dsayers

Same here! No, I wouldn't advocate kissing children on the lips for the sake of their immune system. I was merely trying to dissuade you from your mysophobia. Full disclosure: I'm a lifetime nail biter. So the exposure to germs being advantageous is quite possibly a position I hold out of bias.

While this is true, it's more like the middle chapter of a story. To regress a bit further, the State is an extension of the family. Alison Gopnik's work has revealed that we are born empathetic and reasonable. We only speak the language of coercion because coercion was inflicted upon or modeled for us.

I think being assaulted out of anger would be better than being assaulted out of a sadistic need to dominate defenseless, dependent prisoners. You're making the objective claim that spanking works as a result of anecdotal evidence that you were "obedient." However, obedient is not an objective measure. You could obey a command to not hit your sibling and you could obey a command to hit your sibling. In both cases, you'd be obedient, but the behavior would be opposite. Grooming somebody you have a power disparity over to avoid consequences in the moment isn't at all the same as getting the desired behavior from them. Assuming the goal of parenting is to nurture a baby to the point of being able to survive entirely on their own, spanking is antithetical and could not be described as working.

I'm going to be spending a great deal of time thinking about this. Primarily because I've noticed that very recently, for the first time in my life, I would describe myself as being depressed. If it makes sense, I believe it stems from avoiding my avoidance. Before I found philosophy, I had lazied my way into a relatively comfortable station in life with very little responsibility. Philosophy and self-knowledge brought me all types of clarity, freedom, and indeed responsibility. It was empowering. I was excited... and then I promply did next to nothing about it. Only now, I know how to go about escaping the abuses of others and making a life for myself. I'm simply choosing not to while feeling as if I didn't choose at all. It's been pulling at me for some time now. So for what it's worth, this theory is of great value to me.

I don't know what to tell you about the website. Taking it down isn't going to free any of the minds of the members, or ever diffuse their ability to virtually gather for the sake of bias confirmation. Who knows? Maybe one day you'll be applying for a job as a community manager and having that site around could serve as credentials for your ability to grow and manage a community. You don't have to drink coffee to own a coffee shop. Were you ever able to identify how you came to be into that stuff? I used to be into ideas like karma and fate. Looking back, I think it had to do with my Christian upbringing. I was primed for my own personal truth as you put it, so once I had rejected Christianity, I think I believed in stuff like fate and karma to fill the void. Did you find the transition to philosophy a relief? I find comfort in the natural world as an impartial arbiter. I find it's a lot less mentally taxing investigating and accepting the real world than it is trying to square the circle of mythology, imagination, and reality.

Do you mean not comparable in that they're morally identical? Or do you mean not comparable in that voting does far more damage far more efficiently than rape? You're talking about a unicorn; "better for everyone" is internally inconsistent. Better is subjective while for everybody is objective. A 3rd party can not make somebody's life better without their consent. Government dispenses with consent, which is precisely why it is inherently evil and any participation or legitimization of it is evil by extension. So your argument is that if I (one person) cannot provide an answer for how to achieve the goal of peace without using violence, then your belief in using violence to curtail violence must be valid? You end rape by not raping, by not condoning rape, by not participating in rape, by not supporting others who rape, by stopping rape, by helping others to understand that rape isn't moral if you call it by a different name, etc etc. The anxiety we experience in not being able to effect change on a scale much larger than ourselves overnight isn't valid justification for allowing for less rape in the meantime. The State is either the initiation of the use of force or it is not. If it is not, then there's no reason to pare it down at all. If it is, there's no reason to allow for it on any scale.

And the desire to do so by avoiding accountability of parents, teachers, politicians... everybody we've been inundated into believing are virtuous by title alone.

A manipulator is somebody who is deliberately dishonest with you for the sake of altering your behavior. In the example of the "smart guy with the answers to everything," unless you are talking about everything simultaneously (literally impossible), then this is a very large exaggeration. In that case, the dishonesty is for the sake of shaming you, instilling self-attack, discouraging correction, etc. I'm in a similar boat. My father is highly manipulative, drafted me into the family business at a young age, and isn't at all interested in me as a person. Only the effects of my labor. The part the drives me nuts the most is his inconsistency. I'm sorry that yours is capable of saying stuff like that to you

I was first introduced to Peaches via a South Park episode. I went to check out her work, but thought it was mostly trashy. The other day, my parents were watching a movie that I could hear one song playing that was quite captivating. I asked what movie it was and began combing over the soundtrack. Was surprised to find it was . I thought I'd check out more of her work and was stunned to come across this gem: . Back in the early 2000's, I listened to a lot of vocal trance on Digitally Imported. This was such a well-arranged throwback to that time for me that I was actually breathtaken during one of my relistens of it. I didn't realize she could sing! And apparently she does most of the instrument work and production herself too. Just try not to mind the dysfunction

While I wouldn't call myself anti-car, I sure wish I could manage without one. They're just so damn expensive to operate and maintain for how little driving I actually do. I love the internet, but I don't have a smartphone. The cellphone I do have is of the prepaid variety because I don't use that much either. I probably would have a smartphone if there was a way to do so and only use wifi. But all the cellphone companies require you to have an exorbitantly priced data plan whether you'll use it or not. I do have a mifi from TruConnect for use with my laptop. I almost never need it, but the prices are so low that it's worth it to me to have around just in case.

