dsayers

So? Fraud is cooperational. If I have a car lot and you come onto my lot, spot a blue car, and say you want it on the basis that it is blue and then the engine seizes up because it had no oil in it, would that be my fault? Or is it your responsibility when choosing to buy/own/operate a car to ensure its maintenance? If I said I'll sell you a dangfur for $10, what would you say? I mean, if a dangfur is worth $100, that's a pretty sweet deal! Are you going to agree to the trade on the possibility that you might profit from the exchange? Or are you going to take the time to educate yourself on what a dangfur is before entering a trade for one? And if you do not, could I be said to be acting immorally for selling you a dangfur for $10 when they're in fact only worth $1?

No you don't. Saying you have a right to an education means others must educate you. This is an unchosen positive obligation and is immoral. Just as saying you have a right to live means others have the obligation to keep you alive. The link I provided does a very good job of covering this. Now, if you choose to pursue education in a fashion that doesn't violate the property of others, then it would be immoral for others to initiate the use of force to obstruct your pursuit. This is not the same as a right to education.

I grew up in a similar situation. I had shared baths with my sister (2 years younger) and with a couple of female cousins (same age and 2 years younger). In retrospect, I guess the cousins thing just means that it was considered normal without examination too. Additionally, at home, there were very relaxed boundaries on the bathroom in general. I don't remember how old I was the last time it happened, but it was not uncommon for more than 1 person to be in the bathroom. Around the time of puberty, I was molested by my sister and one of my cousins. I sort of went with it and molested my sister back. She told on me and I got into so much trouble. To this day, I have not divulged with anybody her secret. Namely that it actually began with her. Part of the reason I held onto it was because I viewed it as avoiding responsibility. Because I was once in a group therapy scenario where I was literally yelled at for trying to share the bathroom situation as if I was doing so to avoid responsibility for my actions. I cannot really give advice for your situation. However, I think a bit more info would be helpful. For example, how did you at the age of 8-9 understand that mouth to penis was even a thing? It seems like this would not be the beginning of the story. Also, was it just the one time? Obviously to coerce somebody into doing something they do not want to do is wrong. However, without more info, I would not necessarily regard that as sexual in terms of you accountability. This is missing the point. Assuming that having unsupervised, shared, and/or multi-gender baths is problematic, you don't take on the responsibility of having 3 kids if you cannot afford the water for them to bathe in an appropriate environment.

What does that mean? I noticed that you conveyed that idea in a language most everybody that would read it understands. Does this make you a conformist? Overly conformist? Sorry, I think that is one of those words that is tossed around to solicit a specific reaction despite the process being disingenuous.

Welcome back, Mishelle. Where have you been hiding? I lol'ed at the "are you my mommy?" pic/caption.

Could you be more specific? Hitler did a lot of things, including eating breakfast in the morning. I can certainly understand why he'd do that. Understanding isn't the same as sympathizing.

In the context of your seeking objectivity, yes. Because both are subjective. I love a good meal, but I just had a good meal. Therefore "a good meal" is not of the same value to me in this moment as it was in the moment before I ate. Whereas before, I would've preferred to eat, I now would prefer not to eat for a bit.

In what way would beating/torture lead to restitution or correction? It seems to me that if immorality is rooted in abuse, then abuse would be the last thing to prescribe.

I was going to post about this also. I'm curious as to why it wasn't posted in the thread about the video itself, where it would serve to help the most about of people. Anyways, I made this same error once before and actually have alex to thank for helping me get past that mental blind spot here. Just because the State would have you believe that anarchy is total chaos and destruction does not invalidate the concept of anarchy! Similarly, just because the majority of people misuse the word right does not mean it is an invalid concept. I still think that amid those misbeliefs, that using the word property might be more productive than the word right, it is still talking about the same thing more or less. I own myself and I have exclusive right to myself in most contexts are the exact same claim. I have the right to my car. Not because I have the right to A car, but because I provided value to others, stored the reciprocal value, and used that stored value to exchange for a car, making it my car, which I now have exclusive rights to because it is now my property.

Out of moderation, anything could be unhealthy. That doesn't mean that the item of consideration itself is linked to unhealthiness. This is like presuming that somebody that speaks is obsessed with their thoughts/ideas. As I just said, it is a possibility, but not automatically so. When I'm on amazon, bestbuy, or newegg, I WANT pictures! It's a form of communication. We live in a world where it is possible to communicate what we see and look like. When Hoffman died, Stef put out a video on the topic of addiction. One of the first things he pointed out, which I agree with, is that nothing is inherently addictive. If a person compulsively takes pictures of themselves with such frequency or motivation that it could be deemed unhealthy, the "selfie" is not the issue. I think the article is irresponsible. Perhaps we should call the mental health of the author into question based on that alone

Except that debt is voluntary. If you sign for a loan, YOU are VOLUNTARILY creating a positive obligation. Slavery is called slavery explicitly because of the lack of consent.

