dsayers

How did you arrive at this conclusion? It seems like intellectual sloth. The only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself. This alone seems to make it not only possible to answer, but with certainty.

Thank you very much. Both for making this decision and sharing it with us. If the enforcer class accepted that nobody can exist in a different, opposing moral category, we'd have freedom today without any bloodshed. We need more of this! Would you be willing to share what spark allowed for you to entertain the possibility that maybe what you were doing/who you worked for was immoral? And/or what straw broke the camel's back of making the difficult decision of accepting the truth despite the ways it would negatively impact you?

I stopped reading at that point. Philosophy is objective. Anything that can be described as belonging to somebody is not philosophy. From there you twice bring up "Girard." I don't know who that is or why you feel what they say is the end all be all. In order to know what violence is and/or how to determine who INITIATED the use of force, you must first understand property rights, which is derived from self-ownership. Here's a good place to start: Let us know if it's still unclear and where/how and maybe we can have a rational discussion without poisoning the well and appeals to authority.

Strawman. Saying "institutionalized rape is okay" also isn't immoral, but that's not proof that doing so can lead to less rape. I want my brothers and sisters to be free. Not dance for their masters just because it's not immoral to do so.

But we can easily throw all of that out, right? Because these things happen contrary to what is modeled, which sort of disproves the conditioning theory, eh? Well not eating can manifest in several ways, pain just being one of them. Also, you should probably define instinct. Some of the things you listed there is biological imperatives. Which I think is different. Also, I simply don't know what is meant by "it is healthier to express instincts as basically as possible." How does one express an instinct? How does one do so with complexity compared to simplistically? How do you measure which is "healthier"? Compared to what? I'm not saying what you've put forth is inaccurate. I'm just having the damnedest time trying to figure out what you're saying because there's so much fluff and not much rigor.

I don't understand. "Type" seems undefined. Still undefined. Are you putting forth as a standard that which is instinctual always causes pain when suppressed? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Without this information, wouldn't this be an assertion?

You tell me. Are you able to identify a way in which "you are my master" diminishes slavery? Nobody knows WHY you're voting. They just go to the polls and see a bunch of people there and assume it must be valid; Why else would everybody do it? You don't have the right to tell anybody they have the power to rule over everybody. "dire circumstances" is an arbitrary, subjective standard. It's also a gateway for manipulation. I don't know how old you are, but history is FULL of examples of the State parading one "dire circumstance" after another to distract people from moral analysis. It is intellectual sloth and irresponsible to say that because you are afraid, you will support the slavery of mankind. To that end, why do you not consider things like the slavery of mankind and unilateral theft of the unborn to be "dire circumstances"? If that is truly the standard by which you feel truth should be determined by.

You poor bastard. The degree to which manipulation was modeled for you, coupled with the degree to which you are oblivious to the ways in which you've internalized and normalized it is disappointing to behold. What do you mean by supposedly? You've been a member for almost two years. You don't know whether it is or not? Or are you unable to make a concrete decision because who actively posts shifts as time goes on? The irony here is that YOU are posting and in this post, you are not adding any open-mindedness while demanding it from others. I view this quote as preparation for bias confirmation. If you are told what you want to hear, then the community is philosophical and you are vindicated. Otherwise, we don't live up to our stated goals and you can discard what we say. As evidenced by: If you believed that to be true, you wouldn't post there. But you did post there. What I see here is the exact same marginalizing an entire group because they didn't tell you what you wanted to hear. Bias confirmation. @title: Should a judge be allowed to [do something nobody has the right to do]? The answer is always no.

Who said that the burden of the brutalized is to comfort the bystander? Who is he talking to? This seems like bringing unprocessed trauma from the past to the table. "Stop with all that" and "sit down" are not arguments. They indicate a lack of curiosity, open-mindedness, and (ironically enough) a lack of equality. On top of that, it was delivered as part of a speech, which means it wasn't mean to solicit feedback while providing feedback (inconsistent). 1) This is basically saying that to "critique their resistance" is to have no interest in equal rights for black people. This is bias confirmation. 2) "our resistance" is pretending to speak for a collective. Often the sign of somebody who is insecure with regards to the merit of their own arguments. Not that he's provided any arguments. 3) Why does somebody need to do X before they can do Y? The truth isn't dependent upon demographics or track records. Who is he to decide whose input is valid and who isn't? He's essentially saying that unless you agree with me, you cannot criticize me. A person of integrity would welcome all criticism because it would either help them to revise their position to more accurately describe the real world or it would help to galvanize their understanding of their own correct position. But yeah, with no frame of reference, it's hard to know what he's even talking about. What does the conversation look like when you're not talking to each other by way of proxy?

