dsayers

This shouldn't be a surprise. "Liberty is good" is a conclusion. Arriving at that conclusion correctly requires philosophical principles. A large percentage of people are spanked and raised in religion, so it's no surprise that they need for that to be normal. It takes philosophical integrity to break through that mental trap. This is kind of sad to read about. I've heard people defend Ron Paul, stating that even if he's not right, he's getting more people to talk about these sort of things. Problem is that so many of them refuse to take that one more step.

He had built a life with his wife. He was attached to his wife. His wife was gone. At his age, there was nothing to look forward to other than failing health and being perpetually, utterly miserable. I'm not as old as him but if something happened to me where I was suddenly without legs, I'd have a very difficult time adjusting. I say this, with legs, in full possession of my faculties. Would I be a coward for ending my life over something like losing my legs? Perhaps. This is different from insane or irrational. Also, I think you come across as obtuse when somebody mentions caffeine or tattoos to make the point that it's not up to us HOW a person makes decisions pertaining to their property. I even offered the disclaimer that I was not likening the two, to which you replied I most certainly was. At this point, I'm wondering if there's a reason why you need for suicide to be an irrational decision?

I don't follow your logic. Adults voluntarily submit to drug tests, so they have a right to inflict them onto unconsenting children involuntarily?

Why do you want to help? Not saying you shouldn't, but it wasn't mentioned in your post. What is she like as a person? Was she nurturing to her offspring? Do they/you have reason to make time for her in your lives? Typically, people who experience discomfort in being alone lack self-knowledge. I think this is more true in the case of empty nest since this is a set of circumstances that would've been predictable some 18+ years in advance. I'm not trying to pass judgement on her specifically. It could just be that I'm only getting your interpretation of temporary stimulus. What do you think?

Technically, the enforcer class doesn't either. They will in the event of refusal but for the most part, the threat of as much is enough for most people. If you want to see what the driving force behind the State is, go up to your average person and say to them, "I don't pay taxes." They don't have to be a politician, or an enforcer, or a voter, but they will likely look at/talk to you like you've just stolen money from them. So while you argue, and rightly so, that were the enforcer class to step down, the system would unravel, it is also true that if the peasants stopped attacking one another for not conforming, the system would run out of momentum.

I'm not sure why you continue to misrepresent my input. You made the claim that nobody that commits suicide is sane. I offset this by saying that we cannot tell a person's sanity level by their behavior of attempted suicide alone. Yes. I don't know the details, but my understanding is that the aftermath was pretty gruesome. Somebody was forced to clean up the mess. The labor alone was an unchosen positive obligation, but the nature of the labor would be pretty horrifying even if you didn't know the person.

I never said they're all rational. I said they're not all irrational. Specifically, that we cannot know their level of sanity based on one decision they've made. I also made the case that suicide is immoral as it inflicts unchosen positive obligations onto others, therefore arresting a suicide attempt is not immoral. I'm not sure how you could interpret either as the exact opposite. I apologize if I was in any way unclear. On a side note, you don't have to avoid my grandfather's suicide. I was relatively young and the only part of it that really stuck with me for a bit was the way it effected my father as a result of seeing the aftermath first hand. I only brought it up because of all the suicides I've ever heard of, none have come close to having been as calculated.

Worst part about this is that he thought he was dispensing a nugget of wisdom when in fact he was warping your expectations unrealistically. Stef makes this point by referring to the very small percentage of Shakespeare's work we are familiar with today. I also like Penn & Teller's take on it: Nobody was Michael Jordan the first time they picked up a basketball. Failure is how we succeed.

Can't click onto his profile. Guess he got banned.

In this context, the word objective then has no meaning. I've heard Searle talk about that, so I understand what you're saying. But objective means independent of one's mind. Just because I experience a chair subjectively does not make the statement "That is a chair" subjective. Just as starting from first principles, we arrive at the statement "theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral," which is objective morality.

What does alter his judgement mean? When I have a filling meal, it alters my judgement of what to eat. Does this mean I'm irrational or insane for eating more/less/specifically? I think it goes without saying that he was experiencing grief, but do you need to experience grief to understand that you cannot live without the person whose been your life for 2/3 of it? Does his grief mean his decision couldn't have been rational? 1 year to the day. He knew exactly what he was doing and why. And while it effected everybody that was in his life, of which there were many, it was for none of us to decide but him. Sucks to all hell, but it's consistent.

Feel free to add me, Mel. I'm on quite a bit, mostly evening and on into the night, and have a history of helping people learn new games. Though I do come and go often due to work duties (alarm response/patrols).

Which people? I can define it if you'd like. It's a system where costs are subsidized and profits are privatized. It's evil because it's coercive.

