Jump to content

dsayers

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,319

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    95

 Content Type 

Everything posted by dsayers

  1. dsayers
    Fantastic point! And yes, any financial transaction that doesn't violate property rights is the business of the two parties involved only. Abused children grow up to be adults, in a climate of State buying their affection, which leads to severe entitlement. "I see somebody else has more than me so instead of the anxiety I experience regarding that motivating me to increase my human capital, I'm going to try and get my hands on the big gun in the room and point it at them so I can take some of it for myself." They're literally behaving as thieves mugging those who earn their living by providing value to others.
  2. dsayers
    Your dad was only your dad because your mom chose him to be. If this was your experience with regards to him, I think it's dismissive to say she wasn't much involved in your upbringing. I can relate to your dental health story. I too neglected (and to some degree, still do) this despite it actually not taking a whole lot of time. I still wanted to point out that this is more of a voluntary thing on our parts. I only mention this because there are far more serious, involuntary health deficits as the result of childhood trauma. How do you know you should approach them? I'm not saying you shouldn't; Just curious as to your motivation. Like whatever your father did to you to make you feel this way towards him, did he do it to say a policeman or other people in public? Did he only do it to you while not in public? Your answers to these questions could indicate that he is fully aware that his behavior was unacceptable, meaning there likely isn't anything to gain from confronting him about it. I mention this because if there is nothing to gain, then doing so is only going to serve to allow him to victimize you further. Pardon me if I missed it, but are you still living under their roof today? If so, how soon until you'll be able to escape? If you are grown for the most part, but still under their roof, I don't at all think it would be a good idea to confront them under those circumstances unless you genuinely believe (by way of reason, not desire) they might own it, change, etc. If you end up deciding to approach them, I'd prepare first. Stef's books On Truth and Real Time Relationships can help. After that, just ask them if you can schedule a time to talk to them about something that's very important to you.
  3. dsayers
    @corbyco: Hi there. What is it you hope to gain from this forum? You mention a lack of integrity but provide no frame of reference. You mention a lack of respect with regards to Christianity as if respect is automatic and not earned. Later on, you mention corrupt "scientists" as if that invalidates the objective scientific method. These things seem like an effort to marginalize scrutiny, otherwise known as bias confirmation. You cannot find the truth without scrutiny. This is important because I sometimes see people describing their ideas being scrutinized as personal attacks which simply isn't the case. Since you mentioned lack of integrity as cause for concern, I wanted to point out that "incredible experiences that I can only label as spiritual" lacks integrity. What incredible experiences? What does spiritual mean? Perhaps this is my bias, but I read this as, "I cannot explain it, therefore the explanation must be supernatural." THIS would be a corruption of the scientific method. As is believing something just because some dead guy said it. Like Einstein was a pretty smart dude. All the same, if he ever stated that 2+2=5, he'd be wrong. Just as if he stated 2+2=4, it's true because it's true, not because he said it. Out of curiosity, if you were raised atheist, how did you come to describe yourself as a Christian? I know you said your read the Bible beginning to end, but one would expect this to discourage faith, not invoke it. @Shane: You forgot the, "Oh and if you don't obey, I'm going to torture you with fire for all eternity," part. Guessing the right answer isn't the same as arriving at the correct answer by way of sound methodology. Not stealing from, assaulting, raping, and murdering other people is moral because it's logically consistent. Not because somebody specific is credited with saying it.
  4. dsayers
    Love it or leave is begging the question. It's like saying that punching somebody in the face is righteous because they can choose to always be at greater than arm's length from you. But immorality isn't about what comes before/after the behavior. It's in the behavior itself. Does it make use of the property of another without their consent? Then it is immoral. Beyond the moral argument comes all the less important stuff. Such as "leave it" entails leaving behind family, friends, your life. That it's costly. That the State may even reject your attempt to leave it. That you'd be leaving one tax farm to enter another, not leaving "tax farm" at all, and so on. Usurp is right in that you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. That's not your fault if you weren't taught to think rationally. I used to be the same way and even today sometimes get goaded into pointless continuations by somebody who is clearly more interested in his understanding being true than what is actually true. If you'd like to improve your ability to think rationally and communicate it with others, I'd also recommend Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy series. It's quite long, but it did wonders for me. He literally starts at the beginning and goes from there. I can't recommend it enough.
