Slavik

Can you give me an example where private property was used short term in a destructive manner?

A female and a male are both acting agents in this case, and both are aware that whatever they do, might have consequences. Female in your scenario can keep a child no matter what the father says, or even if he is no longer present, after one night, she can give birth to a child and demand child support. The principle "take responsibility for your actions" still doesnt work as it supports my position as well, having intercourse and choosing to get pregnant and choosing to keep a child, is what a female does with full knowledge. If the male is saying that he doesnt want a child, he knows fully that it is her actions that she must take full responsibility for. You need to come up with a principle where someone can seek life long restitution from a person who never used any force against them, and was never under any contract to begin with. The only Contract is marriage, so get married before having children. If you are murdering someone, it is never acceptable. Unless you are talking about self defense which is a completely different term.

At which point is the father of the child able to say no I dont want to take care of that child? Everything you have stated is the exceptions for the mother. You dont have any way for the father to not take on the responsibility. The principle has never been said by you, I have asked you for the principle multiple times and have not seen it, I might have missed it "be responsible for our actions" is not the principle since this is precisely what we are debating, as in who is responsible. " Depends on the specifics. There are exceptions to every rule, so saying "all" biological parents should have to pay child support doesn't work.. In fact, I'd already said that in cases of rape and them purposely increasing the risk they took all of the responsibility for themselves." It doesnt work because it can not be universalized. You have only made exceptions for the mother while there is no way for the father to not have that responsibility. A principle is that which applies to all equally with no exceptions, otherwise it become a mere opinion, which you will have to enforce with violence. The exceptions you gave all you will end up with is the "father" saying "Oh I was tricked," there goes your exception and we are back to what I was saying. there is no way to prove if he was tricked or not, so all you will end up with is a large "he said she said in most cases." So yet again, what is the principle that directly has to do with pregnancy and not "be responsible" as this type of principle can be used to support my view as well. Plus find one that applies to both with no exceptions . By the way "fathers stereotypicaly trying to not pay child support," is a false stereotype, in the current system, fathers lose all custody of children, and thats why most of them dont want to pay since they do not get to see them.

Hi mate. I can understand you wanting to find a mate, as you can see, this forum and most philosophical forums will be a proverbial "sausage fest." The only thing I can think of, is a small suggestion if you do not mind. Make a list of traits that a person must have as a pre-requisite for you to date them. By that I mean the traits that will indicate to you that a woman has the capacity for being virtuous. After all, we all started at the ground floor and we all either have learned how to be virtuous or what it means in the first place. So, get a list of traits and go "forth and multiply." Sorry couldn't resist, go out and find the woman of virtue Best of luck.

You are still not talking principles and taking analogies. Thats fine then. So with this principle of forced child support you get "biological parent can be forced to pay child support no matter what." Then still a mother giving up her child for adoption can be forced to pay child support, since she was aware of the consequences, she is a biological parent, and it doesnt matter that financially she can not support the child (the reason for giving it up). I would like to see how this principle would be welcomed. You are still addressing only fathers in your examples while ignoring the other biological parent. Argument from analogy is another fallacy by the way, it can only be used after the principle is discussed to illustrate it, not instead of the principle. Analogies by themselves are not principles and do not hold proper arguments. So are you ok with all biological parents being forced to pay child support? Using your own logic it does follow.

Forcing one party to pay child support, while allowing the other to completely remove all responsibility from themselves is never universal. So the principle is "the biological parent has to pay child support even if they do not want to." Well then if mother gives a child up for adoption then by the principle she can be forced to pay child support. Yes not paying child support can be universalized. Woman can rid of that responsibility, as they do so now, and so can men, this is universal. Calling something a "mental back flip" is not an argument, I hope you can get that. Appealing to emotions is a fallacy, please do not use that, there are many things that are not fair and may hurt others or can be perceived as such. You still have not proposed a theory of how forced child support can be universalized. I very much so want men to take responsibility, and that is why I want women to be responsible first and foremost. What women want is how men will behave, when women want to sleep with the "bad boys" as what we have now, we get more bad boy, when women start asking for men to be more responsible and start looking for such qualities in men, then you will get men who are very responsible. Stefan has covered this many times in his podcasts.

In first paragraph you are describing either using services for which you must pay or you are stealing, or damage to the property for which you must pay or you are aggressing against another persons. Go back to the principle can you universalize it or not? If you can not universalize the principle it becomes incorrect thus non enforceable. Now on the last paragraph, do you realize that with this straw man argument you have just insulted me? What child support am I not paying? What in the world are you talking about. I dont even have children for the sole reason that I dont yet have finances. Dont use personal when talking about principles. With your last statement you have actually hit on something incredibly painful. I personal take great responsibility in choosing a proper woman and to have finances before having family. With this "welfare state = single mother state" And "lets subsidize careless women state" we have women who go around sleeping with whom ever they want, having children with careless asshole men who leave them, and now its becoming more and more difficult to find a good, responsible woman who doesnt have children yet, and state is taking half my pay check to subsidize them. So again, universalize the principle, and if it can not it be universalized then its incorrect, and stay away from personal.

