AustinJames

Do you really think that a dairy cow would prefer to be free? Provided a domesticated animal is treated well, I cannot imagine it would prefer to be in the wild. If they could reason, is it not possible many animals would enter into agreements with humans, exchanging goods, services, or even their lives for food, shelter, and comfort?

Can there truly be equality amongst species? What does that mean in terms of the NAP? Do you believe that every action against an animal has the same moral content as it would if it was a human that was acted upon?

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/22/debunking-the-science-behind-lowering-cholesterol-levels.aspx

I practiced fight training for a while, and I plan to do more in the future; but I value my brain too much to actually get involved in these blood-sports. I study them for the sake of fitness, and self-defense is a great motivator-- If I've got to exercise, I may as well learn something that may be useful if I am ever in a dangerous situation. I do know some people in MMA, or that play rugby, and they have encouraged me to get involved. Fortunately, I just value my brain (and the rest of me) too much to do that. If I ever say anything like that, I'm usually presented with some meaningless macho statement, usually implying that I'm just afraid to get hurt. Then I usually take the course of saying, "why, yes, I am afraid of brain damage, or blowing my knees out, or having other chronic health problems into my old age. Aren't you?" It usually boils down to the mentality of male disposability. Unfortunately, this mentality is well-received by most females-- these guys have hot, sexy girlfriends that are completely happy with their partners' choice of hobby. There is an element of self-destruction inherent in most contact sports, especially MMA.

What other behaviors is she excusing in her personal relationships? I can't believe this is the only one.

This, combined with peaceful parenting practices, will be the end of the state as we know it. My only concern is that coercion/surveillance will increase as market forces shift to favor these unregulated transactions.

Reelection.

Total Recall (the original with Arnold Schwarzenegger is great. I haven't seen the remake) Antichrist (psychotic, intense, disturbing-- guaranteed to thrill) There Will Be Blood I echo the previous recommendations, especially Funny Games, Oldboy, Under The Skin, and Twelve Monkeys.

If the choice is between a Waldorf school and Collegiate Academy, I would definitely go with Collegiate Academy. I'm not personally familiar with the school, but from the information on the website, it seems very similar to the school at which I work. I called the school to find out more about the curriculum and methodology, but they were closed. From the curriculum listed on the site, it looks very promising. As I'm sure you know, it's crucial that she is grouped according to her ability, and that her skills are challenged; there is no systemic assurance that this will occur at the Waldorf school. As long as you and the faculty can agree on behavior-correction strategies, I think the charter school will be a great fit. Looking at their test scores, their reading looks fairly strong (6 points above the district average, and 74% proficiency), but the math is barely (2 points, 37% proficiency) above the district average. These numbers are somewhat troubling. If she can already read Level 1 books easily, I would try to have her enrolled in the "Gifted and Talented" program to ensure she is challenged and her progress is properly monitored. Have you looked at other charter schools in the area? Any chance she could get into Peak to Peak Academy, or Ridgeview? Where I work, we use a form of RTR (Real-Time Relationships) strategies in every aspect of communication, whether it be parent-teacher, teacher-teacher, teacher-student, etc. I would make sure that they implement a similar policy. Ours is referred to as "Love and Logic." We seek to provide a peaceful, positive, challenging environment for everyone, with constant opportunities for improvement. I hope you and your daughter have a great experience! I think it's amazing she has the ambition to pursue her own education at such a young age. Please let me know how it goes!

I work at a public (charter) school in the U.S., and I relish the opportunities I have to introduce objective morality and real-time relationships to as many people as I do. While I lack knowledge of the Australian school system, I can give you first-hand experience of how I have used the state system to help kids, and expose my well-meaning coworkers to peaceful alternatives in methodology.

I would recommend against the Waldorf school, generally. Which charter school are you considering? There is a variety of methodologies from school to school. Growing up, I attended several charter schools in Colorado, and currently work at a charter school in Utah. Can she read? If so, how well?

