dsayers

Isn't this an anthropomorphism? Isn't it like saying that I don't think the car will turn left within the next 100 years? Like a car, our path as a race lies wherever we steer it. Just wanted to point that out since sitting back with certainty for gloom within the next 100 years sort of allows those that would steer it that way a path of lowered resistance.

Isn't this blaming the victim? If she was raped, would they lash out at her for taking her rape so hard? Would it be different if the same rapist raped them also and convinced them it was okay? It sounds as if the other siblings (assuming they were treated similarly, which is a fair assumption) have unprocessed trauma, prefer to continue to internalize, normalize, or suppress it, so they are lashing out at her for indirectly making them face that which they do not want to. This has the wretched side effect of revictimizing your wife. Also, if they are making excuses for their parents' abuse, they will make the same excuse for their abuse of their own children. Which means they have a lower standard of ethics with their children and may even abuse them worse to deal with their own frustration and anxiety over this. It's horrible the way the cycle repeats. Kudos to you two for breaking that cycle in your own lives.

Just out of curiosity, why the differentiation of "same age"? Looking to the older has advantages like giving you something to strive for you might not have considered or avoiding a pitfall you didn't recognize as being so perilous. Looking to the younger can give you a fresh perspective on things we take for granted and/or serve a reminder of how many burdens can be self-inflicted.

That's the thing: I never said it was a problem. It was an objective observation and an accurate one. What you provided here could be the basis for a meaningful dialogue on the implication you perceived in my statement. Something a "-1... and that's it" does not accomplish.

Are you sure? In the Justin Bieber topic, I pointed out that a topic on the pop star in the philosophy forum of a board with the largest concentration of philosophers in the world was getting more replies than topics of epistemology, self-ownership, peaces, etc combined. I got my first downvote. The cause was that it hit too close to home of somebody that lacks self-knowledge and blames me for being honest. What lesson am I to learn? Is the lesson of self-erasure for the purpose of conformity valid? In this place? It made me take a quick look at my current overall rating and where the positives came from. Almost all of the positives came from posts where I was full bore deconstructing sophistry. The kind of thing that if you were the author of the sophistry and lacked self-knowledge, you'd really consider to be a personal attack. The lesson with this positive feedback is that I should use my usually razor-sharp capability for spotting inconsistencies with disregard to how such implementation might land for others. This is a problem because the nurturing I received my first couple years paved the way for an excellent intellect. Then the abuse of the next few decades left me with a brain that was lacking emotion, empathy, was highly logical, to the point of seeing greys as black and white, etc. In regards to my own personal growth, the encounragement of this behavior would actually be detrimental. I guess the bottom line is that the rating system is subjective so suggesting there is objective information that could be derived from it is false.

I'm assuming being on a mobile device, you're using a touchscreen? Chances are, what happened is that you originally clicked on the "light" to the side of the topic (blue in the following image), which takes you to newest post, instead of clicking on the topic title, which takes you to the original post.

I guess my empathy must be developing nicely. The debate I was in that sparked me to create this thread was on the subject of the propagandized nobility of war. I've finally found a subject that burns my bottom more than religiosity. Such a horrific act and yet so many people think that not only is it necessary, but it being perpetual, destroying our planet, and bankrupting us all isn't a problem in the slightest. Ugh!

The story is incomplete. What good is a 10% bump when you have to spend 50% of it all in legal fees, restitution, etc.

It would not. But you cannot take back an assault, rape, or a murder. I don't feel this addresses my concern at all.

An example would be that the word "anarchy" invokes in most a sense of chaos and prevalent predation. I don't like labels in general, but I particularly dislike anarchist and atheist. For one, they sum up a person based on ONE thing they do NOT accept. Secondly, it frames the conversation as if theism and predation are the norm and rejection of the same is a deviation. I don't use the word "believe." I accept that reality does not bend to my will and that 2+2=4 is correct and 2+2=5 is false whether I believe them to be or not. I avoid using the word "right" when "ownership" can be used. People sometimes insist on things like "the right to free speech." Yet they do this when it's being contested despite the word denoting incontestability. Those who would infringe speak as if there's such a thing as society, that human beings are fundamentally different while in proximity of others, and this leads to an alteration of what are rights should be. Speaking of it in terms of ownership makes it easier to see the immorality of forcibly limiting others to not speak in ways that are not unethical. How much value do you place on words and their precision? Are there words you avoid as a result of the well being poisoned? Thank you for your time.

