Sir Exotic

There is no "public land", the government does not have a rightful or just ownership over that land. If the border is "publicly owned" and I privately own some land in the country itself, can an "illegal immigrant" fly over or go around the border and come onto my private property?

jpahmad was actually correct, if you steal for him and you give him the money, he is not necessarily a thief. If he does accept it but doesn't know about the thieving, he isn't a thief (or shares any responsibility) But if he does know where the money came from and still accepts it, he is a thief, too. Moral responsibility requires knowledge of the actions committed. But I share your stance, if an immigrant comes into the country not being consciously aware of how the system works and the implications of how it works (taxation is theft) then he is not a thief. Eh.... what is the reason behind that? Are you conflating legality with morality? Because then I think you're on the wrong forums. Please tell me if I'm wrong, which I'm hoping for.

You seem like a very intelligent and wise young man, but that's coming from a 22 year old If I can give any advice for your school "career", I would tell you to finish the minimal education that is required and accept it as a reality, although a forced reality. Sometimes accepting something is easier, and I wish I had done that when I was younger. I dropped out, but if I had just stayed for 2 more years, my last few years would have been much, much easier. I'll also tell you to enjoy the good bits, even though you realize the overall experience is negative. Try to learn from the experience you share with your peers, teachers and parents. Many people will grow old not having this experience in a real sense, and you seem to have 'unlocked' it at a very early age, don't spoil it, damn it! (I was about 17 when I had this shift) I, and I'm probably not the only one, often imagine that I have the chance to go all the way back to where I was a child and do it all over again, but with the mind of my current self. How interesting would that be. I was rebelling against the system and I was angry, and it didn't serve me well. If I could do it all over again, I would go through all of it like a Buddhist monk, instead of rebelling, accepting what I cannot change and instead of being angry, realizing that everyone else around me is in the same situation but they do not know. And I am fairly certain that you know what I mean with that. So good luck! "I am in agony at the sophistry going on that masquerades as philosophy", I love how you put "agony" and "sophistry" together to express the relation to each other. I feel this way all the time, and it affects me, my relationships and how I view the world. It's poisonous, quite literally.. I'm not a teen anymore, but not old enough to be a creep. I have a short list of people on facebook that I consider worthy talking to, so send me a message if you're interested EDIT: I just realized, my full name is right there ↖ so you'll find me.

This is about 50% of the whole discussion, the other 50% is the fact (that Adam brought up in the beginning) the government is the real initiator, not the immigrants. When Stefan responded with "but immigrants bring in more crime" Stefan is making a collectivist argument AND a strawman. (Illegal) immigrants coming into the country are not the real initiators in this situation, not even when we accept that they generally bring in more crime and have higher rates of crimes within their own population/group. The real initiators are the immigrants who commit [immoral actions], so not all of them. That is the mistake and strawman Stefan made. In this debate Stefan has subjectivized UPB and until he rectifies this, I, unfortunately, cannot take his word too seriously anymore.

I would tell them that they don't understand the concept of survival of the fittest.

1. Thank you, I appreciate that. 2. If morality is only there for us to stay alive, then doing "immoral" things to further our survival would be considered moral. So either morality is merely a way to stay alive, or there's more. I believe that Morality is a "guide" of how to be good. And perhaps we can talk about good with a capital G, to emphasize it. Virtue is a mix of the pursuit towards Truth (facts, reality, what "is") and Honesty (personal behaviour; pursuit towards Truth) and with that comes humility. We cannot always be in line with Truth, even if we pursue it all the time. We make mistake, but even without mistakes, we are ignorant, in the sense that we're not Omniscient. The pursuit towards Truth is shown through our honesty, but humility is just as important for when we are wrong or make a mistake. So, morality is not necessarily about your personal well-being or benefit. It's a universal justice kind of thing. A few weeks ago I bought some candy is a big candy store, and as I was choosing the candy to put in a plastic bag (the ones you weigh, and then pay for), I put some another candy (that wasn't supposed to be weighed) in my pocket so I had both of my hands free. After I was done, I let me clerk weigh my bag and I paid. When I walked out of the store and reached into my pocket, I realized I still had the other candy in my pocket that I didn't pay for yet. In this situation, from the perspective of the store/employee, I took something that wasn't mine without their consent. It was -1 candy for them, but from my perspective, I gained +1 candy without -1 money (payment). So according to the "universal justice" idea, I was benefiting +1 from that situation, but I still went back and paid for it, making it -1 money for myself, so I was back at 0 on the "scale of universal justice". That was longer than I anticipated, but I'm hoping it will help answer the questions you have.

It may sound uncomfortable, but remember that the NAP is not a principle of how to stay alive most practically/efficiently, it is a moral principle. For example, the NAP states that it is immoral to force yourself on a woman to procreate against her will, but the NAP does not tell you how to attract a woman, start a family, or even how to produce offspring ("survive" at the level of your genes) As for 4, because I wasn't really satisfied with some of the other answers: If the policeman is funded/paid by our current state, which is based on taxation, which is backed up by the threat and use of force, he cannot live according to the NAP in that aspect of his life.

