dsayers

Except this isn't a step at all. Guessing the right answer has no long term benefits. You cannot get from where they are to what they claim to want and ALSO think that the ability to vote is righteous or justified. Meaning they're just trying SOMETHING instead of trying to understand the problem so they can actually address it instead of pretending to address the symptom. That's partially our fault. Most everybody has been indoctrinated to succumb to "authority" for the convenience of those who came before us. However, as philosophers, we understand that voting is the initiation of the use of force, that governments are predicated on immoral behaviors, that nations do not exist, etc. Their lack of understanding and precision is due in part because we haven't done enough to help those still trapped in these mental cages to understand and escape. Not trying to pick on you specifically. Their dedication is impressive and that's a common takeaway for sure. But saying, "good for them," helps us to sit on our laurels as if we've done enough. Much better for them, ourselves, our children, and indeed mankind in general is to focus on whether or not people have the right to rule over others (a logically inconsistent position) and if we need violence to solve ANY problem.

The zombie/subliminal claim is internally inconsistent. It claims that one party in an exchange is responsible for understanding the exchange but the other party is not. This paragraph was full of red flags for me. Who are "the elite"? Why is the free market being compared to communism and fascism? Seems like an attempt to color the conversation by likening the subject matter to things that will invoke a specific, unsavory reaction. What does what the masses have to gain have anything to do with why a company would sell a toaster or a fridge? The people who make and/or sell anything do so for profit, not because it will make the world a better place. Why would we point the finger to State schools? Children do not choose to go there. They are forced to by their parents, which would make the parents responsible. Parents have the ability to negotiate with their children and teach them rational thought even before the State tries to get their hands on them.

Choosing which hood ornament is on the car that runs you over isn't the same as choosing to not be run over.

Unchosen positive obligations are unethical. The initiation of the use of force is immoral. You're begging the question by putting forth "wartime" as if it's legitimate. Just as in the trolley whatever, you're putting forth that the bystander is at all involved. Also, it's fallacious to claim that choice is possible where coercion is present. Finally, it's a severe miscalculation to say that because you cannot interpret the scenario, we need people that throw trolleys at everybody every day if they don't obey arbitrary edicts. If you don't have the right to steal from, assault, rape, and murder people, you cannot give that right to others.

I am a reddit newb. I see, "This just happened at the grocery store. The mother looked so embarrassed," but no frame of reference appears to be provided for what "this" refers to. What am I missing? As for the comments, just as with slavery, the extension of personhood to children is inevitable. It cannot be stopped. The only question remains as to how quickly it will be completely unfashionable to utter support for child abuse in any form. This will be decided by how vocal and firm we are in spreading the news. Still, it is good to see such results so quickly.

@PetrKL: Source? The following is predicated on him actually saying those words: It starts by saying the market has found a new way to piss him off. The market is people, so he's complaining to people that they piss him off. While not being honest about who/what he's pissed off at. If waste was his concern, why would he make all those DVDs? Digital distribution networks have been in place for many years now. The claim of "waste" as the problem is again not honest. "inventory doesn't move as fast as Amazon likes" This is again not honest. Amazon's preferences have nothing to do with it. It costs money to maintain buildings and somebody else's stuff in that building costs the owner of the building. It sounds as if Amazon provided this storage up front for free and his problem is that they're taking this generosity off the table as the merch has overstayed its welcome. Rather than be grateful he didn't have to pay for the storage from the get go, he demonizes his business partner for adhering to the terms of their partnership. More dishonesty: He speaks as if he's encouraged to "totally waste" the DVDs. As if he's a victim of a malicious, external source. When in fact the waste was his own error. Not only has digital distribution been around for years, but so has the concept of pre-sale. Pre-sales are an incredibly helpful market signal for gauging interest in your product. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that entrepreneurs have figured out that if you have X pre-sales, then you want to manufacture Y * X units where Y is a factor derived from empirical evidence of total sale to pre-sale ratio. The takeaway is that he's not responsible for any of his actions and any bad decisions he's made are either misrepresented outright or portrayed as a victimization of him. I don't understand why somebody would self-publish such a thing. Doesn't he realize that the market will punish him for being a failure, being dishonest, and maligning his business partner for engaging in the terms HE agreed to?

