dsayers

No! Being honest about it (which you're not) would empower YOU. You'd be reinforcing your ability to face truth when it is uncomfortable. You'd have an easier time avoiding making the same mistakes in your life and avoiding/helping others that do it, and you'd help your subconscious by not having to try and make you face it. No! If you forgave him his every indiscretion based on your flawed belief that he was infallible, you would not have created this thread. You created this thread because vestiges of his decisions have very real impact on your life even today. This is the honesty you're putting so much effort into avoiding. EVERYTHING you can say about one parent being in your life, the other parent is accountable for as well by making that choice as a partner and especially as in having children. And you're avoiding that you're avoiding it. That's a lot more typing while still pretending that you didn't go to such a ridiculous length as to claim somebody has to look like a cartoon devil before we can consider their behaviors evil.

I would argue that if you can apply the descriptor of subjective to something, it can't rightfully be called morality. It's like when somebody tries to defend a "legitimate government" by describing completely voluntary interactions. The moment it's legitimate, it can no longer be described as government. This is the way psychopaths subjugate an entire planet: They seize the language in order to control thought. Like how the word "anarchy" will conjure for most images of chaotic, violent, unrest. I appreciate you making the effort to work through this despite not being very good at providing examples. This is 3 for 3 now where I think I understand the point you're making, but your example fails to deliver. When you consider that so much of what we do is failure and we must fail before we can succeed, for a parent to get upset for a child that doesn't understand something that doesn't interest them, may not be useful to them, and was forced upon them would be completely irrational. There are parents who do this to their children and it is abusive and can be to the point of inducing a sort of mental paralysis in the child's capabilities and motivation. Given the context that the child is not in that relationship by choice, is half the parents' size, and is dependent upon them, the scenario you paint is a very real example of initiating the use of force (immoral). This is kind of what I meant by you have to take the victim into consideration. If some random stranger told me, "Study this and if you don't understand it, I will be very cross with you and send you to bed without supper," I'd say, "Blow off, choffer." Sorry, been playing too much Dishonored recently. I suppose if you're looking for a succinct explanation of what constitutes coercion in the evaluation of voluntary behavior, it comes down to a perceived legitimate threat. Let's go nuts and say that the threat being made is "do this, or I will steal $1 out of your wallet." Sounds like we're just talking about $1, right? How are they going to extract it though? Assuming you're not going to stand by and let somebody take $1 from you, now they have to render you unconscious or immobile. Suddenly the stakes don't appear so petty, do they?

I reject your claim that one must have horns, wings, and thick red leathery skin in order to be capable of evil.

Are you suggesting that "scared I won't understand it" is comparable to a moral actor using a weapon to threaten other people? Are you suggesting that there is a moral component to studying algebra? This isn't the work of somebody who is trying

The ability to reason is the ability to conceptualize standards, to consider consequence, and to make decisions based on those standards and perceived outcomes. A horse doesn't go left or not try to pass through solid objects as a result of such things. Does this gradation cast doubt on a definition that speaks of "voluntary behavior"? I don't mind debating the gray areas of morality, but I thought you were looking for a definition. If somebody ordered me to kill somebody, I would fear for my life. If somebody used a sledgehammer in a threatening manner, I would fear for my life. There is no uncertainty that the act of somebody being murdered in this scenario accrues to the person doing the threatening. I'm not saying there isn't a gradation. However I think the disparity has to very large and has to take the victim into consideration. For example, what would frighten a 4 foot tall rape victim might not frighten a 7 foot tall soldier. Or if that 7 foot tall soldier was abused as a child by way of being held underwater, then their sensitivity to asphyxiation is going to be exaggerated.

Actually, that 1% doesn't mean that it's people who choose to pay in the abstract. Most of them (given the 99% lack of participation) probably only participate out of fear of consequence.