@cynicist: I view definition 2 as just a positive example of definition 1. Denoting a neutral nature explicates the capacity both for positive and negative occurrences. Would you agree?

I think there's been a miscommunication.

And if those other jobs were "materializing," then your position would be that there aren't other other jobs. You have no null hypothesis that I can see. This is like saying that I do not choose to eat because I'm a slave to my stomach in the context of wanting to live. Also, in keeping with the infinite regression, your position would label everybody in the world as slaves. Because the people the "wage slaves" work for work for other people, who work for other people... all the way up to the top. And that person works for their customers.

@Gotzendammerung: If I could upvote your post twice, I would. Before her recent return (her FDR days were before my own), I had seen a convo referenced that she was a part of. I am incredibly embarrassed to admit this, especially knowing she will likely read it, but I was instantly pegged. I don't agree with her conclusions, but the way she handles it... wow. I could never fully put my finger on why I was so turned on. After reading your post, I guess subconsciously I knew it all along and didn't want to admit it because of my elevated moral sensitivities and efforts towards healing: It was her damage. It makes sense now, despite being very uncomfortable to face. In my youth, when I first got a driver's license, was obsessed with females, and had just enough freedom to act on it, I was drawn to the damaged to inflict my own damage and recreate the damage done to me. I think the reason why, despite the progress I've made, I'm taken back to those days is because of the way she thinks and communicates. Like if I was in a room with Stef, I might be a bit nervous for a minute, but then it would be a great conversation for sure. I am very intimidated by Noesis, but in a way that I feel is endlessly intruiging. I seriously wish I could meet an undamaged/healed woman of that level of intellect and expression. Okay, this is WTMI (too much information) radio signing off for now. Thank you so much for helping me to understand something that's actually been itching at me for a bit here.

Can this be so? Attachment and love require large amounts of time, companionship has less of a time requirement and lust requires almost no time. Additionally, love, lust, and companionship are inherently positive while attachment doesn't denote attitude. I had nothing to do with my mother for the last ~10 years of her life. However, I think of her to this day as a result of my attachment to her that came from having overlapping lives for a quarter of a century.

I'll take it back one step further: Both stem from self-ownership. If we own ourselves, then our body, time, and effort are our capital and every decision we make is a capitalistic one. If everybody owns themselves, then you cannot have a State by any name/system as it is predicated on different classes of human ownership. The "demand for coercion" is an effect of coercion. It's a circular claim.

No, to not be slavery, you need consent. Wage is voluntary compensation. It's the meaning of the term. Hence the moment it's a wage, it's not slavery and the moment it's slavery, it's not a wage. The terms are incompatible.

I do not agree with this. In fact, when I was younger, there was this extremely hot girl that was all over me when we first met. It would've made for a great fantasy. In real life though, it was actually off-putting. I'm not suggesting that my experience is indicative of anything.

Ain't collectivism grand?

Sounds to me like a fancy way of saying abuse victim.

I thought you said this person was a friend?

If you put you hand into a fire, you impulsively pull it out. If somebody holds your hand in a fire, you pass out. If a person was beaten as a child--that is, a time when they had no escape--any number of forms of damage could manifest. One could be to translate the experience as pleasure in an attempt to regain control over the situation or avoid facing the truth of their abuse/abuser.

Do you think it was wrong that you spanked him? Assuming he was smaller than you, couldn't choose to leave, or was indirectly dependent on you (he was all three), then yes, it would be immoral to assault him. If he is initiating the use of force in trying to get a weapon with which to threaten others, then using force to stop him would be justified. Given the power disparity listed above, that defensive force only needed to be you obstructing his access to the knives. Assuming the parents left for you a way to contact them, I would've called them and informed them that they needed to return home immediately. Once they arrived, I would've informed them that I refuse to be responsible for or otherwise involved with an 8 year old that has been taught that grabbing a knife and terrorizing a 5 year old is normal. I think if I were a babysitter, I'd want to get to know the parents, the child, and witness their interaction to avoid entering that difficult situation in the first place. You are correct that from your position, there is nothing you can do with that limited access to correct the problem. However, assaulting him only managed the symptoms. It actually exacerbated the problem, which nobody has the legitimate right to do.

You make it sound subjective. It is true that many groups interested in controlling people do pretend that morality is subjective. It isn't, as you yourself characterized by talking about the NAP, which is just another way of stating objective morality. It wouldn't much matter who said or didn't say. It's an observation of reality. This is really important because it's why defensive force is justified. You cannot get an ought from an is without a conditional. Their rights do not imply anything, they aide in the interpretation of morality of behaviors. Rape and love making are mechanically identical. A person's rights is how we know that consent is paramount in determining which on intercourse is.