Why do you think this is the case? What is unique to your experience in school?

http://www.csun.edu/~krowlands/Content/Academic_Resources/Reading/Useful%20Articles/Cunningham-What%20Reading%20Does%20for%20the%20Mind.pdf "Reading has cognitive consequences that extend beyond its immediate task of lifting meaning from a particular passage. Furthermore, these consequences are reciprocal and exponential in nature." Also, if you have access to JSTOR through your school: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20197908?uid=3739928&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104567536603 In order to improve your reading experience, you need to improve your reading skills. If you wanted to learn trigonometry, you would not master the concepts, or improve your experience, by listening to lectures on your commute. In order to improve your reading skills, you need the same intense focus you dedicated to learning mathematics. One of the best ways to improve your experience is to improve your reading speed and comprehension. There are free tests available online, as well some programs you can purchase to help you achieve this. http://www.readingsoft.com/ http://englishteststore.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=236&Itemid=286 http://www.freereadingtest.com/free-reading-test.html http://www.execuread.com/online-reading-comprehension-tests/ I have found it very empowering to increase my reading speed. My current goal is to double my speed (from 350 to 700 wpm) while maintaining at least 80% comprehension. I still read some things slowly (for the sake of editing, for instance, or chewing through tough concepts) but I've found my enthusiasm for reading (though already high) has skyrocketed with the prospect of improvement. Audiobooks do have their place, of course, but their use must be supplemental to your higher goals in reading. I listen to audiobooks all the time, and I never hesitate to listen to a passage ten times if that's what it takes for me to absorb the meaning. Circumstances permitting, I listen to the audiobook while following along in the text, which I find greatly improves my comprehension.

It is nice when this happens. I have received several personal messages informing me of a trollish user's past behavior. Now that I've had some time on the forums, I try to watch other people's backs as well. Rest assured, I will let you know if I think you're wasting your time.

Will you please describe what you felt when you had this "gut reaction?" My gut reaction was, "awesome!" I will explain more when I can measure my reaction against yours.

I see this as good news. I'm happy to hear him say he will be able to focus on his target audience more as he will be less concerned over expanding his audience into "big markets." I trust he will find a better use for his time. Maybe he will take a page out of Stefan's book in building an online community.

I love the reputation system, just the way it is. If you think capitalism is a good system, then you must agree that the reputation system will provide the community with content of the highest possible quality. To think capitalism is good, but the reputation system is bad, is a logical contradiction.

How old are your children?

Great post! This article may also be of interest to anyone with creative ambitions: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/april/walking-vs-sitting-042414.html I am interested to know whether Stefan is familiar with this research, or if his proclivity for walking is merely intuitive.

Wow, this is even worse than Bloombergview's recent article, Libertarians Are the New Communists. If you liked that one, you'll love this: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-09-05/libertarians-are-the-new-communists To their credit, the author starts off with definitions. The problem is, the definition they provide for libertarianism is unlike anything I've ever read in libertarian literature, or heard from any libertarian. They don't bother to say where they got their definition, because they simply made it up. I know it hardly seems possible, but it just gets worse from there. Articles like these are so bad, I can't even justify taking the time to criticize them. They only exist for people seeking to reinforce their confirmation bias. I think it's more worth our time as a community to rectify honest misunderstandings and misconceptions, rather than defend against willfully ignorant slander. I'm fairly certain there's nothing can be said to the authors of these articles that would change their view on the matter, or that of their readership, but perhaps there is a place in our movement for pointing out the fallacies in articles such as these... I'm just not sure I have the energy for it, personally. It's as easy as shooting fish in a bucket, but I come out of it feeling all wet and slimy.

Whether you're abusive to yourself, or others, abuse is abuse. I understand your intent, but I don't think this is a correct manifestation of the principle.

I've never seen anyone warned for language unless they were being abusive, so I think it's more about use. The vagueness is purposeful, as the moderators are more able to use their judgment on what is considered "swearing." I think the point is to keep the conversation reasonable, tasteful, and emotionally safe.

