dsayers

Brilliant! I feel ashamed for not making the connection myself. Compulsory suggests a 3rd party infliction, does it not? Rape is the only 3rd party infliction and factor resulting in a baby being born outside a person's control that I can think of. In this case, the parents can avail themselves of abortion or adoption. Say you abduct me and tie me up in your basement. For the sake of the hypothetical, let us ignore the imorality in those behaviors. I am a creature of consciousness and reason that cannot survive without you feeding me and protecting me from predators, including microscopic ones. If I perish, are you not guilty of murder? I'm trying to simulate the idea of creating a person, the act of which I maintain is creating a positive obligation to it. I wasn't making a comparison in the context of a two-way agreement. I accept that the child owes the parent absolutely nothing by merit of being birthed alone. I was making a comparison in the context of voluntarily creating a positive obligation. Outside of rape, conceiving is a choice that can be made that has predictable outcomes. Just as if you decide to detonate a bomb, you are not absolved of the destruction that comes AFTER just because you didn't do the destruction yourself. The destruction is a predictable outcome that a reasonable person would understand is inherent to the decision of detonation.

You guys convinced me to watch it and I was appalled. The first guy spoke as if the claim "stop spanking and everything will be alright" was ever made. What difference does it make if it will solve everything or not? It's within our control, is very easy to do, has the largest effort:yield, and it's moral! How many (other) people do spanking users/promoters assault to correct or "discipline"? This is proof that even they understand it is immoral. Then the second guy talked about it being normal. He even said that he would be strange as a parent if he didn't. I thought we couldn't derive an ought from an is? Everybody gets infections, does this mean the proper course is to yield to the infection? Prevalence speaks ZERO as to the (im)morality of a behavior. Is the 3rd guy Steph Kinsella? Kind of looks and sounds like him. Either way, I was surprised to hear him bring up the libertarian point of view and then cross it. I had high hopes when he pointed out the parent acting as an agent. Were a child full grown, of course they would consent to a tonsillectomy if the science available at the time said it was beneficial. We have no expectation that were a child full grown, they would consent to being assaulted in lieu of verbal, egalitarian communication. He was wrong to call it optional since it is immoral, but I really thought he dropped the ball when he started off with a good point and then went back on it. And to think that these people are promoting an immorality that could harm millions of human beings in the future just to protect their dishonest view of their own TWO parents. It's sad to behold in the abstract. That these people are panelists speaking in front of an audience is reprehensible. I seriously hope Stef is able to get an interview or debate with some of these guys.

Hello there, survivor! I was wondering if you could elaborate on this quote here. I was raised Christian and with the "politically correct" movement pushing tolerance, I have a pronounced bias against mythology being peddled as truth. As a result, my translation of the quote had to deal with having one's one mythology and allowing others to have theirs. Did I misunderstand?

Just to be clear, as I'm sure you're aware, the ability to describe something is not proof of its existence. I think the point of the thread was to say that we once thought that nothingness existed. Since as far as we know now, this isn't true, "nothing" is now only a concept. As such, creationism additionally fails by claiming that everything was created from nothing. Thank you for the clarification of valid not applying to concepts.

I don't think this is a case for "nothing" as a valid concept. As a concept, "something" doesn't necessarily indicate presence, but rather a lack of specificity. It reminds me of the question, "Do UFOs exist?" Well of course they do. If you see an airborne object you are not able to identify, it is a UFO to you. So the question becomes: Relative to what? While speaking with others in the context of Earth, the atmosphere is a given. If we say that our pockets are empty, we are saying that they have nothing in them relative to the ubiquitous atmosphere. It's only important to mention so that as thinkers, we are aware that we are treating this as a given as it will in fact make a difference in the event we are speaking in the context of not being where the atmosphere is a given. I do agree with Mr. Diehl's assertion that (were we not to take something like atmosphere as a given) the concept of nothing is invalid. I'm not sure how it ties in with the work of the gentleman he referenced. I do think it's not the most efficient way to disprove creationism. As best we understand the universe, the sum of matter and energy is constant. If this is true, then there's no reason to suspect there was an origin at all. I personally reject creationism and the big bang theory. Though I also observe my bias in avoiding contemplation of the origin since I often see it as a subject of great divide when in fact the origin has little bearing on our daily lives.

Thanks. When I originally thought to get into bitcoins, I was considering dropping a grand into them when they were worth $33. Not that I was looking to do it to play the market, but wow would I have profited. I still am interested in doing it for the sake of diversity. Thank you for renewing hope in this regard for me. I have some research to do now.