What is taxation? It's theft under threat of greater theft, up to and including your life. I point this out since the coercion present means that what you're deciding isn't whether to pay tax or not, it's whether to risk your life or not. Or your freedom. Or even just the ire of the most dangerous creatures on the planet. Furthermore, I just wanted to point out that you cannot wholly decide to not pay tax anyways. Your paycheck has taxes removed without your consent. When you guy gasoline, there are taxes built in that you cannot escape. So not only is the decision whether to risk your life or not, the risk would come with a scenario that is functionally no different from the scenario where you didn't undertake that risk. I try to shy away from anecdotal evidence, but I used to be the type that believed in political action and "getting in the man's face." This understanding is a very valuable one to me. I equate it to going camping and finding a bear eating your packed lunch. Sure, it's YOUR lunch, but for the sake of self-preservation, you're best not to provoke the thing. Especially since if you just let the beast smash your sandwich, the rest of your life won't really change.

Thank you for providing a frame of reference where the author did not. My gratitude to you for clarification as well. This is the second thread he started talking about lemonade stands and pencils with no frame of reference. It's been my experience that people who exaggerate and obfuscate are looking to sell something that people wouldn't buy if they understood the simple truth. The complexity of a human being helps to explain things like why exercise leads to more efficient thinking. It does nothing to help explain why seek out that which they want or how non-violent interaction is more sustainable than violent ones. First principles are a=a and b!=a. How simple can you get? Simplicity (where applicable) makes things easier to understand, more accessible to us all, and in my opinion, beautiful.

Pardon my ambiguity. When I said push an agenda, I was referring to your adherence to an idea regardless of refutation or how it conflicts with the real world. If you can identify where I've intentionally behaved in such a way as to ignore reality in favor of my own desires, I am interested in the feedback. However, it would not change the truth value of my claim that this is what you're doing. You did not answer my questions. You did not address my pointing out that you haven't done anything to tie your made up equation with capitalism at all. You could save everybody time by just being honest with us and yourself by saying, "I think capitalism is evil regardless." I mentioned whales to point out that, "You're going to crash!" doesn't preclude somebody from hitting the brakes, or swerving, or jumping out of the car. Even if your equation used real values to produce something of any meaning, it wouldn't be the end of the story. This is a collectivist claim, it brings in a label that wasn't here already, it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of logic, and it doesn't even address anything I said. The moment you find ANY right triangle that cannot be described by, "The square of the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square of the lengths of the other two sides," the ENTIRE sentence becomes false. This is how logic works. Kind of like when you say, "Capitalism, free-market or not," as if there's such a thing as not. The moment you introduce coercion, it's not voluntary, therefor it's not free and it's not capitalistic. Have you explored why exactly you have such a hatred for what you call capitalism that you need for it to be evil even if you have to speak in contrast to the real world to describe it as such? This is an incredible opportunity for you in the realm of self-knowledge.

You've moved the goalposts. My only input in the thread thus far has been to refute your claim that, "A performative contradiction doesn't necessarily make the original claim untrue." Something you accept I have done when you say, "right, but that still does not mean the thing "that...they claim to reject" actually exists." With that, you accept my refutation, but gloss over it to provide a different point of contention. Now you're taking it so far as to say that to prove free will, one would have to prove a brain outside of the universe. I don't know for sure that I understand what you mean by that. I know that life itself is an emergent property. If I was trying to be obtuse or obfuscate the truth, I could argue that life exists outside the universe. Life is a requisite for free will, eh? You're just playing the god card in that there's no null hypothesis. Anything anybody could (or has) say, you just respond with, "well you don't know that that was chosen. Therefore free will doesn't exist."

Welcome to FDR. There can hardly be a more important question, so I thank you for your sensitivity in this matter. Specificity isn't the problem with most failed attempts to define morality. The problem is usually subjectivity. This includes your definition, as it calls upon a person's wants. Though your definition was right to observe that morality comes from/is property rights. The proof (which I realize isn't the same as a definition) of objective morality is: You own yourself. People are not fundamentally different, therefor everybody owns themselves. 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. The other thing to understand when it comes to trying to crystallize morality is its requisites. Morality can only apply to behaviors for example. It requires free will (no coercion) and another person (moral actor). There is no moral component to riding a horse as a horse is not a moral actor (lacks reasoning). There is no moral component to preferring chocolate over vanilla because this preference isn't binding upon others. Fantasizing about murdering somebody is amoral as it is not a behavior. Given all that, I shall attempt to offer what I would define morality as: The conformity of voluntary behavior to the property rights of others.

