dsayers

Have you considered that this adversity may be a reaction to you essentially ignoring half of yourself? Feelings are not evidence of a deity; this is true. This does not mean that your feelings and emotions are useless. In fact, they can be quite helpful in terms of problem solving. Rational thought is a luxury only possible when the emotional part of our brain is satisfied we're not in danger. I speak of this in terms of self-preservation because we live in a world where rational thought is ostracized. For somebody to conceal that aspect of themselves to strangers for the sake of fitting in I don't feel is something worth holding against them. I think the more you pursue self-knowledge, the more you'll be able to know about others. And therefore the easier it will be for you to sift through whether or not a person is worthy of your time or not. Have you begun to process the traumas of your formative years? Have you studied how such things could alter your brain and influence your thoughts/feelings? For example, I'm guessing that the discomfort you feel with regards to your feelings was something that was inflicted upon you for the convenience of somebody that was abusive towards you. I don't know how valuable it would be for you, but Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy gave me a HUGE head start in learning about myself, how to think, and the truth about the traumas I didn't even realized were problematic.

Yes, though I find this wording to be tedious. I find the qualifier of "forceful" as superfluous. For moral consideration, something must be a voluntary behavior that influences property. Where consent is not present, the behavior is immoral. I have argued, and controversially so, that deceit itself is not immoral. However, violating a contract irrefutably is. When parents choose to have a child, they are creating a positive obligation to care for that child until such a time as they are able to do so for themselves. I think that deceit from a parent to a child would be a violation of that obligation, and therefore immoral. To "teach" religion to a child would be to inflict them with an unproven conclusion as if it is proven. This both displaces the truth and damages the child's ability to determine what is true, which ultimately impacts how they are able to care for themselves. Therefore, I would argue that if a parent teaches a child religion as if it is factual, this behavior would be immoral. Similarly, if a parent exposes their child to somebody else that teaches a child religion as if it is factual, the parents behavior again would be immoral.

Why do you want to apologize? Not saying you shouldn't; just curious as to what your motivation/perceived payoff is. Because I don't see how this person is perceived to be would effect it. Either assaulting somebody is wrong and you want to make up for having done so or not, right? Sure you can. Assault is dysfunctional. It is not the default. In order to have the capacity for this dysfunction, you would have had to experience some form of it on your own. Have you identified what this is? Have you processed it? I don't think you could sincerely apologize if you haven't. I would also argue that doing so would be more of an apology than words. In fact, to let the person know that is what you intend to do would be a great way to apologize. It might also encourage him to do the same with regards to whatever has you classifying him as a terrible person. What do you think?

I have a theory that I would like to expose to scrutiny for the sake of discovering the truth. My theory is that "steps in the right direction" is a myth perpetrated by the immoral to trick good people into supporting immorality. I guess the best example is in politics. Take minarchism for example. I would argue that either the initiation of the use of force is immoral or it is not. That if it is, there's no reason to abide any form of government and that if it's not, there's no reason to dial back any form of government. Yet all too often, I hear people refer to political action, voting, specific policies, and anything that would move towards minarchism (but not anarchism) as "a step in the right direction." The problem is that morality is not analog. A behavior is either moral, immoral, or amoral (having no moral component). I wanted to finally open this theory for discussion in response to a recent thread talking about theft-funded government schooling switching from modal A to model B where both models are theft-funded. It was described as "a step in the right direction." If my theory holds, then no "step in the right direction" could be taken short of acknowledging that theft is immoral and ONLY accepting funding from voluntary sources. But this could not be described as "a step in the right direction" but rather "accepting reality." Namely that theft is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights and therefore cannot be valid.

But why is it unsustainable? You cannot fix a problem that you do not fundamentally understand. What they're doing is just guessing. Meaning that even if they guessed right (let's stop funding via ill-gotten gains and switch to a voluntary model), there's no reason to expect that it would last. In order to be a step in the right direction, it would have to be a sound conclusion based on sound methodology. I would even go so far as to argue that "step in the right direction" is a myth perpetrated by the immoral to trick good people into accepting their immorality. Because if they arrived at a universal truth by way of principled analysis, there'd be no reason to hold onto any of it, eliminating the possibility of stepping. Also, is unsustainability paramount? I would argue that the moral consideration is paramount. That moral solutions are sustainable is nice, but that's not where the value of morality comes from. It comes from the fact that it is an acceptance of reality, including one's own capacity for error, and is internally consistent. Finally, I just wanted to point out that what you're referring to would not be the free market. Being happy that people would get to see that the free market works would not apply. People would still be stolen from to fund it, so it is ineligible for the description of free market. Free market is the sum of voluntary interactions completely devoid of coercion.

Their use of "atheists are outraged" is an assertion. I would argue it's also projection. People who accept the truth and their own capacity for error don't respond to the irrational with irrationality.

