dayna j.

The absence of evidence is implied in the conclusion that there is no god. If there were not an absence of evidence, it would not be possible to conclude that there is no god--My definition is accurate. To ask whether evolution or atheism accounts for objective morality is akin to asking how chemistry can be used to find the roots of a quadratic equation: It can't, because it is a question which is outside of the scope of that discipline.

Morality is not within the domain of either atheism or evolution. Atheism does not entail anything other than an acceptance of the fact that insufficient evidence exists to substantiate the belief in a supernatural deity that created the universe, and theories of evolution have nothing at all to do with moral philosophy. The question is poorly formed--I think the question should be: "how does philosophy account for objective morality?"

If I invented it, I would release it. It's not my responsibility to babysit the world.

All transgendered people who choose to undergo hormone replacement therapy or sexual reassignment surgeries are required to participate in therapy/counseling. A quick google search would have revealed this fact. Why didn't you research this topic before posting about it? How do you know? You haven't made an argument here. You are merely asserting that it is the case without providing any reason or evidence. Remember your prior comment about "philosophical rigor" ? Where is your rigor?

I remember Stefan saying on numerous occasions that he was still torn on the issue of abortion.

Your initial premise is flawed. Only a philosophy based on utilitarianism would proceed by asking "what is best?" Generally, philosophy begins with the question "What is TRUE??" and proceeds on the basis of principles which encapsulate those truths. Example: No one has the right to initiate the use of force against others. This would be a "positive right" and is invalid by extension of the is/ought dichotomy. Therefore, government cannot derive any powers involving the initiation of the use of force on the basis of the consent to be governed (because people do not have that right in order to delegate it). All actions of government require the initiation of the use force. Therefore, Anarchism.

I don't see how moving from country X to country Y changes anything. Somalia is recognized internationally as a constitutionally-based "Federal Republic." Here is the official website for the Somali government: http://www.somaligov.net/ Tell your friend (or whoever this discussion relates to) that they should drop this guy a line: http://www.somaligov.net/President.html Clearly, no one has told "His Excellency" Hassan Sheikh Mohamud that Somalia is supposed to be an anarchist paradise. I'm sure he will pack up and leave immediately.

I'm interested. I've never played D&D before, but I have played Vampire the Masquerade and other Whitewolf brand RPGs, so I am familiar with these kinds of games. Also, I have a ton of D&D / Pathfinder books in PDF format which I have accumulated over time. If anyone is having trouble acquiring what they need to play, let me know.

You're probably having difficulty responding to this "claim" because almost every sentence contains a new, unsubstantiated and only tangentially related claim. I counted 16 discrete propositions before I lost interest in reading. This is not a debate, or even a coherent exchange of ideas. This is an example of verbal diarrhoea, which is meant to disarm you with rapidity and emotional intensity. Either this person simply doesn't know how to engage in a productive, mutually beneficial debate, or they are uninterested in doing so. In either case, it is clear that you are being railroaded. My advice: Disengage--Unless you want to continue to serve as a conduit for this individual's misplaced anger.

How do the other people in the house react to this situation? It seems to me that your problem is not just the girl who acts violently towards you, but also the fact that 20+ other people in your house do not have a problem with that behaviour. In other words, although one person is actively using violence against you, 20+ other people in the house are accepting and approving of the use of violence against you. If these people all took a unified position against the aggressor, then it would be impossible for the activity to continue, because the girl would be evicted.

If people love the appearance of the taxis so much that they are willing to incur great costs in order to either travel to or move to a new state/country to be close to them, then revenues based on tourism should be able to sustain them. If people aren't willing to pay for a tour of the taxi factory, or a ride on a "historic" taxi, then it is ridiculous to assume that they would be willing to travel/move to be closer to them. It's like saying that people would travel to New York because they like the statue of liberty, but then would refuse to pay for a tour of it after they arrive. This is illogical.

Is this a joke?

I feel no sympathy for you whatsoever. You describe torturing and abusing this animal in great dramatic detail, as if you are recounting scenes from some video game--without the slightest discernible trace of remorse or emotional connection with anything other than your own confused, misplaced rage. This is truly sickening behaviour, and I am fearful for the other animals (and people!) that are exposed to your brutal psychopathy. You need professional help far beyond what this community is capable of providing.