Can you give me an example of rational ingestion of caffeine? I'm not trying to liken the effects of suicide and caffeine consumption. My point is that if we own ourselves, then we own the ability to make bad decisions, for whatever reason. Also, why does the agony need to be unhealable? At the risk of sounding biased, I offer the example of my grandfather, who killed himself. It was one year to the day of the death of his wife of 4+ decades. He disposed of his cat, set his affairs in order, said his goodbyes, left a note, then blew his brains out. He was not irrational or insane. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not for us to decide WHY somebody chooses to do something. Or would you argue that this is different because it goes against our basest motivator: self-preservation?

Just realized I hadn't posted my battletag. I'm Dushku#1536 and play in the NA region. I did just put together a funsies deck that I think has the potential for being competitive. It revolves around the Void Terror card, but plays well without it. Speculation is that it will get even better once Naxxramas is released. Details: http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/forum/topic/12673778173 In terms of my deck slots, I'm still focused on achieving legendary at some point. Until then, my slots will be more committed to competitive play. Though I have sort of narrowed my tastes down to ~3 decks for competition. I actually can't wait because I feel that for me, I will allow myself to actually start "playing the game" at that point.

This. While an intimate relationship is valuable in and of itself for self, the main benefit to formalizing it is for the care of children. That said, if you did in fact have such an arrangement and the person not biologically connected to the child treated them as their own, this could actually be better for the child. I was "fortunate" enough to have some polygamy experience as a late teen. Back then, I had been abused and was only thinking of self. As a result, the jealousy that is all too common in such arrangements was ripe in me. Though there was one girl who was a friend, who I could hang out with or be sexual with and it didn't matter much to me. She would be frisky with my girlfriend and female roommate sexual partner and continued to do so even after getting married. To this day, I'm puzzled as to why I was not jealous, controlling, or possessive with her specifically. Anyways, the key as with most things is going to be self-knowledge. If everybody involved is in touch with and honest with themselves, then any problems should be surmountable, with everybody free to leave or alter the arrangement (voluntarily of course) as they see fit. However, it's not unlike a delicate machine with more people meaning more moving parts and therefore greater potential for catastrophic failure. I should probably include for credibility's sake that I personally have little experience with RTRs, though I have read the book and accept it's message.

These concepts would have absolutely no value if they were subjective. I don't know how effective this feedback will be, but your post history appears to be that of somebody who is all output and no input. Such people tend to have very little to offer in terms of honesty and accuracy as a result of their lack of effort towards refinement.

I wouldn't feel bad about asking for your money back if you are legitimately unsatisfied. This is incredibly important feedback for a proprietor, as evidenced by their offering it up front.

I understand what you're saying. However, this begs the question. We cannot say that I have a right to punch you in the face or that to do so would be morally accpetable just because you could dodge if you don't wish to be punched in the face. We know whether or not punching you in the face is moral the same way we do every behavior, including administering drug tests: consent. In the infamous bar parking lot scene of Fight Club, the punch to the face was not immoral. Perhaps we could have a side convo about schooling in general. Do you think that because parents pay a school money, this creates a positive obligation for the children, a non-consenting third party? We would never let this thought process fly in regards to adults. Then again, adults can fight back, which is one of the reasons why I find this story so wretched.

Are you talking about when people misuse the word philosophy when they mean policy or values? I feel you've just contradicted me without providing any substance to back it up with.

Great point. I missed that because as cobra pointed out, I was operating under the assumption of a State in place where the boat owner would be intensely questioned and likely brought up on charges despite no legitimate complainant. I would agree that we have no way of knowing a person's sanity level based on the behavior of attempting suicide alone. No, saying negatively impacted isn't not the same as saying forcing obligations, even if the latter could be considered a subset of the former. If you were trying to resonate what I said, this should be welcome feedback since the ability to actually explain such things (instead of vague language like negative impact) will help your ability to influence others. I speak from experience because I was actually in an argument with a friend recently because of this. He saw not helping somebody who fell and broke their leg as "immoral" because he hadn't taken the time to define moral and was just going by what felt right. When in fact there is no moral obligation to help, it's just something that most people would do despite not being obligated to. Inaction is amoral unless you had previously voluntarily created a positive obligation of action under the circumstances being considered. It's like the broken leg thing I just mentioned. It's something most people would do, but there is no moral obligation, so inaction could not be described as immoral. I hope you can see from this exchange the importance of precision when discussing morality. Please feel free to make any corrections or seek any clarifications. Morality is one of those things that if we get wrong, millions of people get killed, so I take it very seriously.

This is a straw man. Morality and effect are not the same thing. Another straw man. By using the word murderer, you're begging the question. Also, aggression is the initiation of the use of force. Meaning that if the use of force has already been initiated, the use of force to arrest the aggression could not itself be described as aggression even if it is mechanically identical. How did you arrive at this conclusion? "provide them help" is a positive obligation and therefore cannot be presumed without consent. You're essentially claiming that it would be immoral to not give consent. This is sort of the definition of coercion. The immorality would be in the person with this expectation, not whom the expectation is of.