There's no such thing as defensive voting. The threats, theft, assault, rape, and murder happen regardless of which way you vote. You have no proof that your vote accomplishes anything. Which is where the onus lies by the way: with those who claim voting accomplishes anything. If I walked up to you and said to you that you could give me $5 or you could give me $10, which would you choose? You would recognize the false dichotomy and tell me to go fly a kite. You wouldn't choose to give me $5 and call it a defensive donation to avoid giving me $10. Statism is not a rational conclusion. Why then is it so widely held? Momentum, pure and simple. The majority of people engage in the rituals and pretend it is valid. As such, to stand up and speak the truth would lead to social ostracism from one's friends and family. There are a lot of people who resist the truth for this reason alone. If those of us who know better continue to play along, we are providing a false signal to these people. If instead we choose not to play and have conversations with those who do and/or those who would question why we don't, we can plant the seeds and offer an alternative. Will all of these seeds flourish? Of course not. Because it only exists in people's minds, every decision you make regarding the State either validates it or invalidates it. In what way would "defensively voting for Trump" invalidate the system?

Thank you, Maciej, for sharing that equally touching story. This is why it is so important that we try to be and embrace the hero in ourselves instead of looking to without. To not be ashamed in a world that would try and make us small to manage their own righteous discomfort. As we stand tall, the giants that we are, we lift each other up. We encourage those just coming out of their shells to stand up. We continue to run back into the burning building of narrative and rescue each and every person who wants to be saved. To all the evil doers in the world: Watch your step. You are so small that we cannot even see you. We've worked very hard to be so strong that we have the extra strength to be able to pick up every last person who will not squander this precious gift of life. If you should be underfoot as this happens, you will be stamped out and the world will not even notice. May the truth suffocate every last one of you who deliberately subjugate your fellow humans with your words and actions.

Once again, you've taken the words right out of my mouth. Thank you for your level of activity around here. Tyler H is a hero. I am a hero. EVERY person who accepts their capacity for error in a world that tells them they aren't responsible for anything is a hero. EVERY person willing to examine their formative years even though it might challenge their belief that their parents were heroes are heroes. EVERY person who seeks win-win negotiation and denounces violence as a valid form of conflict resolution is a hero. EVERY person who prioritizes finding their tribe, pursuing their happiness, and standing up to their abusers is a hero. EVERY person who is willing to take on social ostracism for the sake of standing with the truth and making this world uncomfortable if not inhabitable for toxic people is a hero. The list goes on. It is heroic to admit we were wrong, do whatever we can to reverse the damage we've done in the past, follow our heart, and protect our future children.

I think if it were me, I would've said that he's protecting somebody who was threatening a defenseless, dependent, not-there-by-choice child, which is received as a death threat since their survival depends on NOT being harmed by their caregivers. About a month ago, I was in a parking lot waiting for a tow truck to arrive. I saw a woman yelling at her son. You could tell her fire was only as high as it was because he was male and "could take it." When I caught her attention and told her that she doesn't want to yell at the boy, she angrily retorted, "You're not his father." Since I could see that there was no rationalizing with her, I just turned to the boy and told him that it's not okay for people to yell at one another and that I was sorry his own mother would humiliate him like that. To me, the purpose of intervening is to provide a counter-example. To interrupt the narrative and to interrupt the process of normalizing or internalizing the abuse. Those of us who have been abused know how powerful it is to literally believe that what you're being presented with is okay. It's something that can stay with you long into your adult life, rippling and causing untold levels of destruction.

To play devil's advocate, I would point out that it also contributes to the opposite. I know that I spend a LOT more time researching than I did before the internet. For me, the "short attention" is the access. Now that I don't have to drive to the library, I'm more willing to take the time. Plus, with social media, those who take the time to analyze can spread their analysis, giving others who wouldn't put forth the initial effort access to the conclusions, which they can see are sound and maybe even interpolate the process. Essentially learning how to analyze better despite the short attention span.

To vote is to agree that yes, you are a slave. And that everybody else is a slave, which nobody has the right to say. To vote is to believe that you are doing something. But since the throne itself is invalid, those who vote aren't doing anything. The lifeblood of the State is its perceived legitimacy. In other words, it resides within the minds of people. Voting not only doesn't address this, but adds to it by showing others that it's valid by participating.

When I was awoken to the drive for self-care, I wanted my bad decisions to be erased immediately. Unfortunately, finding the right answers takes time and applying them takes even longer. Try not to be anxious if you cannot solve this right now. Which I would argue is exactly true (that it cannot be solved right now). I would say this to heterosexuals too. It's not a YOU decision. It's something you and your partner will have to discuss. And that answer might be different from one partner to the next. It reminds me of these women who say they want to have X children. It's a decision you really can't make responsibly until you know WHO they're going to be with and what they want also. Hell, you may come to find that you find your perfect someone and no longer care whether it's your genes or not and would just be thrilled to get to spend your life with them/raise a child with them. Thank you for allowing yourself to be vulnerable by sharing this. I hope I've helped in some way.