Maybe I should watch it again. I didn't particularly care for it. I liked Jon's move from the superficial to the intimate, but it didn't seem realistic. People don't make changes like that and it last if it is unprincipled. I also found the family scenes rather unbearable.

Santa Claus doesn't exist. There isn't some balance sheet somewhere that says you can steal a bottle of booze so long as you put in an hour at your local soup kitchen. Bottles of booze do not occur in nature. As such, it's very existence is proof that it belongs to SOMEBODY. The infrastructure of Walmart is of no concern to me. The person in question knows that the owner of the bottle is not him, so to take it is theft and therefore immoral. I don't understand your comparative questions. I've already rejected the premise the moral/immoral/amoral is analog and accepted that damage done by immoral acts is analog. It's additionally confusing because putting in an hour at the local soup kitchen for example, while nice, does nothing to compensate the victim of the theft of the bottle of booze. They are isolated behaviors. Also, you did not answer my question about proximity to immorality taking a back seat to a contract that has no stipulation of abiding immoral (and illegal) behaviors. You don't seem the least bit concerned that a thief could be invited into your home without your consent or knowledge.

When people choose to become parents, they are creating a positive obligation to protect, care, and provide for their child until such a time as they're able to do so on their own. Choosing a co-parent that could be a threat to her offspring is not protecting you at all. It's endangering you before you're even conceived.

She is not there voluntarily and cannot leave. Her biological parents created a positive obligation to satisfy her needs until such a time she is able to do so herself. If you did not voluntarily create such an obligation to her when you married him, then such a conflict of needs would require that you leave the situation, not her. I realize the thread (and OPers presence) are outdated, but I think this is an important clarification.

I would argue that the parent-child relationship is the most important one. Hitler's father beat him into a coma regularly, his mother chose that man to be his father, and how many human beings ended up murdered as a result? Abuse by a significant other has never had this extent of damage. Even if it had, that abuse was only possible because the victim was primed for victimhood by his parents. I agree that the purpose of marriage is to publicly commit to garner support for the raising of children. In a free society, where peaceful interaction is the norm, would such a thing be necessary? I really don't think so. A buddy of mine who is a very rational thinker got married despite them having no intentions of having children. We recently started talking about this and he sees value in making such a public commitment also for the sake of garnering support just for their relationship. I'm ambivalent. Even in the context of support for the raising of children, it seems like the more prepared somebody is for such a commitment, the less they'd need a ritual to declare it.

YOU are, unless you're saying that you would pay more for something than you have to. I don't understand your follow up question. Corporations are fictitious entities created by the State. To ask who would run them in the absence of a State doesn't compute.

What is a "libertarian society"? How we would arrive at one from where we are today? An understanding of this will mostly answer your questions. Assuming you mean free society, the path to such a place would involve breaking the cycle of violence by helping parents to understand the ways they damage their children that have previously been socially acceptable. If a person cannot "cope with responsibility," this accrues to that person's parents. If we understood the importance of peaceful parenting, there would be measures in place to catch this at a very early age. We would be able to provide help not only to the child, but their parents as well. As a result, people who are deceptive would only exist in the smallest of margins. They would not be able to survive in a world that would ostracize the deceptive. As for genetically violent, short of understanding ways to reduce trauma in utero, there's not much that can be done about this. However, saying "1% of people will always be genetically violent" is not a compelling case for institutionalized coercion (government). It IS a strong case for not having one. Because those who are violent will gravitate towards the State in order to carry out their violence with far less risk to themselves.

Exist means comprised of matter and energy. Evidence is objective. Objective is existing independent of consciousness. Going by your story, your "evidence" resided entirely within your own mind. Your post started by finally addressing what/how is truth. But then it devolved into a story that has nothing to do with truth verification, capped off with anecdotal evidence. Your involvement in this thread has been a lot of stories, misdirection, avoidance, and vagueness. How is any of this philosophical or scientific? Oh and I almost forgot that you continue to perpetuate victimization and the protection of wrongdoers. The most recent installment is "love your enemies." Inability to command love aside, I can hardly think of a more dangerous prescription. Don't get me wrong; I can relate. I remember the first time I "asked Jesus into my heart." I closed my eyes and prayed long and hard. When I opened them, everything around me seemed so bright and clear. Like you, I assumed this was proof. Nevermind the biological explanation of eyes closed for long time means pupils dilate, which will make the next light received seem brighter. Not to mention: I WANTED THERE TO BE PROOF! This is why we must accept our own capacity for error if we are ever to find the truth in anything. Imagine having the ability to wish away all the trauma of our past and the corruption in the world around us. Who wouldn't want that? Today, I accept that wanting something doesn't make it so.