The only implicit contract a woman has is when she absolutely agrees to take care of the child, there is always a choice to give the child away after birth, so no its not kill a child let a child live thats a false dichotomy. Now the implication of taking care of is to the child, not to a grown person, a soon as this child grows and becomes an adult, no contracts or implied contracts are present. Here you can see a difference because a child is absolutely unable to care for itself, its physically a different being, therefore an exception in this case is no longer a fallacy. Social contract exists with the logic that the majority can enforce the laws on the minority of people, or one half on to the other (just like women on to men). Implied contracts in your examples do not require a consent, if a woman gets pregnant and chooses to have a child, a man has no say in it. If a woman decides to keep a child and not to give it up, even though a man is long gone, in your examples it would be ok to go hunting him down to force him to pay for the child, even though he never wanted that child. Where is the consent for the child? I wasnt making any arguments about sex.

When I said accidental in quotes I was being sarcastic. the whole point is nine months to birth a child which is clearly not accidental, but rather well thought ought intentional 9 months worth of deliberations and giving birth to a child with a man who clearly isnt the right person. So the accidental examples you brought up can be dismissed, since I wasnt saying that it is accidental. Im not sure where I use legality when I talk about establishment of moral laws being universal without exceptions, you either accept that moral laws and further legal rules established have to be universal or you dont. If you dont accept the universality, I would like to hear why you dont, an not by any given specific examples, but rather with logic. I am not accusing you of supporting social contract I obviously understand that you do not support it. I was asking if you see how your support of non universality and implicit contracts can be used in support of social contract, I also asked you to tell me how it is not the same in principle.

Any laws that are not universal, end up with a fallacy called "special pleading." Calling something unfair doesnt address the fact that something which is not universal, is illogical thus should not be enforced. By principle, if you create one exception, you open the door to other exceptions. There is 9 months is "accidental" creation, so people should be very responsible for what they do. By not allowing any exceptions, and by not enforcing that which was chosen voluntarily, you will have a greater amount of responsibility, and greater amount of caution exercised by women when choosing men. Enforcement of payment is what you have right now, and its not only immoral to use force against someone who has never entered into explicit contract, but it also given a tremendous out for women to be irresponsible, as we can see in current culture. I do not see how your examples cover the principle of non aggression. If someone infects you knowingly (if you can prove that) then yes it is their responsibility noww for using aggression against you, if it is done unknowingly then you can not claim aggression against you. The principle is non aggression, if aggression used then you can seek restitution, if no aggression is used then you can not seek restitution, as there is no bases for it. Ok so would it be correct to say that you are for the "social contract?" It implied by social convention after all and seems to fit every criteria you present the rest by.

Being pregnant is one thing, but we are talking about a child that apparently only one party wanted but the other didnt. I dont see how one person can force another to pay, while that person can absolutely negate the contract without any incurred costs (giving up for adoption or abortion.) All laws have to be universal, otherwise you end up with tyranny of one part of the population. A woman in this case has decided to get pregnant with what appears to be the wrong person, voluntarily. Unless an explicit contract has been signed AKA marriage, I do not see how a law that is only enforced non universally on one part of the population, can be considered moral. The escape clause in the business contract is implicit contract since both parties sign it. "Also social contract =/= implied contract. " not sure what that means, so is it or is it not implied ? And why is it not an implied contract?

Pregnancy is harm? Can you expand on that please? If you loan me your car, I dont have to pay parking tickets per contract, sure that would make me a complete ass, but it doesnt make it immoral, nor am I contractually obligated. Implicit contracts especially in pregnancy do not exist, abortion demonstrates it very well Isnt "social contract" an implicit contract that we as anarchists completely disagree with?

In my mind I ask this question " is the father who isnt paying child support initiating force?" Of course given that no prior contract was made, I do not see how forcing someone to pay child support would be moral. So I would say no, I dont think it is moral to force a parent to pay child support.

There is a good argument that is your proposed system of moral rules leads you to "genocide = moral" then you must have done something wrong and you should go back to the drawing board. Kinji's proposed self interest as a moral absolute rule means that its purely subjective to what any given person believes. Taking this logic further, looking into the history, Nazis thought that it was in their self interest to exterminate the unwanted, which using his own terms would make those actions moral. I did propose this argument when debating with him, he added that "well Nazis have lost the war, which makes it clear that it was not in their self interest." I find this rebuttal to be absolutely incorrect for the simple fact that in their present they had no idea how it would turn out, so the thought remained in their mind that it was in their self interest. Moral rules inform us how to behave in the present, there is no such definition proposed "self interest with knowledge of the future outcomes." So, taking his proposition to its logical conclusion makes absolutely no sense.

Reading the study, it seems to be conflating statistics and outcomes. 1) Drug abuse comes from neglect/abuse, not from single parent family alone, the previous factors must be present. 2) Single parent difficulties come into play with relationship with opposite sex, with success at work and social success, regulating emotions etc. 3) In the study she has decided to include other family members into the mix (as in, single mother plus her family).