Dry is not evidence of wet even though it provides a frame of reference for NOT dry. In the context that atheists are humans, yes. Otherwise, this is an absurd claim as the label "atheist" means not believing in a deity. NOT (something that defies reality) is not an extraordinary claim. Nor could there be evidence for the absence of existence. Also, "this would apply to atheists as well," does not satisfy the need for extraordinary evidence required by your extraordinary claim of the existence of a deity. You're deflecting. False dichotomy. Exists means is made of matter and energy. That something exists and how it came to exist aren't even comparable and therefore could never logically be opposing or all encompassing. Also, if it is your premise that everything that exists must have been created, then who created the creator? Who created the creator of the creator? And so on ad infinitum. It is a performative contradiction to put forth integrity as a standard if you are unwilling or unable to comply to that standard yourself. Disingenuous indeed.

Except that it's not. If theft (taxation) is immoral, then how the spoils of theft are distributed is irrelevant. If they can get you to ask the wrong questions (merit pay or ____ instead of the initiation of the use of force or peaceful interaction), they don't care what your answers are.

Was the role itself the reason you left those jobs? Or were there other factors such as specific people, potential of that role to expand, etc?

These two sentences are not saying the same thing. One has the qualifier of "in child abuse" while the other does not. This is important because in the absolute, the first sentence is false whereas it would be true within the context of "in child abuse." As an aside, it is unclear as to what the value in determining somebody's will is. With regards to ANY human behavior that directly impacts another person, the paramount consideration is morality as immoral actions are internally inconsistent.

From the opening post: Adjusting for the clarification of my use of the word "fraud" instead of "deceit before consent," at no point have I operated under the assumption that anybody would enjoy the deceit or that the deceit is good. The question is: is it IMMORAL? Is it the initiation of the use of force? Does it violate property rights? I took the position that it is not immoral because it is voluntary. I provided the null hypothesis that in order to be immoral despite being voluntary, one would have to logically prove that one party is responsible for understanding the exchange while the other is not AND that the person consenting to an exchange they didn't understand would be the responsibility of NOT the person doing the consenting. I apologize for the 3rd time that my use of the word "fraud" has clouded the discussion. However, I feel I've engaged in due diligence in clearing up this mistake. I've also now thrice put those same questions to you specifically, shirgall, which you refuse to address. Which means that we are, at this point, talking about different things entirely. I reject that immorality can be found where consent is present as consent is the antithesis of immorality. I am sorry that I have wasted your time that you've spent talking about something other than the question of this thread. @powder: No, the first sentence of his second paragraph is evidence that he is talking about his interpretation of the word "fraud" instead of what the topic is actually asking about. The topic is asking about where consent is present and he's talking about where consent is not present without the rigor of logically explaining how consent is not present where it is present.

"Makes sense" is both undefined and not the criteria for immorality. The questions were: 1) How can you logically claim that one party is responsible for understanding the exchange but the other is not? 2) How can you logically claim that if a party enters into an exchange they do not understand, somebody else is more responsible for that than they are? To be clear, "fraud" is not what's being asked about. It was jettisoned on page 1 once the use of the word was found to be obfuscating. So the question is HOW do you arrive at the conclusion that deceiving somebody is immoral. Please observe the challenges I've posited to shirgall. Poisoning somebody is assault, not deceit. If somebody buying shoes views being manufactured by a specific brand as a requisite, they can do business with the company directly, with authorized sellers, reputable vendors, etc. If a man has sex with a woman he knows so poorly that she could lie to him in that fashion, how is he not responsible? It keeps coming back to the same two challenges I put forth in the opening post and they remain unassailed. Surprisingly, multiple people are asserting as if the challenges have not been put forth.

How will they determine where is "here"? How will they determine where is "there"? What will they do if there are no boxes "here"? What will they do if "there" has no room to accommodate those boxes? Ambition doesn't enter into it; An employer would place higher value on an employee that understands/can be taught these things over one that doesn't/can't. An employer would place higher value still on an employee that understood those as well as (for example) how to rectify the problem of there not being boxes "here". And so on. Still, I do appreciate the correction as my use of the word ambition was imprecise. Thank you for that.

I don't see this as having acknowledged my challenges to your position. You stated a conclusion and I sought clarity as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

How is that immoral? How can you logically claim that one party is responsible for understanding the exchange but the other is not? How can you logically claim that if a party enters into an exchange they do not understand, somebody else is more responsible for that than they are?

Your lack of integrity has gotten to the point of disgusting. You had just said that you wanted to get closer to objective truth. When that is refuted, you add the caveat that it must be experienced. But that which is experiential is not objective and that which is objective exists independent of individual experience. Countries don't exist. What is meant by "Christian country"? How can you describe something as both Christian and scientific when you yourself claim that Christianity must be experienced and scientific mean objectively provable? What is ethical about MURDERING people for reading a different book, or believing in a different bogey man, or accepting that the Sun is the center of the solar system? People do moral things because it's logically consistent and integral to self-preservation. But it's good that you've identified that religions were constructed as a mechanism to control human beings.