Challenge accepted! Signed, Typical Politican

Some soldiers are murderers, but not because they are soldiers, but because they murdered. If you're looking for a more accurate summary to push back against the narrative, tell me what you think of mine: The enforcer class (this includes police) are people who accept it when somebody tells them that morality applies differently to them. This includes doing things that would get non-enforcers imprisoned as well as accepting stolen monies for doing so. But I repeat myself. The important thing to remember is that people in the enforcer class are victims also. Victims of their families, a society that pretends that hierarchy is necessary and noble, and of course the immoral orders they are given. This doesn't excuse them, but hopefully it will quell the desire to condescend them or incite others against them. Quite frankly, we need them. By that I mean that if a good portion of the enforcer class said "NO" to the ruling class, we'd have a revolution TODAY without a drop of bloodshed. Such an act would have the added benefit of putting a real stigma on the enforcer class, encouraging others to follow suit in leaving and discourage others from entering into it.

I know exactly what you mean! I mean it quite literally when I say the single sentiment that gives me the greatest delight is that the extension of personhood to children is unstoppable. I'm reminded of a talk Larken Rose gave one time when he likened Statism to people who clung to the geocentric model of the solar system despite more and more evidence piling up to the contrary. Sure, you can kill the blasphemers at first to try and scare off the others. But the truth WILL come out and no amount of coercion can stop it in the long run. They're really one in the same. I'm very glad you feel free to be yourself here. I feel the same way. It's weird too when you think about it since even though this is one corner of the internet, it's still wide open for all to see. Yet I have no reservations with being entirely frank, even about myself, even when it's something that is embarrassing or uncomfortable to talk about. It's nice to have the support, to be surrounded by people that understand that the things we do began with what was done to us, and to just know that we're not alone in these experiences. I also can be reluctant to ask for help. My mother sort of encouraged self-reliance for the sake of her own ability to be lazy. Meanwhile, my father (they were divorced) tried to do everything for me rather than grooming me to be able to do things on my own. It actually led to a failure to launch that I'm suffering the effects of to this day. Was there anything in your childhood that you parents modeled for you that might make it challenging for you to ask for help from others? In regards to your question, I have an analogous answer. When I was younger, I had a pet squirrel during its first year of life. As autumn approached, he became wild to the point that I had to let it go. For years after, I could pick him out from other squirrels and he'd come into my lap and eat grapes and nuts. So his growing wild had nothing to do with a general disposition towards me, just a reaction to being caged. Well that's kind of how it was for me in the deFOO road. Not that I've completely shifted just because there's some financial dependence/investment involved. It wasn't a challenging transition for the most part. YEARS before I started studying philosophy, I stopped having anything to do with my mom. The way she treated my step-fathers was just awful on so many levels. Then one xmas morning, she got down on my younger brother for reacting unfavorably to a gift, then promptly turned around and yelled at my step father because a gift she got from him wasn't satisfactory. By that point, it was too much. Before that, her (very large, stereotypical redneck) extended family had all but shut me out. They were loud and obnoxious and I wasn't a country boy myself, so I didn't fit in or have any desire to conform. Then later my sister pretty much severed ties between us because of my avoiding my mother. Ironically, she went on to cut her off too. My father's always been aggressive and controlling. I knew that from an early age when he'd occasionally cross the line into physical abuse. But because of the standard propaganda narrative, I always felt close to him because he's the male parent and I'm the male offspring. When FDR encouraged me to pursue self-knowledge and study philosophy, it was then that I was able to see the extent of his abuse, down to the minutia of his language patterns, etc. I was downright enraged towards him as a result, and he could sense my enormous contempt despite being completely devoid of empathy. Mainly because he's always been the "honor thy father" type, so anything short of kissing his butt is suspect. I'm exaggerating a bit, but I hope you get my point. At one point, it came to a head and I tried talking to him about violence, my childhood, alternatives, etc. He wasn't the least bit curious. He made it clear he wasn't interested in me, just the effects of my labor. He also expressed his belief that aggression is part of family, violence is necessary, etc. You hear people talk about closure sometimes. Well to me, closure is just clarity. While the outcome wasn't the one I would've preferred, it was an incredible relief having that clarity. He's still in my life for reasons I can elaborate on. For now, I feel I've offered a drawn out enough response to your question [EDIT] Almost forgot something I wanted to mention in regards to you talking about Santa and your experience as a child. I'm assuming by your username that you're familiar with South Park, eh? They get a lot of things right philosophically speaking. I found the episode where they found out about the lies their parents were telling them. Can't remember if it was Santa or the easter bunny.