if I'm wrong OP, but I'm going to put words in your mouth for a minute: "I should not base my decision on a life partner based solely on looks and I'm getting the impression that approaching women based on their attractiveness is wrong, but I can't have an intimate relationship with someone I'm not physically attracted to. How does I resolve this!?" First: There is nothing wrong with approaching women because you find them attractive, especially because you are looking for more than that! Second: check your standards for attractiveness? Are they irrational? (E.g. Obese guy wanting only supermodels... I.e. Are your standards of beauty higher for others than for yourself?) If NO, then absolutely approach the women you're attracted to, because in the absence of ridiculous standards, you'll surely find an emotional attraction to match your physical one, which as LovePrevails says, will probably enhance the physical. If YES, (standards of beauty for self are lower than standards for others, or standards for others are irrational such as only wanting someone who looks like an air-brushed model) Approach the attractive women anyway, but be aware that there's probably something in yourself that you should work on adjusting...

He's probably referring to sweatshops, child labor, extreme poverty and low wages in countries like China, India, Vietnam, or various African states. With that as context, would anyone like to take a stab at the question for OP? /hijack

Deepgreen, I'm curious: how do we determine what the base need is for someone, as exploitation is to some degree necessary for survival? Do plants and animals occupy the same moral grouping, or do we need to exhaust gathering options before hunting? If I build an earthship and plant a garden, living off-grid but with my own renewable resources (a riverwheel which generates electricity, or solar panels, or rainwater collection drainage around and below the house), am I wrong for creating excess with the garden in order to have a more diverse diet? An earthship garden can sustain human life, some degree of 'civilization' and some degree of excess, after all, without the consequences to the planet that 'totalitarian agriculture' does (to borrow a Daniel Quinn phrase, as he falls in line with a lot of what DGR is about). If I and several hundred neighbors are all doing this, living sustainably off our own labor and creating excess without a constant need for expansion, are we waging war against the earth still, so to speak? Thanks in advance for the answers.

Lians, I truly do not know how to respond to the notion that there wasn't poor behavior from multiple parties with multiple perspectives on the first page of the thread (my use of vitriol, disappointment, and sadness). Frankly, it reminded me of YouTube comments. Devolve was perfectly appropriate in the context of my post, as this thread is for discussion of the reputation system rather than 'concern trolls'. I apologized for the use of the word censorship in the very same post I used it in, as I recognized that it was not accurate to an appropriate degree. You seem to be taking what I'm saying out of context rather than addressing the issue in this thread, which I feel I have contributed constructive discussion towards, namely, a modification to the reputation system. I have striven to maintain neutrality of tone as well as rationality, so I'm not certain why you seem to be questioning my motivations. It's certainly false to claim I have expressed any anger and in posting a guideline which does not have any bearing to the context of the discussion, I must express confusion, for I do not think my communication skills are quite that poor. Your concern is appreciated but, rest assured, is misplaced.

The clarification of how the reputation system works is helpful, but, if anything, seems to support the notion that public feedback (even just a word: useful, funny, trollish) might be a good requirement for up or down voting. The fact that we can be irrational about some subjects and absolutely splendid on others bears this out.I may post the most ridiculous nonsense about quantum mechanics and how these new physics theories (somehow?) affect the ethics we talk about, and rightly(?) be -1'd into oblivion. Yet, why should that affect my other posts on other subjects, which I may actually be the most specialized in? This should be evident due to the diversity of discussion topics that are found here.So, I guess I'm not sure what the merit is of censoring (I know that this isn't the most accurate term, please forgive my word-brain) new posts based on the irrationalities of older posts, when we all recognize ourselves as fallible. Lians, you may not care why my post was downvoted, but I most certainly do! As my first reputation point ever awarded is negative, for a post that is perfectly respectful and reasonable (which is not the same as true), it seems like my constructive criticism may hold some weight!I also believe it is self-evident that I may be saddened by the conduct of "both sides", so to speak, on the first page of this thread. I'm not entirely sure what the insinuation there was, as I was simply engaging in RTR communication, though I'm fairly certain it has something to do with Stef's first question to distressed callers. Nor am I aware how that might affect the content of my postings, current and previous. I would prefer explicit communication rather than:

I dig it, nice post. Maybe watching Rugrats is the reason voluntarism resonated with me once it discovered itself to me

Where did I say anyone said this? My point was that despite the poor communication and/or thinking of the OP and his compatriot on the first page, the excellent suggestion of adding a reason to the rep system has like a -92 or something, thus suggesting that the bullheadedness is coming from all sides, and is compounded by the blanket up/down system. For example, my first post in this thread, which is entirely constructive criticism and is not rude in any way has already been downvoted. I would be curious to find out why.Thank you for the response JamesP, the honesty of why things are or aren't is appreciated (it's rare enough) as is the work you do.Lians, I do not really wish to devolve into any arguments about what makes the accusation of 'concern troll' valid and who it applies to, I was only pointing out that the raw definition provided is sketchy at best.