I don't know about publicity. He sort of did a head on once before: Jon Stewart's 19 Tough Questions for Libertarians! It begins with painting conservatives as siphons despite the statistics showing that conservatives give more to charities. He highlights officials commenting on how unemployment benefits were meant to be temporary, but can be extended at the expense of health care benefits. Which he mocks under the pretense that free health care is a righteous given. I stopped watching at that point. It can be interesting seeing what the Mafia is up to. Before long, I just get nauseated at how transparent it all is despite so many people believing in it.

Not to me, no. The people I'm thinking of who reject self-ownership would certainly find the proof you provided as to be too complicated for them to even consider. That's more of a reflection of conformation bias than your technique obviously. Sorry for the delayed reply. Since joining this community, I've been overwhelmed with things I'd like to study to have a better understanding of and epistemological approach is yet another on the pile.

Izzy aside, the science behind WHY she is intelligent and rational can be applied to every single child that isn't born with certain brain defects. I refer you to the work of Alison Gopnik.

But less atmosphere and no liquid water. Less atmosphere would mean less protection from radiation spikes. It's a good idea in terms of saving humanity. Not as effective as rational thinking, but with psychopaths having their hand on the button and willing to utilize weapons that unravel an area's genetic makeup, colonizing another planet would be a way of assuring the survival of our species. Especially when you consider that part of the reason there isn't as much of a push for coercive space exploration is because the money's wrapped up in enslaving and destroying us here on Earth. I'd be most interested in seeing how humans that lived on Mars adapted differently over a number of generations compared to their Earth counterparts.

Labels are bad as in they boil a complex individual down to a single concept, which is incomprehensive. However, this doesn't mean that somebody isn't responsible for their actions, which the campaign could easily be interpreted as.

You have yet to provide either, but I'm going to focus on the latter. When I point out the power of education, you indulged me at first only to now denounce Izzy as an example AND claim that I have yet to provide a solution. This isn't honest nor is it the words of somebody interested in the truth. Thank you for your time.

In the case of positive and negative rights, if there is no alternative, then that's fine. I'm not saying that I'm correct. But I have spoken with people that when you ask them what rights they have, they turn to legislation as if the whimsical words of a few can alter reality. It's a mindset I seek to breakthrough in order to liberate that many more minds.

Well I'm hoping that if I can accurately understand where self-ownership comes from, that I can understand how to best apply it to children, the mentally ill, the brain-damaged, and "criminals." I understand how X accrues a debt to Y and I like the way you term it as it makes it easier to understand and apply to other situations. However, this debt to Y doesn't mean that Y can morally up and TAKE from X whatever debt is accrued. Nor does it mean that Y could hire Z to physically arrest the freedom of movement of X (assault) for the purpose of making them address the debt. This is why I think understanding exactly where self-ownership comes from is so important. We need to know how it applies to children, to the mentally ill or degraded, and at least as a though experiment, how it applies to people who have engaged in immoral actions.

This is projection. It is something that would be easy for you and me to say since we were NOT taught how to think by our caregivers. To a child who has been taught to reason from the beginning, they're literally immune to "pressure" when it is irrational, which all pressure is, lest it be described as counterpoint. I hate to talk about Stef's child since all I know of it is bits and pieces and he's not here to clarify. But near as I can tell, she was able to make rational nutrition decisions at approximately the age of three. The idea that when such a person is X (where X is before physical maturation) and is taught what sex is, the benefits of it, the consequences of it, etc that they will not make rational decisions regarding it, is in itself not very rational. I extend a second time my invitation for you to sit down and work out a timeline as to when (approximately) you'd plot the points I mentioned. If you would do this, I think you would find that this is a non-issue and certainly one that cannot be categorized as rightly inflicted upon others.

