dsayers

Fantastic point. To add to that: Why was each person chosen for each picture? Was not the amputee chosen because of his amputation? What better way to say "this characteristic is not my identity" than to allow yourself to be identified solely by that characteristic.

I now hate him because a post about him in a philosophy forum of the board with the highest concentration of philosophers in the world gets more posts that topics on epistemology, ethics, self-ownership, and peace in the same place combined.

I watched the video and it was a worthwhile watch for sure. However, the only part that seemed to pertain to this question was the assertion that self-ownership comes from the ability to reason. Which is quite useful if true. My question would then be: Is conceptualization of the other a requisite for reason as it would be impossible to accurately reason without understanding that our choices can effect the other? And would this mean that somebody that demonstrates that they lack reason or misapply it (serial rapist for example) has forfeited or is ineligible for self-ownership?

How much effort did you put into wording everything just so? I'm usually nitpicky when it comes to language and seriously admire your specific choice of words in this video. I also particularly enjoyed you pointing out that the universalization of self-ownership makes universal positive rights ethically impossible. I get the concept, but never made the connection myself. And they you upped it a notch by applying it to the common fallacious notions of right to health care and such. I would be interested to see an in-depth analysis of abortion. The example you provided was reasonable, which is rare for that topic. What do you think about the word "right" as opposed to the word ownership? Personally, I try to avoid the word right because of the way it's been manipulated in the consciousness of the governed. Namely that it's only ever mentioned in opposition of contention despite the word itself denoting incontestability. I've also noticed that people are more willing to allow a right to be taken away since they're propagandized into believing they are inalienable, therefore their removal will be righted by somebody else. Whereas speaking in terms of ownership, the morality is clearer and better understood.

When? Where? Do you think that Stef would ever leave her in the care of somebody he didn't know? That he didn't talk to? That by way of his own self-knowledge, he'd be able to identify if the person was trustworthy or not? By time she's old enough for this to be a relevant conversation, she'll already have spent more than half her life being an emotionally developed, rational individual who has only been exposed to peaceful, loving, win-win negotiation based human interaction. At this point, she'll be better prepared to responsibly make decisions on the subject than people three times her age. Why would we bar her from self-ownership with arbitrary standards? Inversely, why would we base arbitrary standards on her to be imposed to other people that didn't fit the criteria yet? In answer to your earlier question, notice the words you're choosing: "best barometer we have" "what we got to work with." You're speaking from the standpoint that it's ours to inflict onto others. I don't want to hand people 2+2=4. I'd rather hand them a 2 and a 2 and them be able to conclude 4 on their own. For moral consistency's sake.

A lot of the work Stef does, I prefer it to be in audio rather than text because it's sort of a forced slower absorption. On the other hand, when I see people post/link videos instead of just saying what their point is, I feel like it's an inefficient, roundabout way. So to me, it comes down to how much instruction is there going to be? Of course if you were making generalized points, being on youtube might help others researching the topic to find your work in a way that text on a forum doesn't manage.

Very well written. It was a pleasure to read. I'm thankful that you're not just doing this stuff, but also sharing it with others

Well, you're speaking as if it's something we have to decide and apply to others. And who knows, maybe it is. I just thought it seemed like you were closed to the idea of laissez-faire or leaving it to the individual/parents. I think case by case is more appropriate because it's a subjective solution to a subjective consideration. Age isn't synonymous with maturity. Not even in ballparks when you consider our innate empathy. Based on Stef's stories of his daughter, she's more mature as a 5 yo than my most potent abuser is at the age of 61.

Yeah, the implication boggles the mind. "I'm hungry, but since nobody's pointing a gun to my head, I have no idea what to do about it." Nevermind the logical inconsistency the claim has that people won't pursue what they want, but those people over there (who are fundamentally no different) will, and will use violence so that you will too.

Which sophist trick burns your bottom the most? For me, it's a toss up between 1) Genocide is for your protection when you call it war. 2) Irrational beliefs passed off as truth claims are to be tolerated. 3) 2+2=4 is YOUR math. 4) I've never used the initiation of the use of force to achieve a single goal in my life, but I believe that we need people that steal from you to protect you from theft and the idea that people can achieve their goals without the initiation of the use of force is the utopian one.

Bad philosophers take up jobs in government and media where they get special privileges and good money for easy work. They don't go to a message board that attracts the minds most able to see through rhetoric. This paragraph begins with you implying that something gets replies because it is popular and/or worthy of support, but end it with acknowledging that there can be any number of UNKNOWN reasons for replying.

Okay, thanks. I've uploaded it here: Stefan Molyneux - Real Time Relationships.zip I apologize for the the cutoffs. I was just blindly cutting at 3.5 mins, so they might not be in the most opportune places.