  5. dsayers
    This is likely not true. More likely is that your standards for "getting along" are insufficient to a degree that would not be revealed in casual passing, but come to light once living/spending much more time together. For example, did you sit down and talk with them at all before even considering marriage? Did you gauge their capacity for rational thought? Did you ask them how they were reprimanded by their parents? Did you ask them how they feel about their parents' divorce? Did you ask them how they felt about another male figure being in their lives? "Getting along" is much different than relishing each others' company.
  6. dsayers
    Have you watched the Bomb in the Brain series? When trying to influence others, it's important to understand why they think what they do and how we think to begin with. The fundamental error those who believe in the validity of the State is the belief that "population" has emergent properties that would require study of its interactions to differ from interactions of individuals. They typically go on to describe division of labor, which is a VOLUNTARY farming out of desires for the sake of efficiency where other people are available to allow for this increase in efficiency. Since "population" has no emergent properties, we can study the interactions within just as we would individuals. Meaning that if theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral from one person to another, then it is immoral for any group comprised of people to another. This covers nations, governments, etc. At which point it becomes clear to those willing to accept their own capacity for error that these groups are predicated on immoral action. The propaganda that leads people to these conclusions speak in abstracts in order to conceal their nature and therefore allow generally good people to cosign some evil ideas. That and the history of their own abuse and they will actually delight in others being subjugated so long as they don't stop to consider that the subjugation applies to them also. They convince themselves it's a necessary evil or that the benefit outweighs the cost, so it's acceptable. As if the things they're referring to (roads, water, sanitation) could not be provided without coercion, a faulty premise.
  7. dsayers
    Did you mean oppression in the title? Oppression is conscious, external imposition. Suppression is conscious, internal imposition. Repressing is unconscious, internal imposition. At least as I understand it. Magnus is right. I've heard people praise Fox news because the media tends to be left wing, but this doesn't mean Fox isn't also pushing their agenda. I remember a time when I thought RT was a breath of fresh air. Eventually, I was able to see that they're pushing their agenda to. "Truth" is easy enough to arrive at. I didn't watch the video, but are they acknowledging methodology or just inflicting conclusions with no consideration that methodology matters?
  8. dsayers
    lmao @ "My daddy spanked my mommy and she's fine." This was really good. I especially liked the woman's progression from marginalization to appearing genuinely cornered and frightened. It's sad that the people who need this the most won't have the empathy to pick up on it.
  9. dsayers
    @nathanm: I understand everything you're saying. At the risk of sounding obtuse, I must ask: how do you know? If we agree that moral status is binary (where a moral component is present), then wouldn't the grade be referring to the level of damage? Perhaps in turn, the level of willingness of the assailant to do damage? I'm not sure why people ascribe this to analog morality when that could easily be written off as a common misnomer. It's like when people say brutal truth. We know what they mean, but they are stating it incorrectly. Why is this important? Just look at this thread. Look at the gum thief. Some people are generally confused enough to think that a small transgression is justifiable simply because it's not large. I think we do them a greater service not by indulging the delusion that morality is analog, but to help them understand property rights and that the internal inconsistency of immoral behavior is an objective truth. These types of people openly support seriously heinous things that are present in our society because they think of it in terms of lesser evil, greater good, necessary evil, and other irrational conclusions.
  10. dsayers
    With regards to your parenting question, more information would be needed. In the first video, I'm seeing no eye or ear protection. If there are firearms in the home, then it IS important that the child understand the potential danger and safe use. I think the ballistics should be age appropriate. Forming bodies should not be subjected to such repeat, adverse trauma to the wrists and shoulders we're seeing the in the video. A .22 rifle or target pistol would be a much safer way for the child to enjoy shooting without getting harmed.
  11. dsayers
    As you said, the key is in prevention. How did you come to marry this woman if she doesn't like your child or vice versa? Why would you subject your child to this situation now? How can you claim to love somebody that has raised children that are problematic and/or has a problem with your child? The answer to your question is whatever's best for your child. You created an obligation to that person who is dependent upon you and this is more important than your feelings about the woman. Especially since it sounds like your feelings for here are an enormous opportunity for self-knowledge. Something you might be able to better accomplish while not sharing a bed. I'm an outsider going on very little information. That said, it seems to me that the reasons to leave would benefit your child while the reasons to stay would be convenient for you.