In most of my debates, It gets very tiring to argue statistics. As Im sure you are aware, the arguing for statistics can also turn into arguing about sources of given statistics, being either dismissed of hand by opposing party, or you might be given statistics that end up being skewed on purpose. As an example the feminist (women get 77c on the dollar for the same work.) When I debate people, I ask questions, and try to bring it to the moral questions. For me, it is not important to try and prove to the other party that consequentially my idea works better statistically, all that is important to me is whether the system proposed is moral. Proposing a system (universal healthcare) means that all people will be forced with the threat of violence, to fork over their earnings into that given system. Threatening people with violence is immoral, thus no such system should be proposed. I cut to the heart of it really fast now a days, I really do not want to debate "would the system of slavery be beneficial statistically, or will it not." As mentioned in podcasts before, we all want to be, and think that what we are proposing is moral. I want to show people that what they might be proposing is absolutely immoral.

I choose sustainability, because I am the one who owns the land, and I know that I need it for much longer than just few seasons. This example can be seen in lumber business, you have people planting trees as a crop all around the globe (where they can sell it on the market) and then on the other hand you have rain forests being cut out, because its the government who owns the land (AKA no one owns it). The examples of predation in "publicly" owned places is all over the world. USSR has drained and destroyed rivers, poisoned lands, over-hunted, over-fished, overproduced and so on.

Ok Im trying to understand this. So Governments, or Tyrants or whichever rulers borrow the money in order to finance their vote buying and wars. Banks loan them the money, and its the bankers fault that the rulers borrow ? Tell me what Im missing here? Isnt this the same as blaming corporations for lobbying the government, and thinning that government is innocent here? And one more serious question, what is the purpose of constantly mentioning a particular nationality when you are talking about such things as banking and economics at large? How does nationality = something? Im open to learning.

Evolutionary speaking, there are species that are social, in order for a pack to survive better, animals evolved to have certain rules so as to not hurt each other and to remain stronger as a pack. This can be seen on a rudimentary level with many species and animals within. Wolfs, monkeys etc. This concept taken further with people due to spoken language and concept formation, allowing us to extract first principles etc. Humans are social creatures to a very high degree, so the idea to not hurt others eventually was conceptualized into base principles, as in we named that which we consider to be beneficial for the individuals. The advancement of the brain is what allowed us to take the concepts much further and to expand upon the previously formed concepts. Even with humans we can easily see the conceptual evolution. Using a child as a sacrifice to the "gods" used to be the norm, beating children used to be the norm. Killing people for being gay was the norm, enslavement was also considered to be "moral" or good until a certain point. We have yet to reach the pinnacle of the "moral" evolution even by today's standards. I am really am not sure what the idea of god has to do with anything, by saying that "god did it" is fallacious by the simple fact that "god" is not and hos never been proven to exist in the first place.

Ok, lets say for a moment that when we get to the root of things some of us will have trouble getting the exacts of where morality has originated. Well all we will end up saying at some point is "I do not know" same as with what happened before big bang, thus far its "I do not know." How does the "I do not know" answer help you at all? What are you driving at with this question?

No one owns the land until someone cultivates it, places a house on it, fence etc. Then the person who has cultivated it, owns it.

Just to add a little bit since the point was raised by MMX, the various types of therapies that are in existence and widely practiced today address the point very well. The discovery process is well done with Dynamic Therapy (and some other types), the what now part is absolutely addressed in most of modern therapies, but in CBT it is the primary focus.

Well I will admit that I have been guilty of doing so myself on a few occasions. I do agree with you that it stops the conversation completely, well I did use it in order to stop the conversation to begin with. A few times when debating such things as spanking, I would first debate, then when I see that they are just throwing opinions out, I would ask them to tell me where is the opinion coming from, their background, so as to figure out if its an educated opinion or appeals to emotions. But yes, it does tend to stop the conversation in its tracks.

Hi Dan. This is a very interesting question indeed. As to the question "Should you be in a relationship with someone you know you could never love?" That would depend on how you define a relationship. There is such a thing as being alone with people around you. By that I mean you are around people, yet you have to hide who you really are in order to be with them in the first place, this indeed can a person very lonely. I have had a wonderful relationship in the past, we have connected incredibly well, it was absolutely wonderful. Personally I am now hoping to find someone I can connect with on the similar level as I have before. I really do not see a reason to be with someone where I can not be myself, or where I can not enjoy being with that person aside from physical. While you are with her, are you really looking for someone? Does she know that you are doing so? If no, then how is dishonesty reflected on your moral character? Finally, I imagine like all of us, you have a certain capacity for learning philosophy and exploring your inner self. What do you think are the markers for it? Most of us have started from zero when it comes to this knowledge, if you find those markers (honesty, kindness, curiosity and so on) maybe it would be a good idea to look for a woman with those qualities so you could introduce her to the topics you are interested in?