My apologies for commenting on this thread without actually watching the video. I was looking at how it's called "Property and Freedom Society." How can we have freedom amid violations of property? Spanking violates property rights and those who do it are a threat to freedom.

Making THIS the problem not the discrepancy in personality itself. Just as I stated. You do not appear interested in the validity of your tool, which contradicts your observation of people favoring their subjective experience over the objective real world, which contradicts your claim that you accept that in such a discrepancy, our senses must give way. You do not appear interested in using the tool to analyze how you arrived at the tool, which contradicts your assurance to others that it would be of benefit to them. I cannot tell if you're being dishonest or lack enough self-knowledge to identify these disconnects, but I do not think the tool is valid or if it were, that you have the proficiency to fulfill the role of facilitator. I wish you luck in facing reality and revising your efforts accordingly before inhibiting others from arriving upon solutions that more accurately describe the real world.

For somebody who doesn't have a bank account, would it be realistic to set up a bank account and then immediately dump it into bitcoins and close the account? If so, does this work better via savings or checking? Any input appreciated. I've wanted in for a long time, but I don't have the documents Mt. Gox requires to validate my account, so I thought I was screwed for now.

You're describing personalities, not preferences. This is one of those distinctions that if it has to be made for you, I do not think you're qualified for the undertaking you've selected. But let's explore it all the same. Do other people with differing personalities ALL experience frustration, annoyance, anger, AND dysfunction? If not, then we can discard the difference in personality as if it were causal like you describe. What then is the root of this outcome? First, I think it would stem from a lack of acceptance of the reality that we are a social, interdependent species of which there are over 7 billion on the planet. Or a lack of acceptance that self and the other are not fundamentally different in such a way that principles would apply differently. Secondly, you say that no claim is made, but there are three that I see. The initial one being the claim that their personality is binding upon others. The follow up one comes from not talking about friction when it's noticed in an attempt to achieve a resolution. This is the claim that the other must conform to self automatically while not simultaneously claiming that self should conform to the other. Then the claim is made that the other should make an effort to resolve this discrepancy while not simultaneously claiming that self should make an effort. As for the ice cream one, there's nowhere near enough information. Did a 3rd party impose this task? Who is the ice cream for that the actors' preferences even enter into it while simultaneously their individual drive to satisfy their preference does not? Why is 1 gallon or 1 gallon options, but 2 half gallons is not? You say that this tool of 12 archetypes will help people to understand how they reasoned to their positions. Yet I've never heard of 12 archetypes. I don't know where it comes from even though I've tried to figure this out. I do know that you're being offered philosophy as an alternative, an impartial 3rd party called the real world as an alternative, yet continue to hold that 12 archetypes more accurately describes the real world. I am curious if you are aware of how you reasoned to that position while claiming that it will help people understand how they reasoned to position. We're not hurling insults here, but this is a conflict, no? I am certainly making the claim that you are bound by the real world as a result of my preference for the truth.

What is your answer to this question. The answer is so obvious to me that I have difficulty accepting that the question is sincere.

This is my 6th post in this thread. In my 3rd post, I made the case for preferences alone not leading to conflict. It is unclear as to why you wouldn't challenge it at that point. I like chocolate and you like vanilla. Where is the conflict? I say 2+2=4 and you say 2+2=5. Where is the preference? I addressed this the 2nd time by saying, "in order for conflict to arise from a differing view, at least one participant believes either that they can in fact will reality, that their perspective supersedes reality, or that their preference is binding upon another." Can you think of a conflict that has arisen from preference where none of these criteria are also satisfied? Are you aware of how you reasoned to the position that there are 12 archetypes? I answered this in my last post. I said: "I think that the tool's benefit will be directly related to how accurately it describes the real world." Did you read my last post beyond the first sentence that you disagreed with?

You live in the same world as your father, with the same poisonous ideas floating around. If you are not limited by them (assuming that you are not), you can not reference them as if they are limiting. I've addressed your claim that he was powerless to overcome every single time you've said it. Does repeating it make it true? You were not originally of the disposition that I did not know you. It wasn't until you noticed that I would not be swayed by flawed logic that you turned to marginalizing the extent to which I "know you." You're right, I don't know you. However, I do know that you are capable of holding opposing values, using self-contradictory statements, and have no interest in negotiation. I also know, as I stated up front, that the excuses you make for others are the excuses you will allow for yourself. ALL OF THIS will influence the way in which you parent. AND your inability to even consider means it is doomed to never improve. It can only degrade.

Okay. So we understand that preference alone cannot lead to conflict. That in order for conflict to arise from a differing view, at least one participant believes either that they can in fact will reality, that their perspective supersedes reality, or that their preference is binding upon another. With this, we have identified the source of the conflict without having to resort to 12 subjective archetypes. People in such a conflict would benefit more from being exposed to philosophical fundamentals such as the difference between objective and subjective, that humans have the capacity for error, and that the validity of the senses is dependent upon the real world. This will help them in their current conflict, help them to avoid other conflicts, help them in other conflicts, and help them help others in terms of conflict resolution and avoidance. I do not think that the tool you speak of will aide in this process, but rather inhibit it. I think that the tool's benefit will be directly related to how accurately it describes the real world.

Clicking on the link YOU provided reveals: How could you claim to leave out nothing when what you've left out alters the context from healthy to unhealthy?

The tool doesn't appear to be objective at all. You are talking about views and preferences, but these things are subjective. Valid morality isn't subjective. I will make the case for that here and you can tell me what you think: You own yourself and people are not fundamentally different from one another. As such, 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. To me, it is that simple. Which I understand doesn't necessarily make it right since I recognize my own bias for simplicity. But this understanding of my bias, and that it must give way to the real world in the event that I have not described it accurately, is the basis for any real conflict resolution. Otherwise, it becomes just as you state: competing personal preferences backed by claims that personal preference supersedes the real world. I am indeed losing interest. The reason is inconsistency. You make the claim that subjective preference is a problem but reject that the objective world could provide the solution. You make the claim that understanding the root of one's preference is the path to resolution, but reject any effort to understand the root of YOUR preference in using 12 archetypes over the objective world. So let me ask you directly, and let's set aside your tool for these questions: Do you accept that our will and preferences do not have the ability to directly influence the real world? Do you accept that in the event that our interpretation of the evidence of our senses conflicts with the real world (horizon appears flat vs planet is round), our senses must give way? [EDIT] I meant to also point out that the against me argument only pertains to matters of the state. It is not a blanket approach to conflict resolution. It's purpose is to help somebody talking about an abstract come face to face with the reality that what they're talking about is violence to resolve a difference of opinion.

How does "I enjoyed that class" vs "I did not enjoy that class" lead to bitter and seemingly unresolvable conflicts? Preferences do not lead to conflicts, but claims can. The only way a preference can lead to a conflict is if they claim that it is binding upon others. This would be accrued to the claim though and not the preference. We can logically prove that positive obligations in the absence of consent are immoral. Thus we can invalidate the claim that one's preference could be binding upon another. This is an example of how a philosophical approach could efficiently resolve such a conflict where labeling preferences and requiring 12 categories would only serve to complicate and alienate the participants. After three posts, I am unconvinced that your approach will achieve your stated goal. I have been displaying skepticism and it doesn't seem to challenge how much you believe your approach will achieve your stated goal. Which might be normal. It could very well be that you know exactly what you're talking about and it's just all over my head, in which case, your resolve should not be altered by my challenging it. I just think that if this is something you'd like to offer others as a way to help them, you should be able to explain it in a way that is honest, accurate, and substantiated. And given the importance you have assigned to this, that such challenges should be considered.

Sorry to be annoying. I think to be effective, we must be accurate. What does this mean? To some, individualism can mean self-reliance. To others, the need for self-knowledge. To others still, it could indicate favoring individual rights over fictitious group rights. How do you know that a viewpoint was rationally arrived upon? People who subscribe to religion and statism (another religion) did not arrive at those conclusions rationally, they were inflicted upon them. We know this because the conclusions are irrational. Your last sentence here makes it sound as if in order to work together, we must accept the irrational prejudices of others. When in fact the truth value of 2+2=4 is independent of either of our acceptance of it. The real world is objective. It's not up to us. When our interpretation of the evidence of our senses (the sun and moon are about the same size) conflicts with the real world, our senses must give way. If the source of a disagreement is the relative size of the sun and the moon, to understand how somebody arrived at the wrong answer would not be helpful EXCEPT that the error is fundamentally the belief that our senses subjugate the real world. In other words, I don't see how talking about 12 worldviews could be described as a tool, accurate, or insightful. Either a person accepts reality or they do not. If they do in one area but do not in another, then their disagreement with another person is not an external phenomenon. It's their own inconsistency with acceptance of the real world. If two people who accept reality have a disagreement, we have ways of determining which viewpoint more accurately describes the real world. I guess what I'm saying is that if your stated goal is to help people, I think adding clarity rather than obfuscation will provide genuine help.

Taxation is theft and theft is immoral. Money that stops circulating raises the value of all other money and therefore could never be said to be a problem for other people. Why did you post this twice? http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38810-new-viral-video-socialist-econ-redistribution-via-upworthy/

Hello. The goals you state are worthy of pursuit I would agree. However, I wonder what your definition of worldview is. You used the words tool and accurate, but isn't worldview a concept? "conflict resolution, ethics education, pre-marital counseling, career counseling" can all be addressed with morality. Does it involve initiating the use of force or not is the fundamental question. Does your tool seek to identify this first?

You left out excessive, which turns the definition around 180 degrees. Water will kill you if you just sit there and drink and drink and drink. Moderation is the key.

I hear you. I at one point pinched a muscle in my back that left me unable to move hardly at all without sacrificing the ability to breathe. It was only by luck that it came at the beginning of a several day window of no new snow, that I was able to rest up before having to resume. If your mp3 player is the type that starts at the beginning of a track instead of where you left off, check out the link in my sig. You can post call in shows you haven't yet partaken of and I'll chop them up for you if you need.

I appreciate your desire to become a more effective communicator. The first thing to keep in mind is that people who did not arrive at a conclusion by logic, reason, or evidence will likely not be talked out of it by logic, reason, or evidence. What this means is that you'll have to do a bit of triage. Present the moral argument and if somebody rejects it based on excuses that aren't as important as the moral argument, move on. For example, if you point out that spanking is assault and then they try to say that it's for the good, then they're saying that assault is acceptable so long as the outcome can be labeled good. Any criminal would agree! This is problematic in that people who think morality is disposable won't bother seeking peaceful solutions since immorality is an option to them. I would advise against the use of labels. What matters is the truth. Different people have different ideas of what different labels mean and may reject what you have to say based only on the label you apply to it. Taxation is theft whether democracy or anarchy acknowledge it or not. Composure is necessary even in the presence of an ass. If governments threaten paramilitary action for non-obedience and religions threaten hellfire for non-obedience, some guy who is similarly violent will not be able to sell these people something they haven't already seen in a more socially comfortable model. The beauty of trying to teach somebody that 2+2=4 is that you don't have to lose your composure. It shouldn't be important to you if they think that 2+2=5 and reject a simple proof to the contrary. Momentum. If they accept the lies of religion and statism (another religion), they find no shortage of people who will pat them on the back for their "moral integrity." We need to make it uncomfortable to choose propaganda over the truth and the way we do this is to not associate with the violent. Including in verbal debates. Let it be known that your dissociation is directly linked to their willingness to use coercion to achieve their goals. Make no mistake, there's only one way to meaningfully divide people: Those willing to use violence to get what they want and those who are not. Those who are live in a world where few people will hold them responsible for their actions. One way we can do this without using coercion ourselves is to withhold ourselves from them. On what basis? The inability to reason and negotiate with others in a world where we are interdependent is dramatically crippling. It's no different than a parent chopping off their child's legs and treating them to an otherwise loving home in a world of people with two legs. If a parent circumcises, does not breastfeed, does not soothe, leaves children in daycares at young ages, subjects them to government schooling... the list of ways that parents can abuse their children without actually raising a hand or their voice to them is endless. I hope that was helpful. What I would recommend is sharing some of your specific interactions for critique. I say this because in general (here), you make use of imprecise language. Which there's nothing wrong with. But if your goal is to influence others, you can add to your own efficiency and effectiveness by improving your presentation of ideas.

This part stumped me for a bit. Are you saying that by not arguing from morality, somebody might be indicating a desire to "win" and therefore ignore the morality to make a lesser argument that sounds principled? I'm interested in this quote, but can't quite connect the dots (unless that was in fact it). Valid morality is logical. To bring a newborn into the world and not provide for it is assault until such a time that they perish, at which point it is murder. When you enter into a contract with somebody, you voluntarily create a positive obligation to them. To choose to have a child knowing that a child cannot survive without you providing for them is creating a positive obligation to that child. Would you agree? For what it's worth, I find your input to be consistently thought-provoking and challenging. I really appreciate this.

Hello back from Ohio I was standing next to a 9 ft tall snow bank earlier, how about you? That's not where our similarities end. I too have been partaking of the work of Stef for a little over a year now. I too appreciate the difference between Libertarian and libertarian and have come to the conclusion that I do not wish for a label (not just political). Unfortunately, it sounds like you've had a decade more of suffering and of greater severity. For that, I am truly sorry. If you feel like sharing what came to pass that had you in therapy at 14, I think you're among good company here. Lots of us (if I may be so bold as to speak collectively) use reason and virtue to heal and to see and encourage the healing in others. I hope you find what you're looking for and that your time here is germane to that pursuit.