dsayers

So if you pay a guy to off a guy, it's not immoral because you cannot be certain that he will do it? Refraining from paying a guy to off a guy does not swing the pendulum any closer to freedom. But it is morally consistent. This thread isn't about wanting, it is about the behavior of voting. Morality isn't analog. A behavior (such as ruling) is either the initiation of the use of force or it is not. Nicer master is a contradiction in terms and therefor an imaginary creature, not unlike a square circle. Voting isn't about what you want. It's what you want for others. Just as one has not the power to rule, it follows that one has not the capability to give the power to rule to others.

I see these statements as a contradiction. The inevitability that whomever you vote for is going to accept stolen monies to forcibly tell those stolen from how to live is precisely why I would argue that voting is the initiation of force. Until such a time where people consider opportunity costs and say no to "free" stuff, I don't think so. Even if that were to happen, the act of voting in a political context is not voicing one's opinion, it is telling others how to live.

Just hit legendary rank Feels good since from rank 4 on, I used a deck that I designed and not one I copied online. Here is the decklist: http://imgur.com/Z6tnYqv Also, I have like half a dozen videos demo'ing it being played since it's more of a tempo/rush type ramp druid: https://www.youtube.com/user/gtadem/videos

If it were me, I'd ask your friend how he's feeling. It will help him feel better to be asked and be better for him and your relationship for him to identify and communicate this.

And if you offer a crack addict some crack if they don't aggress against their child, you'll get the desired outcome also. But this is meaningless in a normative consideration. A person who dispenses with the moral consideration is saying that the initiation of the use of force is okay as long as they agree with the outcome. In other words, it is subjective. I feel I've been pretty clear on this point. If you could elaborate as to what part you disagree with, it would be beneficial I think.

I would argue that they are the same thing. You either own yourself or you do not own yourself. If you own yourself, then you body, time, and effort are your capital and everybody else owns themselves. The former is capitalism, the latter is anarchism. Both stem from self-ownership. The communists you speak of are not referring to capitalism.

Aggression isn't bad because it's harmful, as harmful is subjective. It's bad because it's inconsistent (read: immoral). To aggress against another is to accept self-ownership while rejecting self-ownership. This is objective and universal.

We played this game already. YOU stated that men and women are in different moral categories, I said that they are not, and you tried to make it look as if I was the one saying they're in different moral categories. I clarified, yet here we are again. This is manipulative. Women own themselves and men own themselves. This means they are responsible for their behaviors and they are in control of their bodies. We don't get to make exceptions where this is inconvenient.

But guys, who would build the roads if not for our savior, the State? We need to mutilate the defenseless so that we can be safe from foreign invaders.

This seems to be in direct contradiction with the username lookingfortruth.

How do they know? According to them, it cannot be proven that it cannot be proven. So maybe it can be proven.

The Ghosts of War And of course both the Bomb in the Brain and An Introduction to Philosophy series. Oh, and any video that has Jeffrey Tucker in it. They always have the best conversations

I can certainly appreciate that sentiment. At the same time, look how popular the show got just by crossing paths with Joe Rogan. I think spreading philosophy further without compromising philosophy is a win for the entire human race

Are you saying that it is okay to steal, assault, rape, or murder so long as the outcome is a favorable one? Isn't "the ends justifies the means" the root of all the evils in the world? Wouldn't providing this model for a child lead to an unfavorable outcome? We live in a world of matter and energy. The properties of which are consistent. This is the basis for logic and reason. Which literally means that in a world of matter and energy, the moral consideration is paramount. It's objective, logical, reasonable, and consistent. Going back to the quote, what are "bad consequences"? Couldn't it be argued that in a world full of coercion and propaganda, having a lower IQ might be better? I've certainly heard many times the claim that with a world this messed up, the very act of bringing a child into it is horrible. This is precisely why the subjectivity of utility takes a distant backseat to the moral consideration.

It's not your job to manage others. I AM sorry you grew up in an environment where you were forced to. In the context of strangers, you are not obligated to be honest with them. In the context of somebody you care about, it would actually be manipulative to edit your input for any reason. I can't speak for you, but as somebody who was also groomed to manage the reaction of others, this has been a difficult gradation for me to put into practice. I too had a tainted view of the word sorry. It was modeled for me that this is something you do not say because it admits fault. Present day, I see it as a way of empathizing with somebody. Like when I say that I'm sorry you grew up in an environment where you were forced to manage others. It's my way of saying that I feel your pain. That I wish nobody had to experience that. That I understand that nobody has the right to put another person through that. I would recommend not hesitating to say it if you feel that way. Like, I'm not going to NOT say to somebody that I love them just because so many other people have cheapened the word. What do you think of all this?

