Phuein

While it's interesting to review Stefan's argument from that fallacy's perspective, your friend is responsible for clarifying that statement, to the extent that you have the possibility of disqualifying it. I would ask for clarification on it, as well.

The Swami never says that any of this doesn't happen to you. He rather puts the idea of "you" into a different, much larger perspective, which includes the physical experience. The shorter video might not explain this, properly. The longer ones do. As an example, I could be saying, "My hand is injured." While this is true, it is also true, and from a larger perspective, to say, "I am injured." Right?

I feel we're losing clarity of argument, so I'd like to put my own personal example, as this is indeed a very personal issue for me, and I am not speaking abstractly here, at all. Let's take my case of air-pollution, to clarify an actual proven physical threat and harm to health, for me and others, that is not socially agreed upon as a threat or damage, so I am not socially accepted in retaliating against the damages to my self and property. A short drive from where I live, there is a cement mixing factory. This factory causes great air pollution, which is especially [and strategically] released every day, at about 5am. The sea winds blow this pollution directly at me, and I can even smell it, if I'm awake at those hours. I know that this is harming me, but the local popular (and bribed) "scientific consensus" shrugs this off as unproven. I have phlegm issues, and everyone who lives here has notable chronic coughing. Those "in charge" will not take action about this. This is actually one of the lesser cases of pollution in my country, which says a lot about any chances of fixing this. Even if the NAP would justify me taking action against that factory and people there, my society does not, and this means that the NAP is meaningless in a society where 'aggression' is defined in a way that excludes pollution, to a large extent. There is no universality in accumulative damage cases, even when it comes to human health and death, and even when the request to cease had been made. People living downwind from a factory in the north, are now growing lethal cancers, after being exposed for ten years, or longer. Statistically, something extremely fucked up is going there, but no one will take responsibility for it, and they are helpless. Threats under the NAP do not require proof of consequence (it's enough to make the threat), and neither should accumulative damages require it! If there is suspicion that repeating behavior may cause harm, and the offender will not stop, then they are trespassing the NAP. Using this logic, it is reasonable to demand a retraction and apology, even after the first occurrence. That is my argument, the same in regards to verbal abuse.

Aggression, as defined through property rights and thus the NAP, isn't as clear cut and unambiguous, as you guys present it to be. Even in the original definitions and descriptions, threats to property are included, which are in themselves abstract. Threats are just words and actions, and any word or action can be perceived as a threat. Therefor, it's insinuated that a threat must be socially accepted, for socially justified retaliation. I'm not saying that the NAP isn't universal. It is. Only, the term "aggression" is not universal, and it shouldn't be, either. There is no fault in having a universal axiom that is reliant on social (non-universal) terminology, in my view. Cases of ambiguous threats and ambiguous damage to property [and person], such as pollution, disturbance, and compliance with social norms will never be universal. They are local, by nature. And they are all within the NAP, by definition.

I was the one who +1 your post, in order to neutralize it. I think the value of the argument that wants to either isolate the NAP from defining 'aggression', or expand its' definition of the term, has great importance in this discussion. Isolating the NAP from defining 'aggression' makes sense, because the NAP would then be valid according to each society - with each society defining 'aggression' differently. That would be modular and reasonable. To insist that 'aggression', within the NAP, only means, "Actual harm to person or property, or an actual threat to either," is to ignore a variety of horrible abuses and obvious attacks on people, due to a comfortable technicality.

I've considered the whole profession, before. I think that having supportive and learned parents, family, and friends should generally do. Humans in tribal societies get their "therapy" from those around them, as there is plenty of freedom (time + space), and this is a clear human need, after all. It is interesting to note that even in tribes, there is often the "outsider", the shaman, who handles problems, personal or social, in a professional manner; even though they (the shaman - he, she, or both) are actually an accepted part of the tribe. They often live a bit further away from the main tribe.

Thanks for the sympathy guys. You can imagine that I don't get any sympathy in my local society. I thought that 'aggression' was defined as, "Showing intent to harm." What is the definition of 'aggression' used for the NAP, then?

Sam, good on you for being honest and making amends. Keep honesty with yourself and loved ones, and the alcohol, and any bad habit, won't get the better of you.

Contrary to what others may say, the answer is clearly (and legally) a YES. People go to jail for shirking the "mandatory" military service, here. Also, I've been to army prison, for refusing to be an infantry, which is another common occurrence, here.

I have recently had the great joy of watching, and pondering, a lecture by Swami Sarvapriyananda about an understanding of the "self", according to the Vedanta - a philosophical stream in the Hinduist religious tradition, based on philosophical teachings and texts. I am not, myself, a Hindu, Vedanti, or religious person. A [ridiculously short] summary of his arguments, from my understanding, is: 1) The knower and the known are separate. I am aware of my experiences, but I am not them [strictly], because I observe them. 2) The knower, in this case - my consciousness (self), is unknown. We have no means of observing it, separately, neither practically nor logically. I am the knower, so I can only experience myself, but not observe myself as an object. 3) The knower, this witness to experiences, is the same thing in all living beings and existence. Instead of turning us into metaphysical abstracts, this conclusion actually infers that we are all the projections of the same core thing, like many dreams inside one mind, and thus everything is undivided in nature. 4) Realizing this knowledge, both intellectually and experientially, means we can act out of wisdom, rather than out of ignorance. We don't mistake experiences to be our entire identity; I am not [only] my feelings. What do you guys and gals think about this? Disclaimer: I actually watched his much longer double lecture (Part 1, Part 2) about this, before this short video. There he goers into much detail, with examples on the board (written), so I highly recommend it, if you find these notions worth thinking about.