  12. dsayers
    @Rainbow Jamz: I can't tell exactly what you're trying to say with this thread. Video games aren't traumatic, so getting angry with them or vocalizing that anger wouldn't be therapeutic. To better understand how much/little anger was present and/or how much was genuine or for the sake of entertainment, you'd need to look at a bigger picture. I recommend as a starting point since it's an autobiography of sorts. As you can see, the AVGN persona was more of a side-project. He fostered it because people responded. If you watch episode 1 of AVGN, there's barely any anger at all. Just an objective look, calmly delivered. The "anger" and vulgarity grew for the sake of the audience that was asking for more. As for his state of mind, I'm not sure how much we can derive from his public image. In that link, we see his parents clearly let him express himself, explore his passion, even monopolize their garage, etc which suggests a healthy relationship. However, his passion always centered on mutilation and aggression, which would suggest severe trauma. Meaning that those signs of a healthy relationship could've been more akin to neglect. Having a wife and child by no means proves therapy, self-knowledge, overcoming trauma, etc. I apologize if none of this has anything to do with what you were trying to say. I couldn't really tell what the overarching purpose was.
  13. dsayers
    I hope you are aware that she is lying to herself and to you.
  14. dsayers
    "Socially accepted" is not a standard. If that's what you seek, nobody will be able to provide an answer. Taxation is socially accepted, but this doesn't mean it's not theft, which is the initiation of the use of force (aggression). Whether or not consent is present is easy enough to understand. With the caveat that consent cannot be found where coercion is present. Also, it is unclear as to what is meant by "'aggression' shouldn't be universal." You're asking for clarity, but then claim clarity shouldn't be available. Property rights are universal, so violations of them would be also.
  15. dsayers
    It's not like something can be 5 immoral while something else is 3 immoral. Every behavior is either moral, immoral, or amoral (lacking a moral component). I noticed that you're not at all focusing on the lack of consent involved in the theft of the alcohol. Is there a reason why you need for theft to be justifiable? So if your roommate or his friend or a family member or whomever used your home to say rape you, you would just say, "Gee, I wish I didn't have two years left on my contract?"
  16. dsayers
    How does learning of this theft and how close it comes to your own property effect you view of the situation? If it were me, I'd be moving my property in with people I trust while I make every effort for a re-assignment. Given the person was caught and charged, this should be easy enough to effect. Also, bringing up the legal system does nothing to clarify your inquiry since the legal system is subjective and made up. When the legal system is involved, they steal from the alleged assailant and pocket the money. None of it goes towards the victim (if there even is a victim; most things they action have no victim), so it's irrational to think their involvement has anything to do with addressing evil.
  17. dsayers
    Several months ago, I had the audacity to observe that "gender" encompasses "male" and "female." Several people used the downvote system as an ideological weapon against me for saying so as they were unable to refute my claim. As this included three of the most prominent members on the board, as well as most of the staff, I took my leave for some time. There is one person who has noticed my return and emptied his downvotes for the day a couple times thus far as something of a grudge. You can check my reputation history to see who as there was one individual in particular who was quite vicious in his pushback due to my position in a different thread from that. /drama Suffice it to say that the downvotes you're seeing here isn't actually due to a lack of philosophical integrity.
  18. dsayers
    I don't know if I agree with the should. However if you are the parent, then this is entirely up to you. Obviously it is your job to protect the child, but that doesn't mean you cannot have discussions with them. If you model for them that you are equals and negotiate with them, then they will not tolerate somebody subjugating them. If it is a new experience for them, and they come to you, then you can discuss with them how to handle a situation. When they are comfortable doing so, then they will tend to take the initiative for problem solving on their own. And if the discussions you have are rational and encourage rational thought, you won't even have to worry that their problem solving would be inappropriate such as punching somebody in the face for saying an unkind word.
  19. dsayers
    It is true that the voluntary trade of drugs is not immoral. However, it is not true that person A can take/make use of the property of person B under ANY circumstances other than consent of person B (or understood consent, which is another discussion not germane to this one). Regardless of whether the State threatens to agress against person A for having alcohol, and regardless of whether person B acquiesces to this threat, the alcohol in question belongs to person B. For person A to take it is theft and therefore immoral. As for your ending questions, theft is morally identical to assault, rape, and murder in that they are all immoral. What does lesser evil mean? Something is either evil or it is not. The amount of damage done by theft might be less than that of assault, rape, and murder, but it might be a lot more. The only thing that sets theft apart from assault, rape, and murder is that theft is the only immoral act where restitution is easily quantifiable. Whereas even assault as minor as a punch in the face could send an air bubble to the brain or allow infection to penetrate the bloodstream potentially leading to permanent, irreversible damage. I am curious as to why you would choose to co-habitate with somebody who would keep a thief as a friend?