Whoops. Perhaps I shouldn't have picked up on the forgiveness topic. It appears I've given you an excuse to completely avoid talking about what you posted this thread to talk about

Well, this thread is predicated on one short, simple statement: you accept Christianity as truth. Several people have asked you how you know and you continue to avoid the question. With regards to forgiveness, I feel as if you've neglected the meat of my challenge and simply asserted your position. In the abused woman scenario, rather than getting "bitter," you're saying she should turn to police (abusers themselves), lock herself away from people, wish for things to get better, then move on as if nothing happened. In other words, victimize herself further, victimize herself further, and victimize herself further. In fact, your example was matrimony, meaning she would go right back into the abuse. Instead, what you call bitterness could motivate her to let people know how dangerous her abuser is. Reflect on how she could have seen it coming to protect herself from it happening again. Engage in talk therapy. Process the trauma. Research the cycle of violence. Stand up and educate the world what she's learned.We need those who do evil to be afraid that their evil will be seen and will not be tolerated. Asking Santa Claus to smite somebody isn't much of a disincentive.

Politeness is another thing that isn't automatic. If you reject 2+2=4 because the person presenting it isn't polite, then it's not the truth that you seek. Generally speaking, "politeness" is another tool for manipulators to artificially cull resistance/control others. This is not true. The NAP is rooted in self-ownership while Christianity teaches you that God owns you. Also, people are in a congregation firstly to seek out others who will reinforce their delusions in lieu of logic, reason, or evidence. Secondly, after the delusion is agreed upon, to avoid the consequences of not doing so (hell)/reap the rewards of doing so (heaven). Your quote here is like saying that people pay taxes to help society function when in fact they do so to avoid being assaulted and kidnapped. You said, "My experience of Christianity..." but went on to talk about the behaviors of Christians instead of Christianity. You also seem eager to repeat that you dig philosophy and science without demonstrating it. By this I'm referring to the way you keep speaking as if the onus is on other people to disprove what you believe in. You cannot describe yourself as a scientist if you do not even observe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I referenced this lack of integrity and asked how you came to describe yourself as Christian. See, Christianity (atheism too) is a conclusion. How you arrived at that conclusion was what I sought and what you are withholding. I am glad that you brought forgiveness up. It's a good example of how Christianity and philosophy are in opposition. Philosophy is a method by which we can determine the truth value of objective claims regarding virtue. Christianity teaches that forgiveness is a virtue. But forgiveness is not something that can be given. It's something that the guilty have to seek out and earn. Those who teach that forgiveness should be given are indoctrinating you to ignore their transgressions. In fact, when you say: ...you are actually talking about forgetting. As in, failing to process. Fear and anger are positive experiences. They help us to identify that which would harm us and avoid it. Failing to process this only allows for it to continue. Meaning that to forget (give "forgiveness" where it isn't sought and earned) is unhealthy. It is the antithesis of virtue. You are erasing yourself for the benefit of predators.

What does this mean? Do you know have a support system in place? Are you not communicating your feelings to them? Are they abandoning you after you share your feelings with them? I had asked a number of questions in my last post and don't feel you've addressed any of them. I feel as if I'm putting more thought into this than you're willing to. If this was how you handled your past relationships, they might decide to take their leave so that THEY can get better support. Which could be interpreted by the person left behind as betrayal. See this is why the self-knowledge is important.

What proof do you require? You have self-ownership as the result of your capacity for reason. People are not fundamentally different in a way that they wouldn't own themselves. This is axiomatic. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. This is all "NAP" means. Is there any part that you do not accept as true?

