dsayers

A child's personality isn't fulled formed until they're 4-5 years old. When a child becomes a moral actor is almost impossible to define, but it is definitely years after they are born. I'm more interested in how you let such a claim by some guy you know escape this level of scrutiny or be repeated. Clearly he does not wish he was never born if he says so while not actively trying to end his life.

If you haven't already, I would check out Stef's The Bomb in the Brain series. Before trying to influence minds, it helps to understand why they think. For example, you mention "brainwashed" as if it's isolated and/or a mark against a person. But we've all been brainwashed. It's a sign of abuse. In other words, you're holding it against people that they've been abused. You're right in observing that this will go nowhere. One cannot will change. Nor can one fix a problem that they do not understand. We DON'T need to keep talking about "the issues." We need to listen to people, show them what empathy looks like, help them to want to overcome their abuse, help them into rational thought, and let them come to the conclusions on their own.

Begs the question by pretending that gaming pieces are normative and representative. You still have yet to answer the question about your assertion that intention outweighs behavior in moral consideration, so you kind of don't get to accuse other people of avoiding stuff. http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39700-context-sensitivity-of-ethics-and-a-question-of-rape/#entry363641

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39700-context-sensitivity-of-ethics-and-a-question-of-rape/#entry363641 You're avoiding a question.

How so? Unless it's a fund raiser banquet where your work is the beneficiary, I don't see what you're describing as counter productive. As Wuzzums pointed out, I wouldn't even say it's a bad thing. If you choose to say goodbye to somebody, nobody, or everybody, that's your choice. I think how you interact with people is more important than whether you greeted them or bid them farewell.

For sure. And I'm sorry your guys' was such that you could entertain for a moment that the forums were of lesser value. It is not. Humans have two ways of thinking: the intuitive and the analytical. In the moment, you're more likely to get somebody's intuition. That is, their emotional response, the result of habit, propaganda, history. With time to deliberate, we are able to deliver a more analytical approach. That is, a rational, reasoned, formulaic, or methodical response. This isn't to say that such a response will always be valuable or that an emotional response is never valuable.

Well I don't know what perfect employee means, but this would be State "taking advantage" (pleasant way of saying initiating the use of force against) of those people, not their employer. I thought I had made a good case. Allow me to try once more. The part in quotation marks implies collective ownership, which is inaccurate. Unless a person had the job or resource in question, somebody else getting/owning/making use of it could not be described as taking. Competition is a part of any market, including the job market. If they want the job, they can try to get it. If they're not the best person for the job, then that's a reflection of them, not the employer or the person who did get the job. This what I meant by the interpretation being an artificial culling. It's a confession of the inability to compete on a level playing field.

Mr. Roth, if you'll look around the forums, you'll see that it's NOT only populated by the philosophically minded. It also attracts people who so desperately need the trauma of their past to be normal that they'll attack anything that says otherwise. Those with truth on their side needn't lift a finger to respond to somebody who doesn't accept it. Meanwhile, the propagandized need to threaten with eternal hellfire or have had that response modeled for them. Instead of relying on the chatroom, why not pose your questions in the form of threads? Then you can get thoughtful replies, which remain a matter of record. This helps the sophists get weeded out, whether that's by downvotes or by banning.

Did you read the rest of what was said? I don't know if A policy is better than NO policy. It depends on what the policy is and how it was arrived upon. Did you read the quotes by Amy Terreros that you posted? This is not a policy for protecting the children or educating caregivers if their attitude is, "Sure, go full bore while at home, just don't bring it here." There's no integrity in the policy. They guessed part of the answer right while being qualified to use a principled approach to get the entire answer correct correctly.

Oh yeah. I was first introduced to her by way of .

It's a step. But is it a positive one? Imagine you were in a room full of monkeys and you wrote 2+2= on the white board. After an hour, you return to find 4 handfuls of poo splattered on the board. Is this a positive step, a lucky guess, or totally unrelated to the problem? An institution whose goal is human health is in no position to half-ass something as important as human health. By enacting a policy against spanking instead of aggression, they're essentially guaranteeing they'll need to have this policy for another 20-30 years while those children who were aggressed against without spanking are there with their own children.

Luckily, we don't have to speculate. The evidence is clear. I guesses a line such as this was coming when it referred to "emotional or behavioral difficulties" without any nod to what that means or where it comes from.