I read every word and it was not an easy read. I'm sorry to hear about all of this. I will say right up front that based on what you've shared, you are blameless. Please read that again: YOU ARE NOT TO BE BLAMED FOR ANY OF THAT. It wasn't your fault and you did not deserve it. The one thing I noticed as being consistent in your story is the external erasure of you. This is your topic. Maybe there's some value in establishing an ability to directly relate, but you should not be erasing yourself for the comfort of others. Not in your home life and not here. Please don't take that as a criticism of your home life as I understand that your self-erasure is part of self-preservation. But it's important that you realize that it's happening so you don't normalize it during times when it's not necessary to survive. This is simply false. Not only because you describe him as being perpetually drunk, but also because when he's sober, he drinks. Also, alcohol doesn't make people do things they wouldn't normally do, it just lowers the inhibitions to them. It's also quite alarming. It's a miracle that you didn't murder him once you were old enough to exact vengeance for all the abuse he's leveled upon you. I'm not recommending this, but I am curious as to why you'd want to stay around him just to preserve him. If you're not furious with him for what he's done to you, then you're making excuses for him that you will allow for yourself. To be clear, do not dare start a family or even seek a lifelong partner until you've worked through all of this. Sorry for crossing the line and being so blunt, but you'd be allowing the violence leveled upon you to spread to that many more people through you. Your wounds cannot heal while you're in a situation that they're being picked at constantly. I don't know how this would relate directly to your memory issue, but my guess is that you're suffering from PTSD. Our senses cannot take that constant threat, that constant elevated experience. When you described not being able to sleep for more than 30-120 mins, it's because your subconscious understood that your life was being directly threatened constantly. This is the opposite of what home life under a parent's supervision is supposed to be. I'm going to hit post now just to get some thoughts out for you. Maybe I'll have more later. I'm sure others will be too.

For one, it's an indication of failed priorities. I mean, why is he more popular than say, Stefan Molyneux? Another aspect is values. The arts have their place and I enjoy good tunes and beautiful voices. Is a million teens screaming at the very sight of him the correct response to whatever value he's perceived to have? I don't think so. I would wager there's resentment in that he did the heavy lifting himself. The crabs that would rather wallow in the barrel try to pull down the few that try to climb their way out. That sort of thing. Stef recently did a youtube video about Ghandi. It began with a general evaluation of the damages of worship. It's worthwhile material and relevant to the topic I think.

I'd take it a step further to say that easy/hard way out is an oversimplification. If I want to travel 5 miles away, am I taking the "easy way out" by hopping in my car instead of walking? Even with the consideration of how much money it costs to own, fuel, maintain, and conform to statist regulations to have one? I'm normally one to challenge use of "human nature" too, but I think it's fairly accurate here. We want the most resources with the least amount of risk and effort as possible. But this isn't the beginning of the story. Humans survive by adapting. If you have some snow to get out of your way, you "take the easy way out" and grab a shovel instead of using your hands. Using the shovel helps keep your hands warmer, it gets more work done in less time, helps you get on to what you'd rather be doing sooner, etc. I definitely agree that how a person is raised has a lot to do with it. With a proper foundation of negotiation, a person is willing to put forth more effort because they're experienced in delaying gratification and planning on a larger scale. In keeping with the opening post, proper parenting will also direct somebody to NOT do this by way of initiating the use of force against others. Bottom line is that I think it's dismissive to say "take the easy way out" is necessarily a negative thing.

A while back, I had downloaded the high quality audio book of RTR. I split up the audio into 3.5 min "tracks" which can be burned to 8 audio CDs or 1 mp3 CD. I wanted to make it easier to listen to in the car, even if the car stereo was the type that only remembered what track you were on instead of where in the track you were. Anyways, I was wondering if FDR would like to host these files or if I could upload them to a 3rd party hosting site for people to be able to download this processed version for added convenience. I also wanted to ask if this process is particularly frowned upon. The reason I ask is that (again, primarily for my own benefit), I'm in the process of also splitting up Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy series (audio). Just curious to what extent it would be preferred that I keep such things to myself or if this is considered a valuable conversion, if FDR wanted to do the hosting for tracking purposes.

Added citizen and Constitution and altered war.

I don't think building a life is what's being discussed. While the potential for pregnancy is a great reason to make sexual decisions carefully, there's nothing that says all sexual interaction must be tantamount to a lifelong partnering. With all due respect, you're approaching the subject as if it needs to be inflicted. As if there's an objective line to be drawn. I brought up physical maturity, but I accept that this is not the entire picture. If there is no objective line, it would have to be case by case. The responsibility lies with the parents. The responsibility to educate. The responsibility to nurture to avoid creating somebody who is desperate for pleasure/physical contact. The responsibility of not abandoning their children.