If it was evident, it wouldn't require stating. Your use of the words "truth" and "right" are manipulative to preempt scrutiny. Your use of the phrase, "choose what they want to believe," is a disconnect from reality. In no uncertain terms, I'm talking about mental illness. First of all, if our interpretation of our senses conflict with the real world, then it is our senses that must give way. Secondly, holding what one wants to believe over the real world is a rejection of one's own capacity for error. Don't get me wrong, Harry Potter fans can congregate and revel in their common interest and even fantasize about elements of that fantasy world that aren't explicit in the stories that created that world. It's when they start treating that fantasy as if it's real or as if because they believe it's real, we must refrain from scrutinizing that claim (must respect them) that a problem begins. If Hogwart's says that theft is bad, it's a nice sentiment. But Hogwart's saying it doesn't make it true. Let's not mince terminology here. Values are subjective. Morality is objective. "Moral values" is a contradiction in terms. I've already covered that somebody that says "stealing is wrong" isn't necessarily virtuous. If they arrived at that conclusion by way of "this book said so," then they can just as easily be convinced out of that position. Especially if the conclusion is "murder is wrong... except against those people because they arrived at that conclusion by way of another book." If however they arrived at that conclusion by accepting that they own themselves and others do too, so stealing, assaulting, raping, and murdering would be violating their victim's self-ownership (which they would not abide against themselves), THIS is virtuous. Faith (bigotry) is not a virtue. Arriving at sound conclusions without sound methodology is not virtue.

That's a lot of betrayal and your takeaway is to not trust anybody and that it's wrong to have "high expectations" for others?! First things first, I want to make it very clear that I'm not blaming the victim. That said, there's things a victim can do to learn from their victimization to diminish the likelihood of being victimized again. To go from being betrayed by X people to deciding that (population of the world - X) cannot be trusted is irrational. It also lets the betrayers off the hook as this interpretation says they're not responsible for their betrayal, they're just a subset of "people." Being betrayed is not an easy thing to endure. It is certainly a lot easier to give up. However, a better way to handle it is to analyze your relationship with them. How did somebody that could do that get to a position in your life where doing that would harm you? If you don't even ask this question, you are powerless to stop it from happening again. I don't know you, but I would wager the part of the problem that's within your control is the standards you have for others. Can they think rationally? Do they grasp morality and therefore respect the other? Do they live their values? Any inconsistency here might be indication of a potential problem. For that matter, how do you stack up? These are my questions; how do you value them? For example, you triggered a red flag in me straightaway. You said "be nice please." You're trying to manage others before them even demonstrating that they are providing anything that would require management. It's manipulative and indicative of unprocessed trauma you're bringing to the table. Would you notice this if you saw somebody else do it? Did you notice it when you did it? Do you agree with my interpretation now that it's pointed out?

I wasn't sure if this would be better suited under anarchism or education. Earlier today, I saw a commercial that depicted a kid getting bullied on a school bus. It turns out that the commercial was for a website called stopbullying.gov At first, I thought to myself that if it's .gov, it's definitely NOT stopbullying. Historically, I can think of no greater bully than .gov. Then later, it occurred to me that the bus in the commercial was a .gov bus. Those kids are only there because .gov threatened their parents for not putting them there. Because .gov has steals from them so much that they feel they need to both work to even have kids. So the kids can NOT be educated by .gov and grow up to be dependent on .gov. Stopbullying? You first, .gov.

I'm not so sure. Some people might define boring as not going out and getting bombed every night. From these people, the label of "boring" would be a badge of honor. It is unethical to suggest that somebody is obligated to speak to you just because they're in proximity to you. If conversation is the standard by which he arrived at that conclusion, why does it apply to you and not him? Did he ever try talking to you? If you're in class, wouldn't there be a minimum of talking anyways? Anyways, your reaction to this is an opportunity for self-knowledge. I don't know you and I don't know him, but I do know that his behavior only reflects on him, not you. As such, I find it curious that you would be so offended. Even if the person was a very close friend (your story made it hard to tell how well you know each other), then it's an opportunity to learn about yourself how you could allow yourself to become so close to somebody who could be so hurtful.

Animals have spatial awareness and demonstrate a territorial sense ("mine!"). These are not the foundations of property. Property begins with the capacity for reason. That is, the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to ideals, and calculate consequences. It is true that morality follows property since morality is concerned with the preservation/violation of property.

In terms of intellectual sloth, they're identical. I once described myself as agnostic as I understood it to basically be the position of, "How COULD I know?" The answer to which is logic, reason, and evidence. Once I was taught to observe my own capacity for error, everything I took as proof that there must be something larger than the universe went right out the window. I really got a kick out of hearing Stef point out that omniscience and omnipotence are in opposition. This stuff only flies with people who aren't thinking. Agnosticism is like saying, "I'd rather not piss anybody off than exercise the most important 'muscle' I have: my brain."