I can certainly appreciate the potential this has. What exactly is your position BTW? For a prisoner/student to assault another prisoner/student is immoral. Their captors might be coercing them into being there against their will, but they are not being coerced into assaulting a 3rd party. A kindergarten kid would have to have been exposed to a great deal of coercion to even consider assault as a viable means to an end. For a teacher to view this child as a monster (which will color the ways she interacts with the child) will only serve to exacerbate the underlying problem. The truth of the matter is that the child's parents are monsters for abusing the child even if only by way of modeling violent behavior. Unfortunately, much of society attacks the child instead. Path of least resistance and all that

We're not talking about ownership of a fetus (if that's even a thing). If a woman gives you an STD, she doesn't get to insist that you keep it just because she was the donor. It has a negative impact on your body and as it is YOUR body, YOU have the sole voice in what to do about it. While I'm not saying that a fetus is comparable to an STD, the negative impact it can have on the body is actually worse than an STD. Surely you understand that gestation and birth can KILL the woman, right? I'm still awaiting the case to be made on how ANYBODY could force a person to do something with their body that could lead to their death. I say again, despite being told that this was not a point of contention: If a man wants to avoid being in the uncomfortable situation of somebody else deciding the fate of his offspring, he would do well to choose a woman of virtue and only conceive if both people are of the same mind of having and raising a child together. Men who do do not have to concern themselves with whether or not they own the woman's body or not. If you do not study for the test, you fail the test. You don't get to say that forcing people to do something is wrong, except when it bails you out of a mistake that you made. Please make that case.

Once upon a time, I had heard a song by Rage Against the Machine. I bought one of their tapes. I didn't much care for them after that because it seemed like all their songs were about politics and I just wanted some good music. I guess you could say I felt that they were being preachy. There's times when I see a celebrity championing a cause and I feel they're being preachy. In these instances, my complaint is more along the lines of getting something other than what I came for. I don't know the specifics of your arrangement, but maybe your partner was saying he wanted more mass appeal or to not be what he views as controversial. I'm not excusing the verbal attack, just trying to interpret it. It's not really constructive to tell somebody that they're being too preachy. I think it would be more edifying to try and find out why a message is so important to somebody that they'd want to write a song about it. Generally speaking, saying somebody is too preachy (like there's just preachy enough?) is an appeal to insecurity. Many people are propagandized into being uncomfortable talking about anything of substance. Rather than addressing this truth about themselves, they use a passive-aggressive verbal attack in an attempt to coerce you out of discussing something of substance with them or in their presence. Does that seem like a realistic description?

Voting doesn't just legitimize the initiation of the use of force, it IS the initiation of the use of force. It's telling somebody that you're okay with them initiating the use of force as long as they do it for reasons you approve of. We cannot put an end to coercion until we educate people on what coercion actually is. Most people who vote would not steal your wallet from your pocket, but see no ethical problem will approving of others doing the same. This is inconsistent and they're not even aware of it.

Society and government are a reflection of the family. I wanted to make sure credit was given where credit was due. The people you're referring to were broken by their parents. What the State did to them was secondary. We mustn't let people of any country think anything collectively of people in any other country because countries don't exist. It's the effect of family not teaching children that proximity does not equal virtue because it would undermine the artificial affection they expect for just being the parent.

I've pointed out that inside the womb and outside are different circumstances. You continue to post as if this is not so without explaining how it is not so or sharing what part isn't clear to you. I've asked you to make the case for a male donor having a say in what his female partner does with her body, and you haven't done so. I've expressed sympathy for your viewpoint while you've made no effort to consider my input. None of that is philosophical behavior. I'm not sure what further discussion could produce.

To add to that, if a user gets to a rating of -25 total (total can be viewed on a person's profile), then their posts will be replaced with place holders that display their accumulated rating. You can still manually view the post or even set your board preferences to never auto-hide posts based on reputation.

What is meant by acting out or misbehaving? Morality applies to behaviors that involve other people.

Better compared to what? When I'm on youtube, looking at all the videos available, I think it's better that most of the calls of one show appear as one video. Especially when the details of that video contain time stamps and links to the individual calls already.

Were there no variables, that would be true. However, in fetus form, the offspring consumes the mother's nutrients, blood, is a strain on her frame, internal organs, etc. This is very different from a baby that has been delivered. That is a variable, making the frame of this consideration inconsistent. As a man myself, I would very much like for it to be as you describe since that would be more convenient for me. However, your only argument thus far has been consistency amid the inconsistent. Could you make the case for the male donor having a say in what his female partner does with her body? I've never said that a woman is not responsible to the child once it's born. I said that men are also in response to your suggestion that they're not. I said the same thing. I just also said that men also have to make that decision carefully.