The disgusting part is that from her perspective, she's doing right by the child by teaching him manners and how to expand his horizons. This is one of the reasons why I think it's important to spread rationality. She should be delighted that her child is excited by a fruit as opposed to a candy bar for example.

Couldn't it be argued that the increased exposure to germs would bolster your immune system?

This reads to me like dogs don't exist. There's a beast and the label dog is subjective, even though the beast's existence is objective. Colors have specific wavelengths and even the color blind could measure this independent of their own experience of it. I think it was Searle who explained that while a chair exists objectively, we still experience it subjectively. I wonder if this is where my confusion stems from. I understand what you're saying, but it was more of a belaboring the context. A lot of people have lost sight of the fact that exist means has matter or energy. For example, say you're packing a suitcase and you ask somebody in the room, "Will this fit?" If you had asked them, "Will this fit in my suitcase?" you haven't actually asked a different question. You've just labored the context for precision's sake.

Is State (coercion) more comparable to belief in the non-existent or say rape? Would you advocate easing a rapist out of their rape? I'm reminded of that old adage that if they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care what your answers are. Your post made no reference to any moral consideration, so they wouldn't care if you were advocating an incremental change or flat out end. Until you address the immorality, you're not threatening their power. If you insist on utility, we have tons of empirical evidence that incremental removal of immorality isn't effective. The immoral who are not stopped will gain more ground than any incremental dent would accomplish. No, instead I say stop the rape outright because it's the only moral response to the initiation of the use of force. Besides, how do you incrementally alter the enslavement of the unborn for example?

Reading the no votes is kind of funny. That's like asking me if person X is an auto mechanic. Like, how the hell would I know? I don't know enough on the topic to know where "enough" is to qualify for that label. This is ironic since once cites peer acceptance while rejecting peer rejection.

This is so very important. Just providing a contrasting example could help prevent them from normalizing or internalizing the abuse being leveled upon them. I view calling the police as using force. So I won't do it with regards to something like a noise disturbance, which I'm not yet sure can be considered the initiation of the use of force itself. To call the police with regards to an initiation of the use of force (such as child abuse) is no more escalation than than a rape victim fighting off their attacker. That said, what would calling the police accomplish? Would the cops that show up express caring for the child or simply be looking to punish people for something they could do so over beyond reproach? Or would they simply show up to interrupt the aggression in the moment and lazily walk away, not changing a thing? I think it's really shitty we live in such a world. Sure, a person could get involved themselves rather than calling upon a coercive 3rd party. But in the system we live in, this could end up with the person who intervenes being labeled the aggressor. The risk of that alone is one of the reasons I'm very hesitant to get involved directly despite understanding how hugely important it is.

I prefer my veggies stir-fried. Is it wrong that I'm consistently bothered by the phrase "objectively better"? Does anybody else interpret that as objectively subjective?

I found myself very emotionally invested in this game, which is amazing considering how simplistic its approach is. I would recommend it to anybody, but cannot really explain why without spoiling the game.

Does the child have any say on if/when he spends time at mom's or dad's? I'm guessing probably not, so it could be his way of resisting what is essentially the initiation of the use of force against him. Perhaps if they communicated and negotiated with him, they could find a way to achieve their goals in a win-win fashion instead of perpetually dispensing with the child's comfort for their own.

The definition of "idea" offered is flawed. To exist in the real world is to have matter and energy. While the brain certainly has that, the mind that it contains does not. Therefore the phrase "exists in the mind" is internally inconsistent. Is this logically sound?

Sure they are. To morally eat a grape, you must own the grape. Meaning you invested the capital of your body, time, and labor to either grow the grapes yourself or voluntarily trade for them. You then invest the capital of your grapes by eating them and nourishing/maintaining the capital that is your body. I think this is why it is important to define terms. I read this as you saying "the goal of 2+2=4..." It's merely a statement of fact. It cannot have a goal.

Governments already pretend to own everything and every one. It's the only way legislation could even begin to be righteous. It's important to keep in mind that government ownership is an anthropomorphism. For that matter, I would argue against joint ownership altogether since it's unsustainable. For example, person X dies and leaves his car to his two children. One wants to keep it while the other wants to sell it. Sure it's possible they could work out a deal, but what if they couldn't? I don't see how responsibility could be traceable if joint ownership is valid.

It didn't exist when this thread was created, so I'll post it now: . The first half talks about the physiology of addiction. I think this is definitely one of Stef's top 10 ever.

Could you explain what you mean by capitalism? I think sahadda nailed it. You speak of opting out, but you own your body. It is your capital. I do not see how you can opt out of that. As for win win, voluntary trade is by definition win-win. If somebody wouldn't get what they wanted out of a transaction, they wouldn't consent to it.

This begs the question. While considering whether a behavior is moral, it assumes it is moral, placing the responsibility on the recipient. As I type, literally every human being on the planet is out of my arm's reach, but this wouldn't mean that punching somebody in the face is therefore moral. I am so sorry to hear that the person that brought you into this world is okay with other people harming you for disagreeing with them Not to mention it's an outright fallacy. If you try to leave the country, they will detain you, steal from you, etc. According to the UN, everybody must belong to a country, so it's a distinction without a difference.