I had to re-read your first paragraph before I understood the distinction you were making. It is an excellent point of clarification. You may want to alter your video to reflect this since at about the 2 minute mark, you speak as if self-ownership is to be applied on the basis of reason alone. Could you clarify your 2nd paragraph? You say a serial rapist has waived his negative rights in response to me asking how, but without providing the how. This was actually the purpose of my deeper analysis of where self-ownership comes from: to determine if it is ethical to initiate the use of force against a "criminal" who is not a threat in the moment. And can you elaborate on how this would apply to children, the mentally ill, and those with brain damage? Sorry if this seems like asking too much. I expected this topic would generate more of a discussion among numerous individuals.

Taking back damaged words is consistent with speaking the truth, so of course I would agree as to its necessity. However, simply using damaged words would be more of a brute force method. Using ownership consistently in the presence of somebody who has a damaged concept of "right" would take back the word in their own mind by helping them to realize that the word right as they understand it has been compromised. You wouldn't walk up to somebody who doesn't speak French and start speaking French to them. Likewise, to use the word right in the presence of somebody that doesn't understand what it means isn't particularly useful. It's like taking the brick wall they have in their mind and placing it directly between you before trying to speak to them through it I would argue. For example. I noticed in my earlier days of studying Stef's work that he used the phrase "the initiation of the use of force" where I believed "the initiation of force" would've sufficed. I've recognized the way being overly-verbose can turn others off, so I was curious as to why he'd refer to something with nearly twice the words necessary. I eventually ran into a couple of people that regarded the word "initiation" in its "origin" definition instead of its "initial" definition. I've since taken to using the more verbose expression so as to avoid this mental roadblock some people have. I'm not yielding to intellectual sloth, nor am I dignifying ex post facto selective definition observation. I would describe it as trying to communicate with them in the manner in which I believe I will encounter the least amount of resistance while remaining consistent.

In debate, I've begun to ask early on if their interest is in the truth. I've wondered how people can escape culturally inflicted conclusions despite the adage that you cannot use logic, reason, and evidence to talk somebody out of something they didn't arrive at by logic, reason, or evidence. I think the limiting factor is an interest in the truth. I've found that the propagandists have done a smashing job at making "the truth" feel selfish and dirty.

What if society was wrong? How would you know? This was the first thing I asked. I've tried to provoke thought, I've tried to promote studies, I've tried to point to the real world. I keep seeing conclusions with no explanation other than "everybody else says so." I think if you were to make a timeline as to when a baby can reason, when a parent can model communication, rationality, and win-win negotiation, when a child might be allowed out of the direct supervision of the parent, when the adolescent develops, and when a less than scrupulous individual might try to take advantage or pressure, you'd find there's almost no risk. You haven't even considered the fact that somebody who is raised in this way wouldn't associate with the predatory type. Except to say, "yeah, but..." which isn't even acknowledging it. I'm only interested in the truth. If I'm off base, I'm open to the possibility. But mass hysteria and historical and biological inaccuracy won't sway me. I mean, you haven't even talked about how abused teens who are forbidden to do things are more compelled to do them despite this being the conclusion you've allowed others to arrive at for you.

You are promoting restriction over education. In order to do this (assuming you accept self-ownership and its universalization), you must believe that the conclusion that the restriction is based upon is valid AND that education would not lead one to a valid conclusion without restriction. In an attempt to make the discussion following the disagreement more efficient, I've challenged you to substantiate these. You mean that there are commands backed by threats of violence. This is begging the question as to whether or not the violence is necessary, my primary point of contention. Nor would I call them "established," since they vary by region, which actually proves their whimsical nature. The people who said these sort of things would also say that the world appears flat as they look over the horizon. But when our senses conflict with reality, our senses must give way. The reality is that children can reason at a very young age. MUCH younger than puberty, which occurs younger than those commands you referenced would point to. If you teach your child to reason and you model egalitarian, peaceful negotiation to them, they will be primed against predation of all stripes, including sexual. Then when they're old enough for it to be relevant, you explain pregnancy and disease, the ramifications, the long-term impact, and they will arrive at whatever the best conclusion for their life is. If that is to be abstinent until 16, 17, 18, or 25, that's their decision to make.

This is a conclusion. I don't feel you've yet explained how you know that 1) this is a valid conclusion and 2) somebody who is capable of logic, reason, and accepting evidence would not arrive at a valid conclusion.