How can you protest? It's not like we have a choice

You are pushing an agenda. Corrections were made to your last thread that you have ignored because truth isn't what you're interested in. You didn't explain what this made up equation has to do with capitalism and you ignore that you are engaging in capitalism when you use your time and effort to make this thread. In what units? How was this measured? "Whales are going to go extinct because we consume them for energy! ... Oh wait, we don't consume whales for energy anymore." Not that doomsday prophecies would have any effect on people who control the systems inflicted upon us since they're interested in what they can siphon for themselves in the present. Capitalism solves this because ownership begets responsibility.

If that were the case, people would also be making the case to their toothbrush, clock, and a loaf of bread because these things too would not experience free will. That the person recognizes the difference is their acceptance of that which they claim to reject.

I experience ambivalence over this video. It is nice that they're not defining abuse as physical only. On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that that which is in the video is abusive. I'm equally ambivalent about the comments. They're almost all in support of the video and against such an abuser, which is excellent. However, these are likely the same people that will defend those same parents in the abstract. They're unaware of this contradiction, where the line is where they cross from supporting to maligning the parents, and that where the line is in their own mind isn't based on any standard. All that said, I am happy both that it is a step in the right direction and that there are efforts made to raise this awareness.

It does if the claim is that the behavior cannot exist, or claims that which the behavior renders internally inconsistent, or if the claim accepts that which the behavior rejects, or the claim rejects that which the behavior accepts. That last one in particular is important here. The moment you argue against free will, your action of making that claim accepts free will as you are attempting to change that which you claim cannot be changed.

Why do you ask this question as if an answer hasn't been given? We can never know how the existence of mankind came to be. A theory is using what we do know to try and explain what we do not know. There is much we do know that can help to explain the most probable way we came to be.

I admire this approach. I hope to help be a part of that. You've challenged me and this is one of the greatest gifts a person could give me.

The thing is, reality isn't up to us. I don't doubt that your experience is very real to you. However, it would appear by your method of communicating it that you have not subjected it to rigorous interpretation. Frankly, you make some very basic thinking errors and when pointed out to you, you pretend as if nothing was said. This isn't just prejudice, it's bigotry. You believe what you believe because you want to believe it. Of course this is going to clash with a place that is about philosophy. Look at your claim of censorship. I won't deny you that the voting system has the capacity for abuse. However, even if every member downvoted your every post, you'd still be able to post. Even if you were banned from this privately owned forum, you would be able to speak. I can't speak for others, but I almost exclusively save downvotes for blatant displays of putting the fallibility of the evidence of the senses ahead of the real world. It's just not philosophical.

Thank you for making my point We're not talking about something being moral or not, we're talking about accuracy. We're not talking about something being enjoyed or not, we're talking about accuracy. Again, we're not talking about tastes or personal opinion, we're talking about the occurrence of the birth of the human species. Most of the cars you'll find on a used car lot, most of the people involved in the making of it still live. If you had the cash and the time, it would be no problem for you to ascertain how the creation of your car came to pass. In order for the same to be true, the moment the human species came to pass, it would have had to come to pass with an accurate understanding how it came to be and mastery of the ability to communicate in a way that other humans would find value in. I think if you were interested in the truth, you wouldn't put so much effort into losing what is being talked about. You demonstrate such a profound prejudice against consensus that you are unable to differentiate its ability to identify accuracy of the unknown from its ability to support mob rule from its ability to enhance our capacity for communication, etc. Ironically, you say that at some point we have enough information while rejecting what that enough information could be just because being of the unknown, we are relegated to the consensus of scientific study.

