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
    No context. There are things we can see though. Chanting repeatedly is not the same as starting a dialogue. It's verbal brow-beating. Chanting, "We will not be silenced," in response to others trying to talk is hypocritical. And as Daniel pointed out, it speaks to lack of individuality. Every one of these things makes it hard for a rational person to take these people seriously. Self-knowledge, rational thought, and using empirical evidence to test your theories are very important!
  2. dsayers
    There is no grey areas in terms of breathing. For moral consideration, something must be a voluntary behavior that directly involves another person. Breathing is autonomic and therefore could never be described as the initiation of the use of force in itself. Additionally, it doesn't directly involve another person. Humans do not innately posses the ability to intentionally, precisely manipulate things at the molecular level. As we exhale, we are expelling molecules from our lungs, not actually putting them any place specific.
  3. dsayers

    Denis Leary

    dsayers replied to tiepolo's topic in Miscellaneous

    How could that be described as antithetical when it's not even a thesis? What you see is unprocessed trauma manifesting by way of normalization. However, the perceived normality is merely a conclusion. How does he know it's normal? He did not provide any arguments or make the case for assaulting defenseless, trapped, dependent children. In that sentence, I made 4 arguments against it. You are welcome to take up the opposing position NOT by proxy if you feel there's truth or value in what you've said by way of proxy.
  4. dsayers
    Alex, I noticed that you didn't acknowledge my encouragement to be more precise. Did you not find it useful? I ask because while "NAP" may be a valid conclusion, the explanation offered above shows you've only guessed the right answer. You need sound methodology behind the conclusion. Both for your own sake in accepting something you fully understand and for the sake of people you try to share it with. To get to NAP, you have to start with the axiom of self-ownership. This wouldn't be controversial to the statist in question since he referenced his lungs. If people are not fundamentally different in such a way that self-ownership wouldn't apply to everybody, then we all own ourselves. 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 everything that goes behind the shorthand of NAP. Obviously being shorthand, it's best left to discussion between people that accept this methodology. When discussing it with people whom it might be foreign too, much better is taking the approach from first principles. If somebody cannot correctly answer the question, "Who owns you?" then you know that something like NAP, which is several steps away from self-ownership is going to be lost on them. The statist was productive in asking your definition of violence. Since you didn't know how to logically arrive at NAP, this is why you got tripped up. I'm very enthusiastic on this topic, so if for some reason you find my input not helpful, I would appreciate feedback on why and how it could be improved.
  5. dsayers
    Murder is the initiation of the use of force that results in the loss of life. If Smith kills Joe while Joe is trying to kill Suzy, this is defensive force. It would not be murder even though it is mechanically identical to murder and is indeed killing. Once Joe kills Suzy he has indeed created a debt, but is not necessarily a threat to Smith in the moment they cross paths. A serial killer on the other hand shows no capacity for reason and is a constant threat to others. Capital punishment is problematic for a number of reasons. First, the State is a coercive institution, so every action carried out in its name is inherently immoral. Secondly, when the State executes, it does out with total disregard on the science behind sociopathy and other such considerations. Some people who have killed once can indeed be rehabilitated and even provide restitution to the friends and family of the victim or community at large. The other thing to keep in mind is the word punishment. If somebody steals for example, their "punishment" is being indebted to whom they stole from for the amount stolen plus extra to cover the effort in recovering the stolen value. It's a lot trickier with assault, rape, and murder where restitution might not be readily possible. Nevertheless, the debt exists between perpetrator and victim. Which I realize becomes fuzzy in the event of murder since the benefactor is no longer alive. I hope this is helpful. Please offer any criticisms or correction. Free society justice is something I struggle with myself as I have a very hard time drawing the lines between isolated violation and serial violator. As well as debt benefactor being dead. I look forward to seeing how this discussion develops.
  6. dsayers
