dsayers

Leading with "it is certain that nothing can be certain," I don't think you really have a leg to stand on HOW a person approaches such anti-rationality.

Aren't these two different questions? As aviet pointed out, you'd have to define what you mean by evil and sane? Anybody can choose to behave in any way, regardless of what they think, know, or are told. Empathy, intellect, courage, etc do not inhibit our ability to act against them.

If it's truly philosophy, reality will bear it out and there would be no "perspective." I would HIGHLY recommend Stef's Introduction to Philosophy series. It's long and not the best quality. But it starts from first principles and leaves no stone unturned. It literally brought me from a narrative-riddled parrot to a rational free thinker. I can't speak highly of it enough.

People have been claiming a decay/destruction of civilization since the dawn of civilization. It wouldn't surprise me if there were old coots out there that thought the fact that people don't wear hats makes for an impolite society for example. Social media only accelerates whatever is put into it compared to how things disseminated prior to social media. If you have a society that embraces State power and assaulting children for example, that is what it will amplify. The cause here isn't the social media, but the State power and assaulting of children. So I didn't read any further since it is an old narrative coated with a fresh paint of technology that will only serve to deflect, obfuscate, and conceal the real problems we face.

I have never suggested the transition wouldn't be turbulent. My point was that turbulence is not justification for accepting less rape or less slavery instead of just admitting that rape and slavery are immoral.

There is no such thing. You will not defend anybody by telling the masters that yes, they do indeed own you and everybody else.

This only works on those who have not been taught to think rationally. The tell is in the terminology itself. GRAVITY is a law because it is binding. Man cannot create laws, only observe them. What they tell you is a law so that you think it is universal and binding is actually commands backed by threats of violence. Made possible by their perceived legitimacy. In his debate with Mark Skousen, Larken Rose points out that "laws (the Constitution)" was 1) written by people with the capacity for error, 2) can be changed, 3) when you tell somebody that they can be your master, but they cannot do X and they do X anyways, what can you do about it? You just told them they could be your master. The idea that you can both give somebody imaginary power AND limit how they use it is self-detonating. Or as I've always said: In the ruler-ruled relationship, the rules are for the benefit of the rulers and are only meant to be applied to the ruled. Of course there are people above commands backed by threats of violence. Any threat of violence is "I choose to take away your choice." Put another way: "I can do what I won't let you do." To what end? I can think of better reasons to get yourself on a no-fly/terrorist watch list. And a trillion reasons not to provoke your assailant.

aviet, there's a lot of bias in there with no acknowledgement of it. This rebuttal is for the sake of others who might be curious if not hopeful. Overall, you're engaging in utilitarian arguments which only serves to conceal the moral argument and protect the violent, allowing them to flourish.

By what methodology did you arrive at this conclusion? With the exception of State threats made against me, I live my life achieving my goals without the initiation of the use of force and do not tolerate those in my life who do. I'll bet this is true of you and 95% of people also.

2+2=4 is time independent. You've been one of the less creative trolls lately.

Saying that you have property rights at the same time I have property rights does nothing to refute my claim that we exist in the same moral category. My statement is an absolute and is always true. While you are free to not allow me onto your land, I am free to not allow you on my land or make use of my body, etc. Same moral category... still.

False dichotomy.

I loved listening to my fiancee tell stories. She was always so enthusiastic about having somebody to share it with (that would listen and care). I loved being able to provide that. She's also such a great communicator and I had such an empathetic connection, that each story always felt like I had been right there too. It was a wonderful feeling for both reasons, in addition to increasing a bond with somebody I care about.

Yes, governments violate the NAP.

I've never met anybody with HIV, or restless leg syndrome, etc. I don't think this is sufficient as evidence, even if an absence of evidence was evidence of absence.

I have no investment as I am not acquainted with Tundra or her contributions in general. The ones I've seen here aren't exactly productive. But since I have basic cognitive skills, I was able to derive from Mr. Moran's post that there is apparently a trend of using the community for destructive purposes. Which your biases led to you interpreting as wanting to censor somebody for disagreeing. Which you have now moved the goalposts to avoid taking responsibility for. Staff has previously banned people who are here for no reason other than disrupt, which aides in other people making arguments and having productive conversations. It is not antithetical to those goals.

I haven't gotten around to the online profile thing (yet). However, I think I would appreciate being able to determine so quickly that there's no match there. Would save me precious time and effort

I didn't see a reference to differing opinions. I saw a description of somebody basically using the community for destructive purposes. Talk about bias creeping in!

Somebody told you what you could and could not ignore? I can't imagine what that conversation would look like. A board member recently sent me a lengthy PM. He had demonstrated numerous times a pronounced lack of integrity. I simply didn't read the PM. I can't imagine whose permission I would need to dispose of my senses and time as I see fit. Shared ownership is not philosophically sound. Also, a fetus is pretty unique in terms of property. No amount of obfuscation will change the fact that it is part of the woman's body. This is more comparing apples to oranges. The assailant in these examples is creating a debt AND telling you that property rights are invalid. To forcibly stop them is to settle that debt and to take them at their word with regards to the standard they have put forth. Additionally, a reasonable expectation of consent is consent. It's just in these scenarios, you don't have the time or opportunity to secure consent before settling the debt for them. In the phrase, "the initiation of the use of force," the initiation part is key. Yes, you are exercising ownership over their body, but it is justified due to these circumstances they have voluntarily created.

I don't see the process being attributed to a specific day. For some of us, it's already happened. I'm not one for celebrating what the calendar says I should. I used to treat my birthday as sacred, but post self-knowledge, it's not important to me. I try to make the most of every day. This mantra is also why I previously wasn't really into vacations. However, some of the best days of my life were spent on the road recently, so I sort of have a new perspective on that.

It's weird watching somebody talk to people who aren't here, have a conversation with themselves, and speak for other people.

This is a strange thing for me to read. Self-knowledge is all the shield I need from the arrows of without. Because it gives me less to prove and helps me to understand how much they're telling me about themselves, not me. Sparring is for the purpose of preparation. Which I think is a fair comparison in that if you are willing to sling insults in play, you will have less resistance to do so when frustrated or annoyed. Right now, I am pushing back on something that you have said; Is this not a form of sparring? This form does not resemble destruction and in fact is meant to build both of us up. So I would at this point reject the claim that we need to behave like the destructive in order to "spar." What do you think?

Here's the last topic on the subject: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42208-the-line-between-teasing-and-abuse/Not specifically of men, but I don't think the topic is gender specific anyways. I would guess women are WAY more abusive towards one another. Just not necessarily to each others' faces.

The claim has no substance as saying people ought to do something without any context is meaningless. i.e. If you want to head north, you should turn left up here. The prescription for people to be governed fails to infinite regression. Because who operate in the name of the State are people.

Third time: ad hominem - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining I called you a poor prisoner AFTER I addressed your position. Not that that did anything, so you're just deflecting and trying to engage in attrition.