Philosophy isn't plural, it's not subjective, it's not something that can be owned. If I say to you that 2+2=4, this is not my math. Also, do you not see a contradiction in first stating that this site is for not philosophy and then stating that "the philosophy of FDR" is a subset of philosophy?

Philosophy not being plural aside, perhaps you could help to articulate your position if you could provide where you observe "Molyneuxian philosophy" departing from philosophy.

This is the third time you've tried to pass this sophistry off despite the first two times being challenged. First occurrence. Second occurrence. Now, I'm not sure why you need for governmental claim over you to be valid. I'm not sure why this need is so strong that you would pretend to participate in conversation and ignore that which you don't agree with. I would recommend seeking this out for your own sake. You say that somebody like me (lives in the US) is not forced to live here. If I moved to evade aggression towards me by way of taxation, legislation, and the like, that would be forced to move. Not that there is anyplace you could go that doesn't have some psychopath claiming ownership over you for being there. Any reasonable person would choose to not be aggressed against. So amid the aggression, them staying where their entire life is rooted is not the same as consent. Consent is not passive. [EDIT] Almost forgot to add: I don't know where it is you grew up, but I seriously doubt that where it was was actually anarchical. Common zeitgeister mistake, as is using the word intrinsic.

In the opening post, you said the community has surprisingly little rationality, are not capable of processing reality, badger with emotional responses, and are ripe with confirmation bias. If I may be so bold, assuming your solicitation of feedback is sincere, it might be that you have difficulty considering how you land for other people. I do not say this from an ivory tower as this is one of my biggest weaknesses also. If you would indulge me, I'd like to digress a bit to sort of explain what I'm talking about. I've never been in the chat room of this community. For all I know, it's an entirely different experience than the forum itself, possibly even with different people participating in one and not the other, etc. For this reason alone, I have two conclusions that might be of use for you. The first is the collectivization. Maybe it wasn't intentional--and yes, I see that half way through your OP, you do quality "the greater percentage of those I have interacted with"--but I know that when I first read your post, I had no idea what you were talking about. The other is that you made this thread with what appeared to be a collective conclusion, with almost no post history. Don't get me wrong; I'm not one of those forum fighters who use things like post count to marginalize people. However, when what you're talking about is conclusions about the community, it helps to have an established presence so that we have reason to believe your assessment could be accurate. Does that make sense? I haven't been here very long. However, since the topics this forum tackles tends to go against the status quo, I've noticed that it's not uncommon for "outsiders" to make accounts for any number of reasons other than pursuit of philosophy. This definitely looked like one to me. I'm not entirely convinced that it's not. Why do I say that? Look at your interaction with Teabagger. Without context into what you may know about each other, it would appear that his words towards you were quite provacative. I've been on the receiving end myself. However, since I've listened to this show and pursued self-knowledge, it almost never drives me to retaliation. Because I understand that type of postuting is far more likely to be unprocessed trauma than to actually have anything to do with me. I guess what I'm saying is that the thread appears to hold the community accountable for not being philosophical. Yet at the same time, much of what I'm seeing from you also doesn't appear to be philosophical. I count self-knowledge as philosohy, and in fact the most important aspect. Anyways, thank you for the flattering feedback. When I first saw a post from somebody named ZMorris yesterday, I wanted to greet you with a, "Would you be offended if I called you preppy?" I elected not to just in case you didn't get the joke. Would you have?

The opening post, with the exception of defining philosophy, looks more like a pissing contest than philosophy. Reading just that, I had no idea what you were talking about. I too wondered where this could be coming from with just a few posts. At no point did you reference the chat room or any specifics. Instead, you collectivized "this community" and hurled accusations at it. Is that philosophy or a pissing contest? The problem is that nobody is being forced to get punched in the face and everyone that stands in the path of somebody taking a swing knows a condition of standing there is getting punched in the face. This begs the question of whether or not the person throwing a punch (or taxing) is immoral (lacking consent).

I don't feel as if this question was even acknowledged. What then do you consider ethics to be? I don't see how somebody could use the word "preference" for example and be oblivious to the fact that they're talking about something subjective.