Good questions. For me, I have tolerated the results of verbal abuse for many years, by my society, and to the detriment of my freedom and needs. For example, in my country, if you did not do full military service, than you are a "shirker" - you have "neglected your duties." Due to it being socially accepted as true, anyone who has that label on them is severely punished by Israeli society - not only the state itself. Many jobs won't take you, you are not given the many benefits that service-men get, and many people will have nothing to do with you. This is, naturally, enforced by law - through written proof of your service, or lack-of. For me the problem is labeling, rather than swearing. I don't actually mind swearing so much, as long as it stops, when I say, "Stop." What bothers me is how people label others, and cause great harm to their social lives through that, often unknowingly, otherwise without admitting the results of such behavior. People respond to labels. Even blatantly false or illogical labels, such as "terrorist" or "witch". And they label with the least effort. For about 5 years, I used to walk around with a beard & dreadlocks. Au natural. I suffered so much abuse due to that, and the labels that this appearance has in my society, that some time back I decided to just keep a trimmed beard and combed hair. I could not suffer the abuse any longer. Harassment by police. People reacting to me with fear, for no reason but the hair. Everyone thinking I'm a junkie, to any extent, which translates into, "Bad person." ><

I assumed that it is understood that I am not arguing from utility. It is not whether an action causes harm or not. Threats by themselves don't necessarily cause harm, but they are accepted to be an initiation of force. Also, if I accidentally hit a person, I have not initiated force, because it was incidental. It is only if I choose to attack them, that it is against the NAP. So, this debate is about verbally attacking a person, not with the purpose of physical harm, but with the purpose of slander - or any other term that might fit the situation. Not benign, anyhow. My example with calling a person an "idiot" is clearly not benign. Being an "idiot" is descriptive, and is meant to reflect another person as being mentally less able. Sure, people can use it without actually meaning it, but then it is irrelevant to this discussion.

The purpose of the NAP is to justify aggression towards evil. It doesn't define evil, by itself, but rather says that once evil is identified, then it is moral to attack it; all in context of the society, of course. For example, if another dude calls me an "idiot", then he is labeling me as an inferior person. If he does that publicly, then he may convince others that I am actually an idiot! And then others will treat me as inferior, because of how that specific guy treats me, and myself not stopping him. That's bullying. There's no clear-cut evidence that the other person is endangering you, the victim, but you know that it will escalate, if you don't stop it. It always does. All forms of abuse do.

Just to clarify... I don't have an alcohol addiction. At all. I'm not a huge fan of booze. However, some evenings I like to drink a shot of brandy, or whichever, to get in the mood. So, I can allow myself this behavior, unlike people who get "too excited" about drinks. It's an important distinction, to 'know thyself', and know your faults and weaknesses, and plan accordingly.

Powder and I have been discussing whether verbal abuse intrudes on the Non-Aggression Principle, and what response it may justify. Verbal abuse, as in swearing, libel, defamation, insults, and labeling. We are excluding threats, because we both agree that threats violate the NAP. My argument is that just like actual threats, to defame someone's character may lead to escalation of abuse, and the risk of physical harm. My example was a person being called "a terrorist." We all know how such a label can destroy human life. Powder's argument is that since this does not directly involve the "initiation of force" or "violation of property", then even if there is a justification for a defensive response, the entire situation is not included within the NAP. Does the 'initiation of force' include verbal abuse? Are insults akin to threats? What is a justified response to insults, and to what extent?

Personally, the more I found other things to do, or try and experience, the less gaming mattered. I've never been a "real" gamer, but I've had my periods, and I have the habit. I don't think gaming is such a bad habit, when it's a small part of a full and joyful weekly routine of many occupations. It was asked above, and I echo it... What other things do you want to be doing? Dreams? Goals? Passions? Regular hobbies?

It's not a matter of opinion. I strictly disagree with those videos. They are wrong. However, this thread isn't about discussing them, so I won't go on about that. I suggested you offer more videos, so we might find one that we both agree on. I dislike your sarcasm, as if any disagreement I may have with you, means that it is impossible to find agreement with me on videos that I am not the one to offer. I hope other people, interested in helping out, don't hesitate to offer videos, even if I might decline them.

