luizpauloalbers

Yagami, I agree with you, I believe the best way of all is ostracize! But is it the only valid way? Dsayers, I actually don't know, my friend talked about a fine, but actually I get really confused with the term punishment, could this ever be consider an ethical action? Like the right to punish someone? For me it seems completely wrong in any circustance, as it seems for this one. What do you think?

Zerubbabel, this answer was actually really close to mine, it is easy to see that we shouldn't have a regulatory agency controlling these informations, so it would contain them only for them as you sad. What my question really want to talk about is should the guy who has these information be morally obligated to maintain it for himself? Dsayers, Let's say that we can statistically prove that after the speech of this public figure advocating a specif crime, people have radically increased the crimes. Doesn't make any difference at all? The people who suffered the crimes have nothing to do with this public figures?

My friend came to me with the dilemma of a guy having the recipe of a homemade bomb (strong as a nuclear bomb). Should this person be punished if he released this information to everyone on the internet for example? What about if someone (let's thing of a public figure) advocates crimes such as murder and raping to everyone? What are your thoughts about that?

I tried to say, that the main priority of all, it is talking the true. But that doesn't mean you have to be rude, or even nice. Which is an argument in agreement with rudeness is not mutually exclusive from truth. The point is how to speak the true can change the results you have on others.Actually rude, might not be the perfect word (although sometimes I would use this word), I think inpatient is the best word to describe it. It is hard to say what videos and specially when in the videos (after all the videos are usually huge) he presented these new characteristics, as some of you recognized, he changed.The last call-in show I saw was "How to not fight evil", despite the fact I didn't agree with the guy, I could really see a philosophical doubt of him and a big open minded. Stefan got really inpatient many times, and as he was live, I notice some mistakes of him, which is something normal when you don't have much time to think about a subject, but he sounded arrogant instead a little more humble (which I believe would be a better attitude). Please don't think this is the only call I thought he acted with a lack of communication or even the worst, is just one of the examples which was fresh in my memory.I just want to repeat one thing again that I didn't say in any moment: RUDENESS DOES NOT INVALIDATE TRUE. I of course agree with you guys on that.I liked you last sentence, it makes perfect sense, one of the things I didn't consider much, it is the willing of the callers of having straight talks, wanting a big step, which is reasonable. But also there is a trade-off in this sense, between callers and listeners. New listeners can stop watching the program while some callers the exact opposite.It would be very nice to talk with some of the guys who were callers of this shows...

1 - "Emotional manipulation" 2 - "Philosophy has no time for bullshit" 3 - "Maybe philosophy it is not for you"Is this kind of thing that I am talking about, I came here with the willing to put new ideas and get others (which some people did), and you just put affirmations without even asking some questions more and try to know a little more of my reasons, It looked like you had no interest of my view, just wanted to put your (which is of course absolutely right).I am going to reply you in each topic, so maybe we can understand us more1- Really? Why would I try to do that? Of course I am not sure about that, it is an attempt of understanding what is going on. It is a perfect reasonable guess. If it isn't, you can show me where it is my mistake, because you didn't talk about that.2- Philosophy is the method, but it involves communication to get people to understand things. A good teacher of math is not necessary the best mathematician, the best one, is the one who makes people understand math. So no, having a better communication with people (which involves patient and smiles), is not bullshit. 3- So if I believe that Stefan is a good philosopher, but he is getting a worse teacher, is completely reasonable, for me stop donating. After all, the whole purpose of doing it, is spreading philosophy.When I had no idea of what philosophy is, and saw some hard conversation that Stefan has, I would maybe find he an idiot, but because he had such a good communication on the beginning, I could understand it, and now I can have more direct conversations about philosophy. My whole point is getting potential philosophers not getting interested because of the lack of politeness of Stef.But after some comments, I also saw some positive affect of the direct approach, at least in high members, what you guys think about the affect on new members? That is a good point. It is always much much better, being rude then not talking the true.But I am not that sure if this is always rude, I know many people that I have to get them with small steps, if I do a big step of true, they run away, I actually have many problems with doing that hahah

Wuzzums, did I say that his arguments are not correct? or even the opposite? My comment doesn't have anything to do with his arguments.Hmm, yeah I think something is necessary to be hard with some people, specially when it comes to talking true statements that people don't want to accept. When I say that Stefan has been too impatient, doesn't mean that all his actions are wrong, Maybe for some people (like you guys) it is been better this way, which is totally fine. I hope more people have your opinion then mine, after all I still want the message been spread, I am just afraid this is one of the reasons the donations are going down.

I have notice a big change in Stefan's mood and patience. He does not seem the same guy, trying to explain his arguments with elegance and a lot of education. Of course I understand the importance of saying the truth, but I can't understand why so much arrogance is needed. I can't imagine Stefan debating with Peter Joseph nowadays in the same class as he did, trying to be friendly and polite (at least in the beginning of their conversation, before Peter been so rude)I would like to see more patience and mainly, more smiles. I have lost my willing to donate my bitcoins. Does anyone here feels the same thing?

No one wants to join this dilemma?

Nice replay, thank you! I totally agree that the market would work in a very different way that it is today (and of course much more effective). So I will try to focus more on the arguments of ethics that you gave on the beginning of your text.Your examples connected with your arguments actually show, that on the same way that NAP works only when you are not suffering an attack, it also does not work when you have a high risk of having an attack, meaning that risk is already accounted in the NAP. Which does make a lot of sense. Now, my issue is the interpretation of the individual of the real risk. What happen when you decide to use violence against someone because you believe that his action might imply you some risk, but they actually aren't (there are some cases which are really hard to have certain about the size of the risks you have). I understand that it is a grey area and that is not a big deal... but what about the people who has a really bad ability of recognizing risks? Which I would say the majority of the world have this problem in some areas.Now considering risks on the NAP, some actions (usually not defended by libertarians included me) start to be valid. For example if the majority believes that using drugs can lead them to addiction and collapse society, and after that inflecting their properties. Or what about if the majority believes that without a state, the society would also collapse, therefore they need a central authority with the monopoly of the use of force? And a group of an specif religion which believes that God will punish them if someone who doesn't believe in they God remains alive (and they are from the demons of course), are they been moral by killing people from other religions? and the others? Is someone not moral responsible for his action when he doesn't have the ability to recognize the true risks? Doesn't this argument gives more responsibility to the knowledge of the risks rather the NAP itself in some areas? Even better...doesn't this argument gives more responsibility to the knowledge of economics and logic of convincing someone to become anarchist? How can we claim about NAP, if they believe that the risks of having a failure are too high. Shouldn't then we work harder on the economic arguments rather then philosophy alone?

I've been stuck the last days with some questions, maybe you guys can help me out!I found really hard to understand if the risk of something morally wrong to happen does influence the morality of an action to prevent it, and if it does, how to defined what are their limits.For example... It is almost proved that alcohol creates a problem when it comes to driven something. So, should we enforce a law (even in a private case, after all something funded privately can be morally wrong as well) which prevent pilots from drinking?Of course we can claim that the pilot would suffer the consequences if he crashes by paying restitution (probably not him because he wouldn't likely survive an accident, but let's say the insurance that he had payed). But what about if the society (the market in a free world), wouldn't want to be expose to such a high risk?On the other hand, to enforce that we are kind of interfering with violence a pacific person that hasn't done any harm to others (yet haha).Please don't get attach to the example. Let's think about a situation that we know that we have a 90% of risk to people if a certain action is taken (which is not a act of violence by itself). Should we use violence to prevent that?

Does anyone has read a good book about peaceful parenting and want to share?