Hi there, Hubot. I think your English is excellent. I'm very sorry you've been down this wretched road. I hope the steps you're taking now will help you achieve a life where you can be happy by way of virtuous living. When a rapist rapes, he's telling us that rape is the best he can do. It doesn't change the immorality of his action. That it was his best doesn't change the fact that he hurts other people. What is appalling here is that the therapist is there to help people improve what is "their best," while speaking as if people are not capable of improving, so we should accept their best. Having a child is the biggest decision we can make in our lives. The potential for damage is enormous, so it is incumbent upon the parents to make the effort to learn how to handle that responsibility before selecting it. We live in a world where reproducing, since it is how our bodies function, is thought to be an innate skill. This will continue for as long as people continue to support evil doers. I find the excuse of "best they could" most appalling of all. I can't make any decisions for you, but I personally would not stay with a therapist that sides with abusers over victims, with the preservation of abuse over the potential for healing from abuse. Would the therapist say the same thing if they were not family? If not, then he would have to explain how family is different. It would appear that in the minds of your abusers, "family" means an excuse for a LOWER standard. This isn't philosophical at all.

Not necessarily. Its density wouldn't necessarily remain constant. IF it were in fact swelling, it would almost have to be changing in density also, or else we'd notice things weighing significantly more.

Did that value include getting behind the wheel of a car without any understanding of how to operate it? If he did this and crashed into somebody, is he not accountable because he didn't learn how to responsibly operate something that has the very real possibility (and historical reality) of causing large amounts of property damage and ending human lives? He had no business getting married if he didn't know the person he was marrying. He had no business having a child if he didn't know how to parent, which includes things like being there and choosing a partner that won't abuse their child. That you were adopted makes this worse because we know this wasn't a backseat fumbling that went the wrong way for them. I'm not saying that he was a horrible person. But you will never evade the resentment you feel if you do not process it. Processing it includes being honest about the reality of your situation. You will continue to recreate this abuse in your life until such a time you are able to identify it, which requires calling things by their proper names. Sorry, but ignorance isn't an escape. Hitler had parents. We know that parenting wrong can have serious consequences on THE WORLD. Getting behind the wheel of that car unprepared is negligence and doesn't make the person any less accountable for the outcome of that poor decision. I ask that you take a moment to just consider the possibility that what I'm saying is accurate. While open to that possibility, re-read your replies to this idea and see if you can identify the ways you've tried to avoid, redefine, or offset this knowledge. Your mother was in your life in part because of his decisions. This is true even if you have fond memories of him, even if he did what he thought was best, and so on. Hey, you asked for help busting some foo

Slow down, please. I only get so many downvotes per day. This sentence makes these claims: 1) All white people are evil. 2) No evil comes from people who are not white. 3) These only apply to the United States. You say you indulge in FDR yet don't grasp that the moment you say something is only true in the US, it's absolutely untrue! Not just because the US doesn't exist, but because people are not fundamentally different in such a way that all of one side of the fundamental divide exist within a very specific, very large portion of the globe while everybody outside that same made up line fall on the other side of the fundamental divide. The same could be true about the first two claims. When a white and a non-white get pregnant, the baby is mixed. Is the baby evil or not? Soldiers carrying other flags do not also murder? All soldiers carrying the US flag have murdered or been party to murder? Wait, I thought the mark of evil was skin pigmentation. Are you also saying that everybody in the US is white and everybody outside the US are not white? I've already made the case that this is an anthropomorphism. If you find fault in my claim, address it. Repeating yourself as if it wasn't made proves that you are not interested in the truth, but rather are interested in wedging your theory into reality despite people not being able to will reality. As does the title being phrased as a question with the first dissenting input being met with the title being repeated as a claim rather than an exploration. Murder is immoral, can we agree on that much? Can you link skin pigmentation to capability of murder please? How much melanin (a characteristic of the skin) is needed to be able to prohibit the ability to will (a characteristic of the brain) the taking of another human life? Since lethal self-defense is mechanically identical to murder, are you also claiming that non-whites are not capable of resisting murderous encroachments? And if you actually believe your claims, why on earth would you broadcast this susceptibility to murderous, evil whitey?

The argument is over something that without time travel, we could never be certain of. I think your likening of this to casting ballots might indicate why you're rejecting the value of consensus. The casting of ballots suggests the ability to create or modify. "Whichever flavor you choose will be what we make next." When it comes to describing the real world, it's not up to us. Consensus in the this context isn't about trying to will what the truth is, but an indication of which theory best stands up against scrutiny and attempts at disproof.