You said that you agree with them in principle. When I asked for a principle, you talked around the question. When you provided what you thought was a principle, it was challenged, to which you are responding it is hard to describe. Is it unreasonable to connect the dots and sum it up as you don't know what it is you support? Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. I think this (commonly referred to as the non-aggression principle) is simple, easy to describe, is universal, and therefore a principle. Now that I'm taking the time to demonstrate this, it occurs to me that supporting a principle is equally vague. To me, screwing somebody over would be forcing them to not ingest something just because it's bad for them. Selling somebody something that they want to buy isn't screwing them over. If you really needed to paint a bad guy in that scenario, it would be that the person is screwing themselves over, as is their prerogative. You don't have to refine the words you think with if you don't want to. However, you don't get to put somebody asking you to explain yourself into a unfavorable light. You can complain all you want, but your actions seem to show that you prefer to be punched in the face than not, since you didn't dodge it. I think I'm done here. I suspected there wasn't any merit to what you had said, feel that I've given you the opportunity to show otherwise, and now understand that your methodology is flawed and you have no interest in refining it. That's not a philosophical approach, which is what I'm interested in.

What does "destroy your environment" mean? Having a computer program dictate how resources (environment) gets used isn't not destroying your environment. The home you live in, the environment there had to be "destroyed" so that humans could have shelter. So not only is this not a principle, but it would be one everybody happily crosses to some degree for the sake of survival. What does "screw over your fellow men" mean? If you're talking theft, assault, rape, or murder, we don't need a computer program to tell us that these things are immoral. This too is not a principle. Let's say I chop down a tree. That's a tree you don't get to use. Did I screw you over? Then let's say I fashion it into a chair and sell it to somebody. That somebody isn't going to buy that chair from you now because they bought it from me. Did I screw you over? Did they? Government claims to own you and everything within its borders and makes decisions about your body, time, effort, etc without your consent. If you can make the case as to how this could be not described as coercive, please make that case. Your hesitancy to accept my claim doesn't alter its truth value. You're right, though it might manage the anxiety you feel in having conclusions you cannot provide methodology for challenged. You spoke of coercive things as if the coercion isn't there. This is a flawed premise, so any conclusion built on that premise will also be flawed. I think that given the nature of what we're talking about, it's kind of important to be accurate. Otherwise, you're just ushering in the next flavor of human enslavement. I'm assuming that's not your intention.

Lol, why, because of the friction between him and ICP? I don't get into all that stuff. Yeah, I like almost all of Eminem's early stuff. In fact, when it's chilly enough for a hat, but not a thick coat, I can often be seen simultaneously wearing a Shady hoodie and ICP stocking cap. I always wondered if anybody would notice the supposed contradiction with that.

"We're not trying to tell husbands how to discipline their wives; What they do at home is their business." Wretched. Strikes me as proof that this measure is not for the sake of health. Further evidenced by the fact that it doesn't encompass all aggression, just physical. Meaning the abusive parents will just have to resort to threats and yelling; The sort of thing that would result in criminal charges were they to try that against people that could actually fight back. I'm so embarrassed.

I enthusiastically make this case often. I've heard people defend their parents, using "they didn't know" as an excuse. When no responsibility we could have could be greater than the care and developmental guidance of another human being. To not know is negligent. I strongly agree with this one too. As a result of my unprocessed trauma, I was an awful friend and boyfriend in my younger years. I hurt people I didn't mean to and when I was confronted with this, I felt horrible and curious. I think these are definitive signals that the abuse was unintentional.

First of all, you're talking about coercive banking. Namely banking predicated on State controlled currency. This isn't eligible for the description of a system that "we created." Secondly, coercion aside, loaning money out for startup capital is crucial to innovation. How this could be described as not adding any value to society is incomprehensible. Third, if somebody doesn't add value to a free society (key), then people will not return value and that business will go under. Meaning that in a free society, businesses that didn't go under would be providing value to somebody. But this isn't a principle. I asked about the principle you agreed with as nothing I've heard from them is universal. Could you answer that please? I'd be happy to listen to anything else you might want to add, but my initial query pertained to principle. I only skimmed over the rest of your post. I see a lot of reference of coercion, which also fails to meet your original claim of systems "we created."

Your honesty is your property that you are free to share and withhold as you see fit. No arguments there. However, before I continue reading, I could use some clarification. I interpret the above as saying that ethics is subjective and behaviors are not eligible for moral consideration. What value would ethics have if they were subjective? Also, can you think of a reason to steal, assault, rape, or murder (behaviors) that would make them moral? I want to specify that those terms, to me, mean the initiation of the use of force. Meaning that if somebody steals your bike and you take it back, your behavior isn't theft.