    I call BS. I've been using ABP for awhile now. Before I did, it didn't matter where I went on the internet. ALL ads had to do with my immediate browsing history. Google has always been committed to non-obtrusive ads and I commend them both for that position and their adherence to it. I'm not saying anything about Google in general, but I did want to challenge the suggestion that their ads service was some how obtrusive or even visible to those who do not wish to see it.
  7. dsayers
    In situations like this, it's helpful to dispense with the shorthand of NAP. The non-aggression principle is just shorthand for "the initiation of the use of force is immoral." Breathing is not the initiation of the use of force. It's not even a behavior given its autonomic status. The statist was using a red herring to waste your time. For that matter, any time somebody describes a specific scenario to make their conclusion fit, they're not addressing the methodology behind that conclusion.
  8. dsayers
    You don't realize it, but you are making my case for me. Philosophy is how we can KNOW we are sick before taking action. The people who describe themselves as minarchists do not KNOW violence is the metaphorical disease. The initiation of the use of force is either immoral or it is not. If it is not, then there's no reason to pare down the State at all. If it is, there's no reason to allow for it on any scale.
  9. dsayers
    If you haven't already, I recommend checking out Stef's series entitled The Bomb in the Brain. If you want to change what people think, it helps to know WHY they think what they do. Also, you said opinions of other people while discussing a matter of fact. No, I do not think spending extra time on people that do not accept their own capacity for error, do not accept reality, and do support violence as a solution is beneficial. Not to them and certainly not to you. I didn't detect any loss of temper and wouldn't be effected if you had. How do you know that everyone around you is not evil?
  10. dsayers
    I don't know the details of the recent server move. Or perhaps I'm engaging in the placebo effect. Or committing to a "after this therefore because of this" fallacy. But the site seems quite zippy suddenly. If this is because of the server move, I thought this might be useful feedback.
  11. dsayers
    I cannot tell if your question is agreement or suggesting that branches of philosophy are independent and exclusionary of philosophy.
  12. dsayers
    These are just words. When you're hungry, you don't view eating as blind idealism. When you're sick, you don't find comfort in slow and steady wins the race. No, you eat. Or you get in there and eradicate the sickness. What purpose would allowing for a little bit of violence serve if your desire is peace? Why should you tolerate a little bit of dishonesty when what you seek is the truth? You stated a conclusion and refuse to revise it amid legitimate challenge and correction. This is not philosophical, it's bigotry.
  13. dsayers
    Thank you for making my point about momentum. Instead of making it uncomfortable for them to support violence, you're allowing them to make it uncomfortable for you to not support violence.
  14. dsayers
    Thanks. Mr. Tyson's words are puzzling. First of all because he acknowledges that science is in fact a branch of philosophy. Secondly because he doesn't bother to define what philosophy means. Which is really important if you think a phrase like "religious philosophy," which he says, makes any sense. Philosophy is method to test the truth value of an objective claim. I cannot imagine a set of circumstances that would make it valueless to humankind.
  15. dsayers
    Could you highlight what part you are referring to? I for one am not inclined to sit through 80 minutes of something that can be summed up as truth is false.
  16. dsayers
    Somebody who says money is only numbers and isn't property cannot improve your debating skills. Debating skills are honed in the presence of resistance, such as by way of rational counterpoint. A person with good intentions stays out of things they do not understand. A reckless (dangerous) one jumps right in and does things like advocate everybody being stolen from. I think you are mistaken both in your assessment of him as well-meaning and the importance you place on well-meaning, which is actually the opposite of responsibility.
  17. dsayers
    Wouldn't that be like installing a Blu-ray laser on your reel to reel projector?
  18. dsayers
    If a surgeon were an inch off the mark and killed you as a result, would his good intentions mean anything? If the guy doesn't know what he's doing and pretends that he does, he is no longer eligible for the unimportant description of well-meaning. Sorry if I'm coming on too strong, but statism isn't a rational conclusion. I'ts only momentum. The moment we make it uncomfortable to maintain such a position, it will vanish almost instantly. In other words, THIS is how we bring about revolution peacefully.