  20. dsayers
    This is begging the question. Where coercion is present, consent cannot be. Your two scenarios are not comparable as one has coercion and the other does not. If a person wishes to donate to X (UNICEF in the example), they can do so. If person Y approaches you and claims to represent X, you can verify this claim and you can choose to deal with X directly instead. If you choose to enter into trade with Y under the impression that they represent X, you are voluntarily risking that the claim is incorrect. It is an illogical conclusion that somebody else is more responsible for your voluntary actions than you are, particularly if the factor in question is a deal breaker. i.e. If I'm buying a car under the stipulation that it runs (meaning I would not buy it if it didn't run), it is incumbent upon me to verify that the car actually turns over than take a seller's word for it. If I bought a car that does not run, I cannot say that somebody else is responsible for this nor that I am not, let alone both simultaneously. @powder: Yes, the discontinued model example is another example of what I mean. And I'm glad the confusion was sorted out
  21. dsayers
    And I am refuting this claim by pointing out that the accuracy of a theory can only be derived from its comparison to the real world. Meaning that in order to compare one theory to another, you must first compare each one to the real world. Don't get me wrong. I'm enjoying the mental exercise. For example, above I claimed that theories can be relatively accurate compared to one another but absolutely accurate compared to the real world. However, this is a contradiction unless a theory could also be relatively accurate compared to reality. I'm still trying to think of whether or not I accept the potential that a theory could be accurate on a gradient compared to the real world.
  22. dsayers
    How much of your emotional experiences are you able to identify where from/why you feel that way? I think this is a good indication of your level of self-knowledge. How many of your emotional experiences surprise you? I think these represent a gap in self-knowledge. I agree with Pepin that self-knowledge isn't entirely about self, but also an understanding of how humans think/behave and why as well. Keeping this in mind, I think another indicator of self-knowledge is how well you're able to identify the level of self-knowledge others exhibit. For example, somebody was talking to me recently when they revealed that they believe in ghosts. In doing so, they were telling me that they do not accept that such a claim would require proof even though proof is a requisite for certainty.
  23. dsayers
    I accept your correction that concepts do not exist. You initial claim of "absolute accuracy does not exist" was put forth as if it refuted my position. That is to say that contextually, I interpreted that claim as "absolute accuracy is not valid," as claiming that absolute accuracy does not exist would have no bearing on the discussion. Theories are attempts to describe the real world. Therefore their accuracy must be compared to the real world. For example, let us take your theory that absolute accuracy does not exist. We understand that this theory is absolutely accurate because to exist is to be comprised of matter and energy. This is something that cannot be expressed with a grade, hence the ABSOLUTE accuracy of that theory.
  24. dsayers
    I'm no longer talking about fraud as some people interpret "fraud" as a premise of a contract (prior to consent) and other as a violation of a contract (after consent). I've stated a couple times that I accept that a violation of contract is theft and therefore immoral. Once the discrepancy in the definition of fraud was identified, I attempted to clarify my initial question by specifying that I am referring to prior to consent. As in the pawn broker example. "What is this [$20k] bracelet worth?" "$20." "I accept those terms." Is it immoral to tell somebody that a $20k bracelet is worth $20? My arguments are that it's not because the trade that takes place AFTER the deceit is consensual and that to call it immoral would be to suggest that one party is responsible for understanding the exchange while the other is not, which is internally inconsistent. I would anticipate any claim that this deceit is immoral to refute these points. I apologize if I have at any time failed to communicate my thoughts effectively. I have edited the opening post to hopefully make it easier for newcomers to the conversation to not get sidetracked by my use of the word "fraud."
  25. dsayers
    Then you should provide that argument instead of saying you see the potential for it. I would say that the definition of terms would be in order. Such as person is something that both possesses consciousness as well as the capacity for reason; that is the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate principled ideals, compare behavior to ideals, and consider consequences. I think the question is how much this applies. For example, we do not allow children to enter into contracts. They're not a person, though they will become one in time. We understand it would be immoral to murder a child for this reason. A fetus is not capable of life outside the mother. While it likely possesses the same eventuality I've just mentioned, it is by definition a part of the woman's body and therefore her property. Being pregnant can cause a huge strain on the woman's body (up to and including death), making it more akin to a parasite than a human being. To conclude that abortion is immoral is internally inconsistent for this reason as it is the infliction of an unchosen positive obligation, which is unethical.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept