dsayers

I thought I addressed this sufficiently. Does it seem different for you? Thank you for sharing your experience. I found value in what you said.

That seems like a redefinition right there. There is no responsibility without choice and there is no choice without free will. To say somebody doesn't have free will is to say that they in fact cannot be held responsible for their actions. For that matter, what value would "I am a determinist" have in a world where that is not a product of choice? You reject the premise in the act of claiming to accept it.

For clarification, I wasn't asking speaking about you. I don't know that it is a "good." For that matter, how do we not know this isn't a case of "insider trading"? If Obama references it, it sounds like it could be foreshadowing that such a legislation is coming and CVS is just dumping their holdings while they can still profit from it.

Once again, I really appreciate the feedback. I'm still mulling over how I feel about this particular statement. It resonates with me. Then I see myself as somebody who attempts to convince others to show off my intellect after decades of everybody devaluing me. Then I acknowledge that part of the reason I'm able to use my intellect for such important things is because of the way others have convinced me. Which leads me to question if being emotionally invested in convincing others is necessarily a bad thing. I really can't picture drawing somebody into a debate just to waste their time. I suppose that is a good thing. The evidence is that newborns cannot survive on their own and the logic is that the people who chose to bring the newborn into the world are required to provide for it until such a time that they are able to do so on their own. To assault somebody you are required to provide for is "cheating on" a "code" based on logic and evidence. Would you agree?

I don't disagree. What you're describing here though is a subjective variable. Whereas, "don't answer yourself in the same post" is an objective absolute. That's all I was trying to point out For what it's worth, this thread and the conversation that has ensued has inspired me to make more use of formatting.

A teacher's number one job is to have four months off a year, stick to an antiquated curriculum, delivered in an environment originally designed to break the wills of the defenseless so that they couldn't resist when ordered to commit immoral acts of the highest order, paid for by stolen monies, that they may mentally, physically, and sexually assault children while hiding behind tenure where they are protected from consequences altogether. In fact, teachers that expose children to anything that doesn't fit that mold are pushed out of the system faster than you can say peace. How does somebody who is without 60% of their senses, including 100% of the senses that 99.9% of humans use to communicate a contradiction of people with 100% of their senses being able to learn without having a barbarian beat them until they perform for the sake of consequence avoidance? I won't even mention that Hellen Keller (one person) doesn't overshadow the billions of humans that have ever existed that learned how to communicate by watching others. You are begging the question of if top down is valid by assuming top down is valid. You do this twice: First by speaking as if anybody is responsible for educating somebody and that "best ideas" are a) static and tangible and b) something to be inflicted. The whole point of the video you say you watched is to point out that you don't have to make anybody do anything. We are born into a foreign world and spend at least the first 25 years of our lives exploring it and learning about it. If you truly want a child to be exposed to infinite ideas and have infinite learning potential, the worst thing you could do is to place ANY barrier upon them. All a parent needs to do is help them compare concepts in order to determine what is true and what is not. This is due in part BECAUSE of teachers and government interference trying to sell them any number of falsehoods for evil purposes. If you can help a child learn how to think, they'll arrive at ideas that are better than your best idea. No, my issue is with schooling, not education. I really nailed it with the "talking points" remark, eh?

I was going to tear the whole thing apart, but as Mad Dog Tannen said: "I only need one." Without property rights, we have no way of identifying what constitutes violence.

Unless they fill their shelves with something that provides greater profit, all they're doing is sending business across the street. If you want people to stop smoking, obstructing their access to tobacco won't do this. Making them pay for their own medical costs might though.

Apples and oranges there. You're speaking is if "higher ideal" means something like 3 apples will be of more use than 2. When in fact a higher ideal would be more akin to I want that guy's oranges, but to take them would be to accept my self-ownership while denying his, so it is more sustainable to trade with him for some of his oranges. Value varies, even within the same individual based on any number of relevant factors. Factors one would have to disregard to suggest that the brain is just a machine running code that assigns values to everything and simply goes in the direction of the highest value. If you're representing Stef's def correctly, I would say there was mixed concepts. The ability to compare actions to a higher ideal is part of the definition for reason, not free will.

King's plagiarism is only important in regards to his use of it as proof of understanding something in order to get certain classifications that others hold up to idolize him by. The point is to undermine the idolization. In the free market of ideas, who first coined the idea isn't as important as to its truth value. I myself have taken less to quoting dead guys or sharing ideas with others based on WHO said simply because the idea is what is important. Plus in a discussion, I don't want to put forth that I accept something because somebody in particular said it but because I've scrutinized it and found it to accurately describe the real world. For example, in my mind, Stef gets credit not for saying cool sound bites from time to time, but in the effort he puts into facilitating all of these ideas with anybody that's open to them. As far as I know, he provides sources all the time. I'm not familiar with the Dave Champion incident you mentioned. Maybe it was an oversight; do you know? When I listened to Stef talk about George Zimmerman, I was interested in the facts, not who first compiled them. Did Stef gain anything from making use of the work of others? As I understand it, all that accrued to him was accusations of racism and the like. I'd also be interested in hearing what Champion's motivation was in claiming the work behind what Stef was saying if he wasn't deriving resources from passing it along. I'm not even sure that deriving resources is any measure by which to determine immorality. Sounds like a good idea for its own topic.

There's still value there. When you're talking to people that set the standard as effect, then to reveal that their position even in terms of effect is flawed could be useful. Not likely considering the moral argument is paramount so for them to disregard it suggests they're not interested in the truth. My regret came from not being aware that that is what I was doing in the moment. I'm usually better about that. What I usually do is answer their concerns, but then also point out that the moral consideration is more important. My biggest regret is that the area of children is one that I cannot afford to make that mistake. People who promote assaulting children need to be made to face the hypocrisy that they wouldn't dream of doing the same thing to people that could fight back or flee and seek reinforcements.

This is self-contradictory. You are posting on the internet that education is dependent on factors that do not include the internet. As such, you're ignoring how driven humans are to learn. Larken Rose recently released talking about the drive to learn. One of the strongest points made is: Nobody taught you language. They couldn't have since you need a language to teach. You learned language because you live in a world where language significantly improves your chance for survival and you did it by intently studying your surroundings. There is no such thing as equal opportunity. Even if there was, it doesn't matter what anybody values one compared to the other so long as they're not initiating the use of force to achieve it. You're saying that everybody should be stolen from to provide a "well funded, regulated, monitored, world class coercive education system" but that's not what they get now. In fact, to even pretend that schooling is equivalent to education indicates you're just speaking in talking points rather than reality. This sounds like a good case to make to would be parents to not choose to have children until they're capable of doing so. Not a case for stealing from everybody, which only serves to teach that theft is okay as long as you can sell what you'll use the money for as good, whether that's what ends up happening or not.

This is like a signed confession that what they espouse is not the truth. On the one hand, that's kind of cool. On the other hand, the fact that they would inflict it on their children just to fit in is terrible.

Pay no attention to the debasing of the last 200+ years; This is different!

1) This isn't true. 2) Claim isn't ownership. 3) People are born and die every day.

Thank you for the feedback. I'm ashamed to admit that I hear so many people bypassing the moral argument to talk about the consequences that I get sucked into it myself sometimes.

I replied to one of the comments that provided the false dichotomy that we either have to spank or all hell breaks loose. I still don't understand where this viewpoint comes from because they do not hold this standard with ANYBODY ELSE in the world that can in fact communicate back or escape. I don't have high hopes. Most commenters I've dealt with on youtube are more interested in confirmation bias, social conformity, or just plain "winning." To that end, I wonder why the guy would start such a conversation. If he's truly interested in the implications, there's been plenty of research on the topic for several decades now, with very little variance in the results.

I think that's a fair interpretation. Until you actually talk to him, you can't know for sure. It's inconsistent to not talk to somebody you fault for not talking to you. Plus, if what we're talking about is morality, I'd say don't give him the luxury of ignoring the truth. If you present the case to him and he rejects it, he will still be responsible from that moment forth. That responsibility may change his mind later on even if it doesn't in the moment. If you would consider submitting to an interview for the purpose of disqualifying him, I think it's worth talking to him directly for the same purpose.

Most obvious based on your experience? Because if he's aware that you accept that the military is evil, you'd be the last person he'd want to talk to about it. I personally wouldn't even submit to such an interview. I don't think it would be immoral if he was disqualified by way of you divulging the truth. Obviously it would be better to make the case to him directly and for him to choose morally. I think that just submitting to such an interview would be legitimizing their immorality in a way I'm not comfortable with. I recently had an alarm call at a "military base." It was for reserves, but it had the whole barbed wire, camo hummers, etc. I have no idea why such a place would even have a civilian alarm system. I told my boss that if we ever got a call from that location again, he'd have to send somebody else. I simply don't want their attention for any reason.

I don't think so. If you steal my phone and I tell people "quickstine stole my phone," then any shame you experience comes from within. For that matter, shame that doesn't come from within is dishonest.

You still didn't answer my questions. You realize that the inability to answer them is instructive, right? Honesty isn't weakness. I don't know where you're getting confrontation or resentment. You can have honesty without confrontation or resentment. However, without honesty, you can't have focus or any speed by which stuff might "slow you down." "Proximity equals virtue." This isn't being honest. But it does tie in very nicely with how somebody incapable of being honest about the parent child relationship is powerless to provide a good one for their own children. This quote here dooms your boy if one of your children are male. It's arrogant in that it presumes that the parent is automatically right by no virtue other than being the parent. I don't feel this to be a controversial claim given that you are not open to negotiation, so you certainly will not be to somebody who cannot escape you. If you held your father responsible for this exact same mistake, you wouldn't be allowing yourself to make it in turn. There is no condescension here. There was with your father. Perhaps if you admitted the truth to yourself, you wouldn't find condescension in others. Not that it's any actual proof, but the lack of condescension is one of the indications that I'm telling the truth. Like if you seriously thought that 2+2=5, I wouldn't have to use tactics such as humiliation, emotional manipulation, or threats of military action or hellfire. All I have to do is talk to you about the truth. You can reject it if you like, and I usually do not waste my time on those who do. But you have children who will suffer by way of your negligence of the truth, just as you suffered as the result of your parents' negligence of the truth.

@FireShield: Public/private wasn't the distinction made. The distinction made was seeking clarification vs assuming what the perceived ambiguity translated into. What does inherent to the universe mean? Are people inherent to the universe? Because morality IS inherent in a universe that has people. People meaning moral agents capable of identifying an ideal, evaluating consequences of action, and choosing actions based on their conformance with an ideal.

Since you have the South Park theme going on, think Bebe's Boobs Destroy Society. As soon as Bebe realizes that people will treat her differently based on her sexuality, she understands the ramifications of a life without challenges and chooses instead to play down her sexuality in order to be treated like a human being. How many women take on this outlook in real life? There's a lot of pressure in society in terms of make-up, accessories, and fashion even for the sake of competition with other women. I guess the point I'm making, as you already grasp I'm sure, is that she's not helpless to condition the behaviors around her by getting closer to people of virtue and distancing herself from people who lack virtue. And of course conducting herself in a way as to attract people of virtue and put off people who lack virtue.

That's a pretty effective video. I think not enough attention is given to how much of parenting is modeling. It leads to adults that don't realize that the easiest way to influence others, without a word, is to model your values. Or that people in fact DO model their values, which is why it's often easier to take somebody at their actions over their words.

But your definition is that LIFE is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. This means that the 3 arguments against that you offered in your opening post and your follow up post do not even address your definition. As there is no such thing as intrinsic value, nothing can be with it. The meaning of life is subjective. The purpose of life is to survive and reproduce. However, I expect you're looking more for an examination of what the purpose of having a life is. This too would be subjective. I'm curious as to the definition you provided itself. I don't get into labels, but my understanding of nihilism is that nothing is real and/or can be relied upon. Which is of course self-contradictory in a way you elude to. Anyways, welcome to FDR. If you don't mind me asking, what is your interest in nihilism? I ask because you've joined a forum focused on philosophy only to immediately bring up a topic of "bad philosophy." Just curious as to the motivation.