  19. dsayers
    Biology disagrees with you. From the moment we are born, we are full bore, totally switched on, all senses in full delivery mode. Most of the reasons why babies cry is because they can't dial any of it down. It's also why they're perpetually exhausted. We explore the world around us, learning how to filter our senses in a meaningful way, through pattern recognition. This is only possible due in part to certainty and predictability. Imagine how different your life would be if you couldn't count on gravity or if heat so intense so as to harm your hand could spontaneously be a characteristic of the surface of any object you touched. Why, the only reason you bothered communicating is because of your certainty that others would be able to receive and interpret that communication in a meaningful way. Reason brings happiness because like it or not, your subconscious is calling the shots. If you refuse to accept reality, your subconscious will not let you rest.
  20. dsayers
    I'm glad others put the nail in the coffin for me. I didn't make it past this part since it came across as manipulative. I didn't believe that what followed would be of integrity. If somebody "hates you" for having a view different from theirs, they're mirroring unprocessed trauma from their childhood. "You" never even enters into it for them. They only claim that it does so that they don't have to look to those actually responsible for their abuse. If you want my advice, I wouldn't identify with any conclusion (Minarchist). Align yourself with sound methodology and the correct conclusions will come and even evolve as new information is gained. The complication comes in the form that once you think you've found the answer, you stop looking for the right answer. "Necessary evil" is a conclusion without sound methodology behind it. Somebody who was philosophically minded would at the very least be curious towards the very suggestion rather than accepting it outright and being party to the enslavement/murder of millions of human beings.
  21. dsayers
    Self-preservation is not the same as pacifism. Would you proclaim yourself sovereign if nobody was claiming ownership over you? If not, then for you to do so would be to legitimize their claim by engaging in behaviors for them. Like if somebody always did the exact opposite of what was expected of them, they wouldn't be free since doing the opposite is still behaving based on that expectation alone. I totally sympathize with you, Mishelle. I was once of the same mind and got a chance to prove it. As a result, a situation that could've just been a VERY uncomfortable inconvenience ended up being a year of hell that robbed me of many things. They turned the heat up because they didn't too much care for me telling them that what they were doing was wrong. Of course I was young and teeming with testosterone and unprocessed trauma. One of the more important things studying philosophy has helped me with is valuing self-preservation over proving a point to an audience that isn't listening and can invalidate the point by rigging the game further. THEY DON'T PLAY BY THEIR OWN RULES. Please do not engage them unnecessarily.
  22. dsayers
    How is denying somebody their self-ownership keeping them safe? Safe from what? Who are we to know what is safe for others? Why could we not make the case to them about what is safe and allow them to make those decisions voluntarily? Or not if they so choose. Here's the problem as I see it and it is twofold. First of all, when you make the case to somebody that taxation is violence, they reject it, and you continue to grace them with the pleasure of your company, you become complicit in their advocacy of violence. Secondly, if you are unwilling to live your values, then people will understand that what you claim are your values with words aren't actually important to you.
  23. dsayers

    New guy

    dsayers replied to DanielB's topic in General Messages

    Military folk are paid with stolen monies by the biggest criminals in human history. This is not philosophical, practical, or libertarian, and doesn't encroach but flat out violates the freedom of others. Self-knowledge is a very important component of philosophy. Particularly accepting one's own capacity for error. I do not feel you exhibit this. As a result, I feel that your claims regarding philosophy, practicality, liberty, and freedom are compromised and cannot be accepted at face value.
  24. dsayers
    You haven't made the case for murder being a legal term. Murder is the initiation of the use of force that results in the ending of a human life. Your scenario is a straw man. Soldiers who trespass cannot be described as engaging in self-defense. Concocting a very elaborate "what if" to make the description fit adds nothing to the conversation.
  25. dsayers
    Why are you friends with somebody that advocates the initiation of the use of force?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept