dsayers

I've been thinking a lot about the nature of privacy. I've thought for a while that people cling to it so dearly because of the ways people in the present try to abuse it so readily. I wonder if our evaluation of the idea would be the same in a world where it wasn't trying to be abused. I own me, so I think it's a given that my thoughts and my feelings are my own, to share and withhold as I see fit. Beyond that, can we have a legitimate expectation of privacy? If you live alone, then even your behaviors within your home could fall under private. Unless they are done in the presence of another person, I would argue. I was hoping we could have a normative discussion to come up with a rational explanation as to what is private and what is not. Is there a flaw in the thoughts I've shared on the subject thus far? Are there factors I'm not considering? Is there more to the story than I've put forth? Let me know what you think please.

"Capitalism is making living things dead for profit" is not an argument. You cannot put forth a universal standard (making an argument), then make an exception for yourself. That what you said is both not an argument and patently false was the point of my probing question. See, you typing that is a capitalist activity. Since you decreed that capitalism is making living things dead for profit, this means that the act of you posting it made something living dead. OR it means that your theory needs to be revised. Namely, I think your understanding of capitalism is lacking. Not a big deal; I see people make the exact same mistake all the time. And it just so happens you're in a place full of people who can help you to understand what capitalism is and where it comes from. But without an understanding, you can responsibly make such large statements, without an expectation of your error being called to task. We live in a seriously fucked up world. I don't fault you for being angry. I think the anger is wasted if you aim your contempt at that which doesn't warrant it. @tea: Thanks for the input. I don't usually reveal auto-hidden posts, but did this once since I didn't recognize the screen name.

Does not indicate voluntary or coercive. Does not indicate voluntary or coercive. Does not indicate voluntary or coercive. Does not indicate voluntary or coercive. As many times as I've pointed out this distinction, it's incredibly rude to keep babbling as if the distinction hasn't been called into question. This is your interpretation of me comparing rape to love making. You are saying that love making is "manipulative rape." This simultaneously indicates that you interpret coercion as voluntary. It also means that you think there's a difference between violence and coercion. And what is a non-violent threat? If I say to you, "If you don't stop abusing heroin, we can't be friends." That is non-violent and because it is non-violent, it is not a threat. You have a serious issue discerning violence from peace. It is frightening. Thank you for your honesty. If somebody notices a fear of something, the next step is to determine if the fear is rational or not. Anarchism is without rulers. No coercion there. Capitalism is owning things. No coercion there. Does this mean that a society that honored property rights in general wouldn't have some coercion? Of course not. But it would mean that the market would be free to punish, avoid, and compete against such coercion, pushing it out by voluntary means. Again, if slavery is your fear, why the hell would you not focus on the State?! You're being completely dishonest.

The only character attack I see is downvoting my post for identifying an inconsistency in your position. Which by the way, you did not answer my question. Capitalism comes from self-ownership, which you are exercising when you make a post. You're essentially watching person A attack person B with a hammer and blaming the hammer. That's not very rigorous, nor would it be a character attack to share the observation that your contempt is misplaced. I can't really comment on the off-topic rant that followed other than to say that it, like the opening post, suggests unprocessed trauma that has nothing to do with the symbols you're offering up as if they are the source.

I can relate to this a great deal. How do you know that you wouldn't be able to recreate the experience in Chrome? When I made the switch to Chrome, most of the differences I noticed (coming from Firefox), I either grew to enjoy or was able to counteract by way of extensions.

As much as I love the series, it does really need to be cleaned up. He has better equipment now and would hopefully do better at sticking to the material.

I acknowledge that, but force isn't the only consideration here, is it? IF bribery can be damaging to a developing child, then pressuring them to read would come with the benefit of learning to read, but at what cost? I would talk to the child and try to determine why they appear to have no interest in reading. Keeping in mind as I stated above that most of the answer is going to be the responsibility of the parent. Keep in mind too that in the digital age, reading doesn't have to mean a book. I've seen some insanely cheap tablets lately. I would look into what is available out there in terms of children's/learning to read books in digital format. Who wants to use a rotary phone attached to the wall when they can be at the park and just whip something out from their pocket?

Make the time please. With something as critical as what you went through, follow-up is so very important.

I don't agree with your chain of causality. For one, it's vague. Loneliness compared to what? If you are lonely because the people around you aren't virtuous, why should that lead to your unhappiness? Unless of course you make no effort to seek out virtuous people and/or make no effort to try to help others become virtuous. Dysfunction in the world is momentum. Reaching out to others in an attempt to help them would add to our own happiness while not conforming to the interpersonal disconnection you mention.

Well, the external relationship HAS been resolved. Whether she lied or her situation changed, it's over between the two of you externally. All that's left is internally. Do you feel the desire to punish her for what you perceive to be lying to you? Do you feel the desire to hear her admit that she lied to you? Ask yourself this question: Whether she lied to you, her situation changed, or some other factor you haven't considered, would it being one of these and not the other have any bearing on your life right now? Let us suppose that she lied to you. Which would mean she couldn't even have the decency to be honest with you about something you deserve the truth about. Nothing you could do in regards to her would change the fact that you were attracted to somebody that couldn't value you enough to even be honest with you. How did this happen? It could provide self-knowledge that would help you to avoid repeat performances in your life. For example, was your relationship based on honesty? Did you talk about sensitive things? Did you demonstrate that you were open to honesty even when it would not be comfortable?

That really sucks. I cannot even fathom how anybody could suggest that one's past has no bearing on the present or the future. Are you able to get book by Nathaniel Branden for example? They're not a replacement for talk therapy, but they can be very useful in lieu of it.

What living things died at the hands of your capitalist use of your body, time, and energy to make this post? It tickles me to watch somebody malign capitalism while not realizing that their every action in life is an acceptance and an affirmation of capitalism. Your contempt is misplaced, brother. If you're going to stand up in front of the world and preach having an answer (which you haven't even done that), you should have a grasp of the material first.

How could I correct or insult somebody that is presented with "I like chocolate" and comprehends it as "vanilla is abhorrent"? Any attempt to correct would be equally warpedly received, no? Money is stored value. The free market CAN'T solve many of the issues we have today because the issues we have today are the result of coercion, including the coercive manipulation of the free market, which renders it not a free market. YOU ARE POINTING TO THE EFFECTS OF VIOLENCE AND CALLING IT THE EFFECTS OF THE FREE MARKET. If you have a store, I visit your store, I agree to pay you a price that's depicted on a price tag, and you charge me that +X% to satisfy a sales tax, this is not a free exchange. Am I getting through to you at all? Translation: Love making is only slightly better than rape. Love making cannot solve the issues of rape because the problem is with intercourse in general. Comparatively, this is what you're saying. This is why I love Stef's phraseology of exposing the gun in the room. Coercion is a problem. The storing of value, the voluntary exchange of value, all the things that do not involve coercion are not the problem. In the scenario above, you are not the bad guy for charging me extra, it's the people with the gun to your head making you charge extra that is the evil. An overstatement, but the extent to which this is true is entirely at the hands of coercion. Who stole the money to build all the roads, entrenching us into an oil-based society? Who gives variances to allow companies to pollute when recollection and purification options exist? Who empowers them with the ability to squelch alternative fuels? Vague description, yet not true. The fact that you don't see the difference between violence and voluntary interaction, and the fact that all you keep bringing up is vague talking points indicates you're a rebel without a cause more than anything. In the US, the lumber industry was actively rotating forests, replenishing the stock they were cutting down. Violence stepped in to tell them what they could and couldn't do based on owls that lived there for example even though the owls already adapted to this. Ironically, this was done as the result of people, who thought they could control others by using the gun in the room, started complaining about air and running out of this renewable resource. Like let's ban french fries or else we'll run out of potatoes! No, we just plant more. Get it? To be clear, I post this stuff for others who might be swayed by your vague nonsense. I had already addressed some of the minutia, to which you just kept going like you weren't corrected at all. You lied to me earlier when you said that you focus on the State.

Nobody suggested this at all. In fact, the capacity for reason is a requisite for property rights. Define "extremely great inherited wealth." Explain how political power, which is illegitimate, can be earned by anybody. The rest of your post speaks as if we don't know where dysfunction and evil comes from, but we do.

I'm not sure where enjoying reading and enjoying learning to read enters into it. Are you saying that we can pressure to read because we have reason to believe that it's something they would decide for themselves if they had the capacity to make such a decision? It's a fair point, but I don't view it as a time-sensitive manner. Granted, my understanding of unschooling is peripheral at best, but a child will learn to read on their own just as they learned to talk "on their own." The parent is welcome to invite and of course should nurture the child so that they will understand that the parent is available for them, to help. The parent can help by modeling reading and by reading to the child to demonstrate the joy they could potentially get from reading themselves. I like Stef's approach of pointing out that failing sucks, but it's very VERY necessary. Probably the most important thing a parent could do is to welcome failure and help the child to understand that they failed a ton before they could talk, before they could walk, and so on. Or failed to parent for that matter, or else we couldn't have this conversation

How many times will I have to go down this path before I learn to trust my instincts and not feed the trolls, to not dignify those who would move goalposts? I am so very ashamed right now.

Depends on what you mean by closure. Realistically, closure just means certainty. This seems pretty certain to me. I know a lot of people use the word to mean a mutual ending. Unfortunately, this is not always attainable when talking about creatures of free will. If you wanted her and she didn't want you, this kind of closure could never be. If it was she's a horrible person that refuses to change, you can get this kind of closure there either. Or did you mean something else?

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are the only things that violence can provide that voluntary action cannot. You do not need government for these things, though you will get them with a government. Not true. Gravity doesn't require us to be part of it. It is simply binding upon everything within its sphere of influence. This is why it's called a law. What you're talking about isn't law and because it was man made, it is subjective (who says it's illegal to possess something?). Unless the RULE is do not violate the property rights of others (theft, assault, rape, and murder). This is a truism of the capacity for reason (moral actor), not because some edict happened to declare it also. This is because your use of the word "government" is fictitious. Government in the descriptive (is) is a group of people with a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force within a geographical area. There is no government in the normative (ought) because property rights preempt its legitimacy. What you're talking about is voluntary interaction, which is great, but it's not government. Is there a reason why the phrases dispute resolution organization, insurance company, and private protection agency bother you? Is there a reason why you NEED government to be legitimate so badly that you're willing to go through such verbal contortions to try and force its legitimacy? At least when statists go to these lengths, its because they believe violence is necessary.

Then it's not government. Words have meanings. No it isn't. You're typing, so clearly you accept that you own yourself. Which means I own me, which means for either of us to exercise ownership over the other without consent is immoral. So I say one last time: Morality is not subjective. Just as with passing government off as voluntary, the moment you're talking about something that is subjective, it cannot be morality.

The problem though is that they won't be reading out of curiosity. They'll just be trying to get the candy. Then when the candy's not there, they are disincentivized to read. In your scenario, how do we know that for the child to read at that moment is the correct answer? Why isn't the child allowed to have the candy regardless of whether they read or not? I agree with you about the fine line. It's a subconscious decision we're making all the time. If somebody you know does something you don't agree with, you might distance yourself from them. You might make the case for them to stop what they're doing or seek alternatives. But your time and your company is yours to give as you see fit. To withhold it from others, for whatever reason, isn't actually bribery. I might have to read that Alfie Kohn/birbery thread more carefully as I'm finding myself ambivalent on the subject. Like I'm starting to think about the importance of teaching the child to negotiate. This would mechanically be identical to bribery, but with much more ethical intentions. What do you guys think?

Insecurity in not being able to get into another or better relationship. Insecurity in not being happy while outside of a relationship. An unwillingness to learn from mistakes. Seeking to recreate unprocessed trauma to feel "normal." Following the example of caregivers who modeled gravitation towards abusive relationships. For you, it would be more important to understand why you are tempted to do this than what others might experience.

No, you said: ...with no pause to address the fact that you had just got done speaking as if the morality of rape is up to us. And your initial input in this thread was to say that government is not akin to slavery. This is not at all to say that the immorality of government is objective, which was never disputed in the first place. Are you not aware that the transcript of this exchange is all right here? No I'm not. This is the 2nd time today you've claimed I was saying something I was saying. Set aside the prejudice long enough to have a conversation with me or don't pretend to have a conversation with me. Does that seem fair to you? You're pointing to the effects of coercion and calling it the effects of the free market. This is incredibly dangerous since people see things like that and prescribe more violence as the solution. If you're so worried about monopolies and the rich using their wealth to exploit people, focus on the State coercion that protects evil doers even when they make decisions that would rightfully sink them in a free market.

Good questions. I don't know. There was certainly nothing immoral about your initial scenario. You mentioned Alfie Kohn and I thought most of his work pertained to childhood trauma. And I thought I was posting in the thread about how bribery can be damaging to children. So I apologize for any miscommunication that I'm repsonsible for.

I don't know that that's the case. It's just a theory. The theory is that she experienced trauma at some. Let's say somebody took from her, sexually. Here you are, not taking from her sexually, honoring her reserve, trying to talk to her, etc. She isn't prepared to face the truth of her abuser and you're not taking from her sexually and in fact are trying to help her work through it, which is bringing her closer to facing her abuser, which she cannot handle. So you are no longer attractive to her. Again, just a theory. I hope from that explanation you can derive a template as to how other trauma could play out. Maybe the abuse wasn't sexual and was instead verbally abusive whereas you're not verbally abusive to her and she's not ready to admit her caregivers were abusive or expose her to abusive people. Does this answer your question?

You said shift in power from politics to money. The financial power you are referring to is rooted in political power, which is inherently coercive. This is not anarcho- that you're referring to. I'm really sorry you cannot differentiate between rape and love-making. It's something I recommend you put effort into because it's EXTREMELY important to be able to tell the difference between voluntary interaction and coercion if you're going to stand before the entire world and try to make truth claims about it.