One thing you said in the other thread flipped a switch inside of me: "self-reliance and interdependence are not mutually exclusive". My apologies for not realizing that sooner. My father is a very controlling person and didn't take kindly to an intelligent son, so the bulk of the abuse leveled upon me damaged me in a way that I tend to see things as black and white, seeking out simplistic answers. Well, you do, right? I mean, you're not communicating with me by way of technology that you developed, the machinery which facilitates it being made entirely by you. It's more efficient to do the things you enjoy and use the fruits of your labor to purchase those things rather than make them yourself. Saying this doesn't mean I don't recognize that you are free to forego some of that efficiency however you see fit for whatever reasons you see fit.You're right that the two are not mutually exclusive. That what you're doing and writing about makes for a good back up plan. Or if you pull it off on a larger scales, makes the "outside world" a back up plan and this redundancy improves your maneuverability and survival significantly, which is great!Sorry, I knew McDonald's wasn't the best example. I was just trying to make a simplified point. Perhaps a better approach would've been to mention the work of Norman Borlaug. He's helped disseminate technology for the purpose of amplifying food yield, to the benefit of the human race. By the by, I classify him and Stefan Molyneux as the two best friends the human race has ever had.My point being that if too many people withdrew from large scale food production, wouldn't this lead to less efficient food production and in turn more starvation? I don't know. As you point out, they're not mutually exclusive so it's not like people aiming for increased self-sufficiency aren't going to continue to patronize larger-scale production. I'd just caution against the notion of "efficiency, ptooey!"

As somebody who struggles with this topic, namely the morality of action vs inaction in the parent-newborn relationship, I must seriously commend you for your intelligent and responsible approach to the subject. I especially like the consideration of "why now?" Why all at once? I know the old paradigm was that newborns didn't experience pain/malities like we do, but it's since been learned that they're actually far more sensitive than we are. I wonder why medical science hasn't incorporated this into a better managed schedule for vaccines.

How do you know? I'm not arguing that there's not a point in somebody's life before which to engage them sexually would be taking advantage of them. How do you know that it's 16? It seems to me that if the natural world has us developing in this manner in our early teens, but our perception of sexual maturity is in our late teens, that our perceptions must give way to reality.If we are propagandized into believing that taxation is not theft, we are likely to perpetuate this lie to the point of it being accepted by most as immune to scrutiny. A self-fulfilling prophecy if you will. Similarly, if we are propagandized into thinking that sex is something we are not ready for until years after our bodies are ready, we will perpetuate this to the point of no longer even thinking about it.Predation stems from abuse. I would argue that to deny somebody else the use of their body to satisfy the needs that they have is abuse. Prohibition is not an effective alternative to education and understanding. If you teach your child consequences of actions, a lesson they are amenable to at a VERY young age, they won't stuff their faces with just cake. They won't make a habit of sexual activity outside of a meaningful relationship. And they'll take the necessary precautions when they do.In regards to the topic itself, there can be tons of misuses of porn that are invisible even to the consumer. But it is not inherently immoral. Like any other guilty pleasure we might have, self-knowledge and moderation are the key ingredients.I remember when I was a young teen, I used pornography for the purpose of objectifying women. Present day, my preferences tend more towards the more "romantic" content that portrays people enjoying a shared experience that happens to include their bodies. Oddly enough (or maybe it's not so odd), self-knowledge has dramatically changed what appeals to me whether it's in music, movies, and even porn.

I often play Puzzle Quest while I'm listening to podcasts. It's a good way to be able to focus on the content without just staring at video when the audio is mostly what I'm interested in.

I've been consistent in my acknowledgement that moral identity is not the same as scale of damage, so I'm not sure which implication you're referring to. Unfortunately, there's confusion, miscommunication, or communication disconnect here, which means I don't agree that we have the luxury of disregarding the other's words in favor of perceived implication. It's as if you're arguing against somebody else that maybe made a similar point as I have and did make such an implication. Sadly, I think you're right in the serial category and it would make things a lot easier if you were right outside the serial category. However if we cannot logically explain it, we're just indulging confirmation bias of that which "feels right." I mean, I pointed out that one's self-ownership is fundamental, yet you continue to regard it as optional, as a concept applied after the fact, etc. We're not talking about the same thing. So I've gone ahead and created a separate thread to help flesh out where the misunderstanding is coming from. Hopefully a healthy discussion will arise that will help me understand what's going wrong here. I thank you for your time and might get back to you here if the other thread aides in my understanding of the subject matter.

Recent debates I've had have me questioning my own grasp on where self-ownership comes from. When I first heard Stef refute arguments against self-ownership by pointing out that they're using their body to argue against the use of their body, I thought maybe it was strictly the ability to move one's own mouth, fingers, etc. This doesn't apply to horses though, and while we wouldn't be sadistic to an animal, we certainly do not regard them as owning themselves. So does this mean it also requires consciousness? Then I think of a baby who might be conscious of self, but not yet able to conceptualize the other. We would not consider the act of a baby piercing your skin with their nails as immoral. So does it also require conceptualization of the the other and therefore the ability to universalize self-ownership? Many thanks to all who participate. My understanding of the NAP and secular, consistent immorality stems from self-ownership, so I'd like to be really clear on what the requisites are.

http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/dangerous-arctic-temperatures-state-state-impacts-20140107 Guess global warming must be real *snicker*. I work patrols every night in NW Ohio and was in and out of -40 F wind chill Monday night. I'm also responsible for some snow removal, which I had to do more frequently than ever before just to be able to get in and out. As somebody who does this stuff (and used to get sick like clockwork during seasonal shifts in and out of cold), I'm well dressed for this stuff, including being armored against wind. Not sick yet!