This is why appeals to authority are fallacious. Consequently, why I've made a conscious decision in my own life not to put forth quotes from people as if it's proof of anything. If we understand that theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral because they're logically inconsistent--and not because some guy named Jesus said so--then it doesn't matter if there ever was a Jesus or not.

No you do not. You've repeatedly rejected objectivity. This is common manipulation by way of projection. You come here and speak as if those who accept no deity are rigid because your interpretation of reality is closed-minded. I accept no deity not because I'm closed minded or rigid, but because it most accurately describes the real world. This is despite many of the failed attempts to refute it. Offering up those same failed refutation attempts is not going to influence those who have already considered it. If objective truth was truly your interest, you'd demonstrate more of an investment in WHY your ideas are rejected rather than the fact that they were rejected.

The problem you see is that they just don't have enough money or power. If we give just a little bit more of each, all of our wildest dreams will come true. /sarcasm I think we need to come up with a different word for coercive regulations. I think the reason they use the word regulation is to sound beneficial.

NOT behavior has no moral component as one of the requisites for moral consideration is behavior. What you are doing with your every post is taking something simple (theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral), throwing a whole bunch of stuff on top of it, and then claiming that with all that stuff on top of it, it's complicated. What is it you feel you stand to gain by portraying objective morality as so complicated? The reason I ask is because if you seriously need a moral grey area to think about, one needs look no further than the inevitable gradient of human offspring growing from creature to creature with capacity for rational thought. So many rich and truly useful conversations could arrive from that alone.

I stopped reading at The author spends no time defining terms, meaning he doesn't understand that in order to be taken seriously, one needs to define terms. Neither libertarian nor spontaneous order were defined. Spontaneous order is not a libertarian idea any more than "gravity attracts mass" is. Spontaneous order is an observation of the real world populated by creatures of free will, just as "gravity attracts mass" is an observation of the real world. He not only didn't define spontaneous order, but he didn't even understand the fundamental nature of it. If a human wants a pencil in a vacuum, they would need to keep themselves fed, sheltered, and healthy while they fashioned tools, gathered raw materials, developed machines to process the materials, etc. It would take an individual years. If more than one person wants a pencil, they can work together and diversify. Who processes food, medicine, tools, etc can be split up so that each person that wants a pencil is providing value to others in exchange for others providing value to them. Otherwise known as division of labor. Division of labor is important to understand because it demonstrates why peaceful interaction and things like spontaneous order are THE DEFAULT: It's integral to one's survival! I emphasize THE DEFAULT because so many people talking about these things always treat peaceful interaction as if it's something we'd have to make an effort towards. It's also the reason why even if government programs actually did serve human desire, it would harm human survival by subsidizing the need to co-operate with others for personal survival/gain.

In order to determine better/worse, you'd have to define criteria/ideal. I'd argue democracy is worst for 2 reasons: Ignoring scale, why is taxation worse than theft? Because it is perceived to be legitimate. You can never be healthy if you view a cancerous growth as a provider of happiness. Democracy is the only system of ruling that I know of that is co-operative. I don't mean in a rational choice way as choice is not possible where coercion is present. However, the perceived legitimacy masks the coercion in the perceptions of most of its victims and indeed the world's population.

@scn: War and defensive force are not interchangeable concepts. One is the initiation of the use of force and the is not. A homeowner shooting a home invader is not comparable to a government bombing a building. 1) Government being a concept and not a moral actor cannot own property. Therefore nothing done in the name of government can be said to be defensive. 2) A bomb can never be used in the context of defensive force as it's effect cannot be controlled by the person utilizing it. 3) Attacking a building could never be described as defensive force for the same reason. You mention "many against few," but this merely obfuscates the conversation. Humans are not fundamentally different in proximity to other humans. Crowds do not have emergent properties. To understand the morality of behaviors of individuals is to understand those same behaviors by those same individuals when other people are there also. You said action vs inaction, but these are not comparable. Morality applies to behaviors not a void of behavior. I covered this well in my first post. Which you've done nothing to address other than to substitute defensive force for war. I'm typing right now, which means I'm NOT engaging in X-1 behaviors where X is every possible behavior (a nearly infinite number). To suggest that an interpretation could be attached to my NOT engaging in any one of those behaviors is logically impossible.

Sorry to hear about this. It's counter-productive. Every employee of every company should be getting trained on how to do their boss's job. It's better for everybody involved, from the owner of the company to the customers. If I were in charge of hiring, I would prefer those with ambition over those who would choose to stagnate for five years.

It is indeed delightful listening to the religious talk about OTHER religions/believers as if they're batty. My father, who is Christian, recently stated that Catholics always rubbed him the wrong way because everything they do seems made up, but they seem to be the experts on "unpossessing."