As a new member here on the boards, this thread is kind of disappointing. This IS supposed to be a philosophy forum and the reputation system is certainly not pro-philosophy, because as a staff member JamesP pointed out, "the reputation system is not a tool for determining the truth value of a post." Of course, that isn't to say that a reputation system is anti-philosophical, or goes against the values which are rightly espoused here. Yes, everything here is voluntary so ethics aren't really what I'm bringing into question. This idea that anyone expressing concern is automatically a "Concern Troll" is absurd. That urbandictionary definition could easily apply to us from the statist perspective. As the OP pointed out, "[a post] may have some noise, a certain style, or even several logical fallacies, but it might also contain true statements". This is extremely relevant to a reputation system on a forum that is supposed to have it's roots in philosophy. There was a post on the first page that had excellent constructive criticism for how to improve the reputation system, which was to add a 'reason' field to up and down voting. That post was down voted into oblivion, while "concern troll" posts were elevated. That does seem to me, to indicate some level of groupthink which we ought to be suspicious of, no? Absolutely, a reputation system is a positive force in a voluntary community, but how is it not beneficial to have feedback along with the rep points? Look at amazon, for example. A product with 4 stars and no worded reviews is more suspect than a product with the same rating but also reasons for the rating. TL;DR: adding reason to reputation points is beneficial, constructive criticism is not trolling, and the vitriol in this thread was saddening.

I don't think you're exactly disagreeing with the 'philosophical health test', as they had some clarification of their intent at the beginning and more specifics about the results and what they (could) mean, which were linked at end of the test. . . I can't remember the exact verbiage nor compel myself to go back and look, so my apologies for the lack of specifics for you. I just wanted to mention that my recollection of the test had satisfied those same objections you're bringing to the discussion.

I got 1 tension because I misread 'Should voluntary euthanasia remain ILlegal' as legal. I dig the test.

Thanks for that post. I just did a little more testing and you're right in that it only happens with a thread that has a new post. But it doesn't seem to matter if I click on the little light or the title of the thread itself, so there is some issue still.

This is a damn fine thread. My question for the experts: as a potential author-if I write a book and choose to sell it as an eBook, with the condition attached to sale that it is not to be reproduced as a whole without my permission, wouldn't it be immoral for someone to upload it to a p2p torrent network? Isn't the method of distribution the creator's choice and thus IP would apply differently to the different choices creators make in their distribution? Kind of like how Stef prices his novels but not his non-fiction? So wouldn't it be perfectly fine to redistribute UPB- even redo the cover and sell it for profit- but absolutely not fine to p2p share "The God of Atheists"?

Naturally, when I go to test this after I make the OP, the issue is gone upon the doublecheck. Please feel free to delete this topic, or leave it, or whatever.

A very minor issue, but probably good to know about: when browsing the forums on a mobile device (I am on an iPhone 5, using safari, no idea if this makes a difference), clicking on a thread will load the page at the most recent reply to the thread, rather than starting at the top of the page, which isn't the greatest for a place where long, well-thought-out posts are made. Obviously not a huge issue, and good for the power user who is up to date on every thread, but a minor inconvenience with all that unnecessary scrolling.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-07/in-france-kidnapping-the-boss-usually-pays-off Because violently abducting someone falls under the realm of negotiation?

I think some folks need to re-read the OP, because none of these replies are actually referring to the scenario above. I will edit this post and elaborate later when I am not on a mobile device.

The free market doesn't actually have anything innately against the idea of an institution with a monopoly of force over an arbitrary geographic location, presuming that it's founding and funding is voluntary, no? Suppose a group of people formed a stateless society and none of the states around them were hostile, or perhaps even in a future of global stateless-ness, this group of people agree that they think a centralized monopoly of force is the way that they want to organize the society, with the method of taxation, through, say, a flat tax of 20%. All of the people signing this contract are adults at the age of consent, and there are no people in the arbitrary geographic land mass who do not sign contract with the new State. They understand the non-aggression principle and so they educate their children rather than propagandize them. Bear with me for a moment. When children come to the age of consent, and do not sign a contract of agreement with the state to pay 20% of their income to it, the State gives them a choice: You may live here without paying taxes, but you are subject to our laws and you have not the right to participate in the political process, or we will give you enough money to live a middle-class lifestyle for one year outside of our 'country', and then no longer have anything to do with you. Assuming that the state did not break this part of the contract, would the taxation not be voluntary? This is no critique of anarcho-capitalism, but rather one of the ways a lot of anarchists describe the ambivalence to modern society, namely, "Taxation is theft and the State is a centralized monopoly of force over an arbitrary geographic location of lines drawn on a map". Thus, technically, it is not an opposition to a 'monopoly of force', but more accurately, involuntary association. Please correct any errors in my thinking and/or discuss. I'm bringing it up because I think it's one of the stumbling blocks in communication with non-anarchists.

Schnort. Edited b/c delete no exist.

It sounds reasonable to live with each other for awhile before getting engaged, to me at least.

A: if the entire world is a cage and as you point out in D, governments own the land, then you are not free to leave. B: if any person or group of people can make up their own ethics, then there is no such thing as ethics. The options are objective morality or nihilism. By debating with you they are implicitly saying that there is objective truth and it is preferable to falsehood, therefore cultural relativism is false and they don't agree with nihilism. C: I don't really understand, I think it needs to be phrased differently because right now it seems incomprehensible. D: governments can't own land by any rational standard because governments are concepts, not people.

The problem is, most everyone I know would lap that article up. I need a cry more than a nap.

My one-time step-father posted this article on facebook, to which I responded: Guess what I got back? "WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS???" Thus was I tempted. This is the first time I'm confronting this guy about his liberal propaganda posts all over, which I was imbibed with as a child:

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/28/why_i_fled_libertarianism_and_became_a_liberal/ Oh please, let's get a video rebuttal for this article?