You already asked this question. I suspect you're asking again because you didn't like the answer you got the first time. But to ask the question again as if nobody answered is unjust to those who took the time. But if you ignored the input you didn't care for the first time, what reason would anybody have to not expect you to do the same here also?

With all due respect, it appears as if you're not willing to accept the logic, reason, and empirical evidence in front of you. What is his null hypothesis? If he does not provide for you what it would take to convince him, you are literally wasting your time. This is probably the most accurate thing he's said. People do use religiosity to fill the void. Usually the void left from neglectful/unloving parents, which manifests in a lack of self-knowledge. He also did well in explicating one of the dangers in religiosity: That once you think you've found the answer, you stop searching for the RIGHT answer. This is why sound methodology is so crucial: It is the only way you can know you've found the right answer. "Faith" is a cop out and he knows it because there is no other area in his life where he would accept that as an answer. Only in the realm of the bogeyman promised he would win the lotto. It gives him an excuse to increase the value of his own life because he believes it already has value. Riches and no responsibility... who wouldn't want that?

Imagine you spoke only French and they spoke only German. How could you communicate? You couldn't verbally because you have no shared standard from which to build off of. If you accept that extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence and they think faith is an answer, then you have no shared standard from which to build off of epistemologically. It can be frustrating for sure because anybody that puts forth and objective claim is also saying that truth is preferred to falsehood. lol @ A4E I like your Socratic method / Judo, "use their momentum against them" approach.

lol. Kudos, my brother. I thoroughly enjoy seeing the good guys win So what? People understand this is immoral and don't want it in their neighborhoods. I know a tall Chinese man (exception), but that doesn't mean that the Chinese aren't short on average (rule). No. You know full well we are talking about the State. Governments apply to geographical areas they do not own and are perceived as legitimate even from without. If you cannot answer the challenges, please do not attempt to weasel out of them.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for the sake of mental exercise if I may. To me, the word ban indicates an opinion. Rape is internally consistently is an objectively true statement. Opinion does not apply. Bans are inherently immoral because they are predicated on people existing in different, opposing moral categories. Just because a ban targets something that is objectively "wrong" doesn't mean the ban is just. Does that make sense?

My challenge to this is that it supposes involuntary extraction. Also, it is unclear to me what is meant by without further escalation. Every time a person's skin is punctured, death can occur. There is no surgery that cannot potentially end in death. I would argue that the mother's consent is still required. Is this not a moot point though? I mean, isn't the decision that a pregnancy is unwanted determined more or less shortly after the pregnancy is discovered? With the exception of being medical complications later on, which would still mean it is the mother's choice since her body and her life are her property and she could submit to or refuse medical intervention. I'm not sure why this is relevant, but it's incorrect. Somebody flailing about due to a seizure who strikes you is not guilty of assault because the action was not voluntary. Volition is a requisite to the ownership of an action. Surely you're not arguing the fetus is in a position to own property. Self-ownership comes from the capability of reason. This is why animals are not moral actors. This is why it seems arbitrary to me. I understand that it's not a comfortable conclusion. I don't like it either. But I cannot turn my back on the fact that it is philosophically sound. Once the fetus is birthed, it is no longer the property of its mother. It becomes what I will happily concede is a gray area of morality. It doesn't own itself, but it surely will. It is the only lifeform we know of that fits this categorization. When will it achieve self-ownership? It's a continuum based on its own understanding of self, the other, and its ability to formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, calculate consequences... in other words, reason. The parents are custodians in keeping with their voluntarily created obligation to the child. They are overseeing that person until such a time as they can fully claim ownership of themselves. THIS conclusion I'm quite happy with because it makes peaceful, egalitarian parenting philosophically sound. If you can find fault with any of this, I am all ears. But please stop putting forth any standard that would also describe a gerbil.

My sentiments exactly. The quote presupposes rulers. I really enjoy your contributions here BTW. Yes, when I go to Taco Bell, I'm delegating the making of my burritos to somebody else, voluntarily, at no involuntary expense to my neighbors. It's called division of labor and it occurs without pointing guns at everybody, which is how you know it's what people want. Yes, governments declare war on their own people through threats, theft, assault, rape, and murder. This is precisely why the heroes are standing up and saying more of the same will solve nothing.

You cannot will much of what is occurring in your body right now. Beasts have heart beats so that is not sufficient, which has been covered already. You are arbitrarily making up standards at this point while I'm putting forth philosophically sound, consistent arguments. What is your null hypothesis? What would be required for you to revisit the conclusion you entered this thread with? Consistency doesn't seem to be of interest to you and I find that irritating.

Numerous challenges remain, all of which you continue to avoid. VERY telling. I look forward to seeing how you deflect from being caught in this lie.