Hello, Although I will not be able to afford a ticket to the conference, I would be interested in a meetup. I live in Detroit and have for the majority of my life. Perhaps my familiarity with the area will be useful in some way--such as finding a good spot to meet and/or go out to eat. Who else is interested?

I think that if one is interested in working towards positive changes in society, then having insight into what motivates people to do what they do is of value. Particularly for the victims of abuse. If Stefan didn't have a tremendous amount of insight into these matters, i think that his ability to help others to work through their history would be greatly diminished. By understanding a little about the motivations, it can help a person to place responsibility where it properly belongs. For example, if I don't have any insight at all into the causes of my own abuse, then what is to stop me from simply internalizing it and blaiming myself? When it comes to the abusers in our own lives, it can become difficult to take this view. It often comes across like the victim of abuse is being asked to empathize with their abuser, or excuse their behaviour in some way, which I certainly don't agree with. But if we glean that insight from a source that is, perhaps, a bit more removed from our own individual experiences, then it can help us to more easily approach and chip away at our own experiences in a way that is more platable. I know that before I was able to take on the demons from my own past, it helped enormously to approach them tangentially, through the relative safety of other people's experiences.

I now feel that I shouldn't have responded to your post in quite the way that I did. Reading it triggered a lot of negativity in me from my own history, and I probably should have refrained from commenting before processing that. I do understand the importance in figuring out what makes people do what they do--particularly when it comes to the intergenerational transmission of abuse, but sometimes I feel myself slipping into a sort of nihilism. Anyway, sorry if I wasn't helpful.

I'm sorry this was your experience. I don't think anyone is going to be able to tell you exactly what made your mother feel that it was appropriate to use violence against defenseless children. If she was anyone else other than your mother, would you care what her reasons were? I was beaten by my mother approximately 700 times, conservatively. I've spent time circling around in my mind--attempting to understand why things were the way they were. Ultimately, I settled into the realization that she is simply a piece of human garbage. Not to say this is the case for your mom--maybe she has redeemed herself somehow, but it certainly could be that she is just not a good person. I feel as though my tone is a bit harsh, and I'm sorry for that, but I think it is important to realize that people who use violence are deeply troubled and extremely unhealthy. Unfortunately, the family dynamic tends to fog our thinking around this issue, and leads us to make excuses for people which we would likely never make in any other circumstance.

Hi Derek. Wait, am I responding to my own post? No...okay, just had to make sure. My name is Derek as well, and I also live in Michigan. It seems that we have a lot in common.

lol @ the thought of AJ being sponsored by Red Bull. Great idea.

See you again never.

I would like to share a method I have used on several occasions in order to get out of jury duty. Usually--at least in my state--one will receive an initial notice in the mail which you are supposed to return. On that notice will be a section allowing you to list some reason why you should be excused from "duty." I have on multiple occasions written that it would be inappropriate for me to serve on a jury on account of my psychic abilities, which would interfere with the ordinary legal procedures. Sounds stupid, right? Well, previous to adopting this strategy I would receive these notices almost every single year. After having returned 2 or so notices with this comment, I have COMPLETELY stopped receiving notices for jury duty. It has been approximately 7 years since I have last received a notice. Your mileage, of course, may vary. (Just in case it is necessary to state it explicitly--no, I don't really believe that I have psychic abilities.)

I don't see how this model addresses the fundamental problem of the initiation of force. Because no individual has the right to initiate force, it is not possible for them to enter into a contract imbuing another party with that right. Therefore, any government which claims the ability to initiate force is unjustly derived, invalid and immoral. Furthermore, if you think it is possible to convert an organization whose every act is predicated upon violence into a peaceful, cooperative charity, there are much easier ways to put this plan into action: You can find a street gang such as the Crips or Bloods, or perhaps a motorcyle gang like the Hells Angels, and convince them to turn away from crime and predation. This should be a much easier goal, as street gangs have not been handed the control mechanisms of society and make no claim to any self-defined, self-justified system of entitlement.

If this is your response to the question "How?", then there is no place for you on a forum dedicated to philosophy.

Statistics > Anecdotes. According to census data, approximately 85% of people in the United States are religious. Public schools have had about 100 years to chip away at that. How's it working?

The governments of the U.S collectively spend more on education than any other country in the world, yet religiosity is rampant. I'm not sure how it is that you can claim that public schools act as a barrier to religiosity, when it has demonstrably not been the case.