It is difficult to argue this instance of moral responsibility in regard to children. If my neighbor fails to raise their child well, am I morally responsible to compensate for this?

Thank you for helping me better understand the situation. Wading through the swamps of propaganda is disorienting, to say the least. I think these details are important in the philosophical discussion of self-defense, though, so I'm glad you brought them up. To refer to the example in my previous post; if a man is threatened by his neighbor, his reaction may be influenced by the degree of support he perceives from his other neighbors. If he feels threatened by all his neighbors, it may be morally justified to respond with greater force than if he is only threatened by one neighbor, and the rest are friendly. This isn't proven, of course; it is only my supposition.

"Israel" is not "Israelis." Israel is a state. Israelis are people within the borders of Israel. All the actions you describe being performed by "Israel" are reinforcing my point, as they are examples of state aggression. The retaliations made by Palestinians are against the aggression of the State of Israel. Both the Palestinian victims and the Israeli victims are the consequence of state aggression. Therefore, the State of Israel is Tom, The State of Palestine is Jerry, and Bill is represented by the victims on both sides of the border. Also, in one of your earlier posts, you said: Where is your evidence for this claim? It doesn't seem to have worked out very well for the U.S. Terrorist organizations have only gotten stronger since the U.S. has applied massive amounts of force. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary, which has been presented to you, but you ignored it. Robert Pape has compiled vast amounts of evidence contrary to your claim. If you have any rational integrity, you will review your claim, measured against the evidence. Or, you could provide real evidence (not just the anecdotal sort) to support your claim. Yes, I am. Because of the population density, there is no discernible difference in the effect, and it is impossible to know the intent. One difference is that the suicide bomber is not flying miles above his intended victims, or pushing a button from the safety of a bunker. Another difference is that the State of Israel does not acknowledge the impossibility of a surgical strike, but claims they are not targeting civilians, which allows them to incur as many civilian casualties they want, and then claim they were being used as human shields by the terrorists. The terrorists do not pretend to be capable of a surgical strike. I don't discriminate between victims of state aggression, like you do. I don't hold any stake in the conflict, like you do. I haven't made any broad, discriminatory generalizations of a culture or ethnic group, like you have. Project much? Once again, you're proving my point. These Arab leaders are representatives of various STATES. Whatever end of the imminent annihilation they claim to be on, perpetrating or receiving, is irrelevant to my point. It's always a state bringing it about. By your definition of "human shield," then, all the Israelis in those buses and restaurants you mentioned earlier were "human shields" because surgical precision is impossible, and the State of Israel did not reduce their aggression against Palestinians when violence broke out. You can't claim a rule for one person and claim the opposite for another because they live on the other side of an invisible line. Let's say Jerry punches Tom in the face, then runs into a crowded street. Tom runs him down in a car, killing or mauling a few dozen innocents in the process. Is Jerry to blame for the lack of "precision" inherent in the nature of Tom's attack? But if you shouldn't be punished for something your granddad did, why should those in Gaza, who have been born since the imprisonment, be punished for what their parents and grandparents did? Once again, you can't have different moral rules for different geographical regions, religions, races or cultures. I didn't draw a conclusion about Israel and Hamas, I drew a conclusion about the immorality of state aggression, whoever the perpetrator. The analogies were regarding the human shield issue, and I found no great disagreement in the analogies you provided. Therefore, the area of disagreement is beyond the moral implications of taking a human shield, so reasoning from a human shield principle would not have been productive. The area of our disagreement seems to be, rather, what constitutes state aggression, and what constitutes morally justifiable self-defense in response to state violence. Rather than asking, "is it morally justifiable to take a human shield?" it is more productive to first ask, "is taking a human shield self-defense?" Then, we would ask, "at what point does self-defense become immoral?" If a neighbor threatens you, and you punch him in the face, surely this may be morally justifiable. If you burn down his house with his family inside, it may be considered self-defense, but it surely cannot be morally justifiable. So what is the underlying principle that determines what degree of retaliation is morally justifiable? Articulate this principle, and then show how it supports your claims.