I don't want to speak on behalf of your experience in this community, but I find it hard to believe that you had no freedom in discussing any subject with others, assuming you were as civil as you purport to be. Besides that, I would actually be very interested in hearing your side and why "the initiation of violence has a moral place in society." And if not here, then maybe somewhere else.

You're right! I heard this a few weeks ago actually when listening to an older podcast (Sex with the faithful, I believe it was) and Stefan indeed said that his wife was a deist.

Talk about emotional diverting bullshit. I'm sure there are objections to be made, and maybe you should even call into the show - callers with criticism get in front of the line, remember? But this isn't the way to do it, and you know that.

If you're 19 and not sure about all of this, don't get into any relationships/dating yet. Find yourself first, find out what you want, when and how, etc. I could write a whole essay on what and why, but let me ask you first, why are you uncertain about this in the first place? The natural thing is to have a family, so why is there some doubt or uncertainty? What do you think about a family, or even when kids aren't involved, what do you think about a long-term/permanent relationship with a woman? What are some things you think make you wonder if this is the kind of life you want to life? Maybe think about how your own family/childhood affected your thinking. I would suggest finding tons of calls from previous call-in shows about relationships to see different perspectives and positions. Other than that, maybe call into the show yourself, we haven't had this kind of call in a long time and I think it's always beneficial to bring this one up. MGTOW is a poison to relationships and is just a temporary and simplistic bitterness or misunderstanding about women and relationships.

There's no string attached to the hooks either, it's just hooks. Disappointing.

Assuming you're not being obnoxiously sarcastic; you should read it.

Throughout this whole thread you have completely missed the important distinction between force and the initiation of force. I suggest you read Universal Preferable Behavior.

Since there is no real discussion to derail, let me do just that. Donnadogsoth you have a cross in your profile picture, which tells me you're a christian. 1. Did you come up with this understanding for the necessity for a god before or after you were a christian? 2. If you came up with it before you were a christian, and then it led you to christianity, how did a necessity of a god prove the christian god? 3. If you came up with it after you were a christian, don't you think it was merely to justify your presupposed beliefs in christianity? 4. How does a mere necessity of a god to create the universe prove that it's the christian god, and not any of the other thousands of gods? And if god is a christian god, how did you determine which specific god it was in christianity, among the thousands of christian denominations? How did you make that determination in your finite life? What if the only real god doesn't even have a concept yet, so why are you not a deist? Suppose you are completely right in your specific christianity, how is that not the greatest miracle of all?

Jezus christ.

Philociraptor, he is assuming his god into existence to form his argument, but then rejects things that are already real, because they contradict the god he assumed into existence. Donnadogsoth, you have to realize that your assumption of god is not required for our universe to work and function how it does. Therefore adding the assumption is unnecessary and unprovable.

Did you just assume a God into existence to respond to a reasonable comment with "You don't know that."? A=A is different, because A=A is not a thought, idea or object/physical manifestation. A=A is a logical rule that states that A cannot be not A, because that would violate the law of non-contradiction. The Universe cannot exist and not exist at the same time. You don't need minds to conceive of this for it to be true.

/thread

I second this question. Lorry changed the nature of the situation to where you're saving someone's life, so of course they would consent to the 'cutting' if they had the choice. He has to go to these absurd scenario's to justify the ones he can't, and refuses to answer. Lorry we keep answering your questions, but you keep avoiding mine. I am still waiting for you to answer my question about your Taylor Swift scenario, and you have already come up with 2 new questions for me that I will both answer once you answer mine. The way this discussion will continue depends entirely on you.

I disagree with your premise that "force to bring about a good end is good" I disagreed with your premise because of the wording of it. 'to bring about a good end' can mean different things. If "helping a homeless person" is a good end, then "using force to help a homeless person" may have a good end, but isn't good in its entirety. So yes, in principle, the initiation of force is always immoral. But don't forget that there is a degree of immorality. Stealing a loaf of bread because you're starving is not the same as raping a woman out of lust. In the first situation there is less of an initiation of force, plus the value lost is almost nothing, plus the value lost can be paid back easily. But stealing a loaf of bread is still immoral. I'll answer your new question(s) when you come around to answer mine. I'm still waiting..

I am not going to bother reading your reply because you are not answering the question. You know what your answer is and you know that I know, and you also have a good idea of what my response will be, and you're avoiding it. Your cop-out was to not answer the question, then put up a straw man ("You define all force as bad") and then talk about something else. If you're not going to have respect for other people in a discussion forum by responding to their arguments and the points they make or by avoid conclusions, let's end it here. In this context, is Taylor Swift pinching your ass a situation you would like to be in? If not, you're free to answer my question. If my position is so weak that it is easily broken down, you don't need to put up a straw man to fight it.

Still haven't received an answer to that.

In this context, is Taylor Swift pinching your ass a situation you would like to be in?