Let me step aside from the non-philosophical discussion with the zionist dude above me, and respond to the OP, with their original query... [DISCLAIMER: I am a born and raised Israeli, anti-zionist, anti-religious, Anarchist philosopher.] Follow the money. The entire Israel situation had always been, and still is, funded by western powers. The same wealthy and maniacal people, who had waged the American wars in eastern Asia, and are now waging atrocious wars in the Middle East. Israel was prepared and established with the might of the British empire, the same people working hand in hand with the Americans. The Israeli population is, in more ways than not, imprisoned, and forced to continue these atrocities. We don't have the option to work in any other country, without a rare foreign passport, or very high credentials. We are forced to serve in the army, or get punished severely otherwise. We live in a tiny (for practical purposes, think Manhattan), polluted (some of the highest measurements in the world - land, sea, and air!), half-desert country, surrounded by maniacal murderous nations (The Arab nations are no better in this story.) So, why is there so much war and horribleness in this place? In this region, even. Because that's what the rich fascists of the world are forcing on the locals. Just like the gov' and cartels in Mexico. Just like the USA gov'. Just like the North Korean gov'. Just like myriad of African cultures that still struggle against the abuse of wealthy Europeans and Westerners. This will either stop when the fascists are naturally exhausted, or if the fascists' source of power is removed by force - their money and sources of income.

I disagree with the "us versus them" dichotomy, which leads to protests and revolutions, that had constantly shown to be a venture of martyrdom, disaster, and failure in achieving actual goals. This is the first video. The second video is even worse, as a form of victim blaming, and again it will result in stupid behavior. To have an "alien" disagree with human behavior, is akin to having humans disagree with ants. It's meaningless. While that doesn't mean that we shouldn't critically review our own societies, because we all should, it does portray the reason for this critical thinking as a self-attack. Methods of thinking that try to 'achieve their purpose', without being in the context of the problem, always lead to confusion in action, lack of motivation, lack of understanding of principles, and the harm of lives. I'm sorry this response comes out as a refute about the presentations, rather than anything to do with subtitling them, but I'm sure you have more videos, some of which I would completely agree with you about their validity.

Hey. Let's keep the conversation here, in case others want to join in. I'm seeing you're from Israel, too. What suggestion do you have for us to work on? Nothing over 15 minutes or so, I hope.

This is like complaining about black Americans using the word nigger. It all depends on your target audience, really. Are you selling this app to people who would be inclined to find the word "Nazi" attractive? Probably not, haha. I endorse the title, and I'm a Jewsraeli. However, that's just my sense of humor. How about: "Grammar President Bookworm" ?

This is a non-argument, tiepolo. You're simply mixing up definitions, and instead, describing entirely separate ideas. Governments are strictly non-voluntary, by definition, because they govern people.

Any SubSpace: Continuum players? I haven't played any lately, but sometimes I get into a space piloting groove, and you can see me there as Reel. http://www.getcontinuum.com/

This is, on the one hand, a moral & practical issue, and on the other hand, it is also a social issue. I'm not saying that people should simply obey others, in their social context. I was referring to this topic being a social issue, as in: After the philosophical value had been decided, then the judgement is made in the context of that society. This is why we won't attack single mothers on gov' subsidized money, but rather look at society that enables and encourages the whole shabang, right? And my previous post being upvoted shouldn't scare you. I'm no statist or fascist, and there is clarification to be done here. I am arguing for philosophical self-defense, here. A self-defense that actually intends to defend the person or people, rather than get equal with the aggressors. Which is why fighting with cops is generally a really bad idea - even if they started it. We all agree that a society, in which people in costumes are exempt of morality, doesn't make sense, and works very badly. However, in a society where all are equally morally responsible, who is to say what is reasonable behavior, in a situation of threat or attack? The NAP had definitely been bypassed, and it is up to the locals to judge the case, in their own self-defense. How do we know that a threat won't become an assault? A slap won't become a bashing? A punch won't become a knife or a gun? The reality is that abusers escalate, if not stopped. Their goal is to abuse, and the more you let them, the more they will take from you. The main reason why a cutpurse doesn't rob banks is because of the higher risks involved. This is like that old joke... Man [to Woman]: Would you sleep with me for one million dollars? Woman: Sure. Man: How about for ten dollars? Woman: What do you think I am? Man: We've already established what you are. All we're doing is bargaining about price. We've already established that the person, currently, does not abide by the NAP, and so we know that it won't stop them. Let's say I wear a KKK uniform, clearly stating that I am a member of the KKK, knowing that this organization attacks non-whites, and considers this a good thing. By simply walking around with this uniform, am I stating a clear threat against the non-whites around me? Of course I am. It's equal to shouting every minute, "I will attack people of color!" If I go up to a black guy, and tell him that I will find him, his family, his friends, and attack them... Does he have the right to defend himself, against my threat? Even though it's only verbal, at the moment. Universally so, he does. We all do. That's why people use witnesses or recordings of threats, to defend against aggressors. Weapon bearing cultures show us what happens, when strength is not limited only to numbers or size. Self-defense is a universal, but the ability to defend yourself is not! To spout philosophy by value, without philosophy in practice, is what leads to people attacking cops, thinking that it's a wise thing. Just look at the fascist leaders of invading empires; they only stop, when physically stopped (Germany vs Russia), or the threat is overwhelming (Nuclear threat). Otherwise, they will do anything, in order to conquer others (USA in in the Arab world / China in Tibet.)

Sounds like reasonable and evident advice, to me. Self-defense isn't about "winning"... It's about defending yourself, when threats arise.