shirgall

I think he's saying that autism is a natural defense against manipulation and abuse.

http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/winter-2015-breaking-news/giving-credence-why-so-much-reported-science-wrong-and

A good book to read on the subject pre-emption of real attacks is Left of Bang. http://www.amazon.com/Left-Bang-Marine-Combat-Program-ebook/dp/B00L45NXF4

Nothing. It's not my responsibility to tackle every extraordinary claim that comes along. Extraordinary claims require justification from those who make them. If people use extraordinary claims to justify their actions towards others (especially me), that's a different matter.

Indeed, the term that used to be applied to the self-defense cases was "precognition" but that has a negative connotation that does not apply, so it was changed to "pre-emptive" which I don't think is much better.

Let me explore in a different direction. If I borrow your car and I'm intending to race the Cannonball Run with it but tell you I'm a safe driver, am I not violating your property rights? You lent me your property in good faith, but I did not borrow it in good faith.

A theist is one who makes the extraordinary claim that a god or gods exist. Atheists do not make such a claim.

This is also a good exploration of this topic:

Pre-emptive attacks are sometimes found in self-defense cases, and the canonical example is someone who accurately predicts a punch is about to be thrown, or a gun being drawn, by picking up on movements of the body that the untrained or unpracticed would not see.

A martial contract is about sharing private property. The husband's lie is clearly damaging to her property, because she does not know the danger. Leave the marriage out of it, and have two people having sex, with one involving him or herself in incredibly risky behavior and not disclosing it if you prefer. I think the lie is still damaging in such a situation, agency or not.

I went to a meeting about my son at school with the principal, a counselor, and all of his teachers. I was the only male present except for the math teacher.

Well, taking great liberties with the wife's reproductive health by knowingly exposing her to probable STDs is arguably a property rights violation...

I was providing a context in which lying was clearly wrong. I had hoped I had succeeded.

Religionists: there is no god, but mine. Atheists: there is no god. Neither attributes meaning or meaningless to life. It is an orthogonal discussion to the question of whether gods exist. If you are going to proffer such arguments, could you choose hay or alfalfa? Straw is pretty tasteless.

Found in a notebook uncovered by future archaeologists: "Day 1679000000001. Total CO2 in the Terra/Luna system has changed less than 0.000000001%, just like every day since the impact of Theia formed Luna."

Contrarily, "god" is a rebellion against the natural order of the universe where man invented a anthropomorphic cause for all the natural traumas inflicted upon him, and then that framework was leveraged to manipulate people to provide resources to sophists who otherwise don't deserve to breed.

Yes, but just because something isn't UPB doesn't make it immoral. There's a lot more work to do to get there. That's why it's easier to break it into contexts.

If there was a disappointing father, Zeus is way up there.

How did your disappointment in your father lead you to reject Zeus?

This is why minarchism becomes a possible answer. You feel like you can argue for limiting the evil because there's no easy way to completely eliminate it. It's devilishly attractive.

Bottom line: Don't engage in activities that are not productive (or, at least, enjoyable).

Some reference material to watch: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407362/ It was a great show... for a little more than three seasons.

Just because he's going back to camp in may be our experience with the actor that he's a hothead in the moment, and the walk back to his camp will give him a chance to cool off. To me, the immediacy requirement is missing the "opportunity" portion of ability + opportunity + jeopardy until he has the gun. If the gun is ten feet away leaning on a tree, that's one thing, but I posited the camp as a way to separate the opportunity from the actor by a significant piece of time. I am holding this as a moral system, not a legal one. If it supports the legal system, that's great, but I have always proffered my statement as a universal.

To date no one has split the mind into two separate consciousnesses, nor have they split the body into two separate independently acting sentient beings. Thus, I think the argument that the body *can* be split doesn't really overcome the idea that mind and body are experiences of the same physical self, and the distinction is drawn by language and not by the physical world. Nor do I think that being able to kill one aspect of the self, the mind, means it is a physically separate thing. There are physical aspects of the brain that support consciousness, yes, but that doesn't mean that consciousness is separable from the brain. Finally, you need to limit your context to those things we would normally attribute to having a "mind" to address the "mind/body problem." Individual cells do not rise to this distinction.