dsayers

Fascinating stuff, HasMat. Thanks for sharing. It reminded me of a topic I once created making the case that our interdependence was proof of peace as the default. It's why I value Alison Gopnik's A Philosophical Baby so highly. I think it's an important study because SO MANY PEOPLE reject the fact that government is predicated on coercion because they assume without that coercion, the world would be worse due to the CHANCE of RANDOM one-on-one violence that exists under the State anyways. Boggles my mind. Fantastic point. Just wanted to add the weight this extra layer weighs on one's internal resources as well. Part of the reason we're so conflicted as narrative is inflicted is because we start taking on multiple layers of reality. A rationalist would accept that consciousness is an emergent property of matter. The child of Christians has to keep track of that reality as well as the psuedo-reality that God defies this. A complex proposition because humans are universality machines. Our very existence is predicated on the consistency of matter and energy and the reliability that provides.

This is a very interesting challenge. Thank you for the feedback. My initial reaction is that while your initial claim might well be valid, I would still argue that culture is in fact the antithesis of philosophy. Perhaps we should define culture. For example, we live in a culture where the narrative is that you have to stick by family. This can be an incredibly destructive prescription. If you and I ACCEPT that 2+2=4, would we call ourselves a culture of mathematical rationalism? Doesn't seem like something people would do. Which serves as a preamble for the pushback I experience with regards to your initial claim. It is true that I have conflated nationalism with statism. Because historically, they have been connected. Does this mean we can have a nation without coercion? I'm not so sure. You can scan my post history to see the ways in which I find things like homeowner's association as an unsustainable if not completely unnecessary proposition. It's something to think about. Maybe you could help by fleshing it out a bit more. Like if we lived in a world full of soda drinkers and you and I understood that we need to hydrate such as with water, is this grounds for claiming a geographical alliance? It doesn't seem to follow. Just as I have conflated nationalism with statism because that's the way it's always been, perhaps you're anticipating banding together for ideology's sake at a time when such things wouldn't be necessary. I can picture gathering with folks because we all like to go bowling. I don't see the value in having a meet and greet because we agree that achieving our goals non-violently. Of course, I am supposing a time when such things are understood and the only reason to celebrate it is because human history had millenia or more to the contrary. I just don't see it. Doesn't mean I'm right. But thus far, a nation has been the border of violent claim. Though I still submit that loving dirt that doesn't belong to you is irrational. Is this not what nationalism is mechanically?

The topic isn't about computers. Could you explicate what you think this proves?

Deflecting by personalizing is further indication of lack of integrity. I don't care what your intent was; I know that you didn't claim violence where none was present for the sake of being honest. Your every post with regards to me is pointing a finger at me to deflect from being responsible for your own words.

Whether or not someone stopping such a thing is justified depends on whether it's immoral. @AncapFTW: Swapping it out for something we understand to be immoral is begging the question.

I found this part to be particularly interesting: And this part was the part I was hoping to see and the most important point IMO: ...minus the "perfect world" part. Parents model for their children all the time whether they like it/mean to or not. The only way to stop this is to for the two to be separated. If a parent negotiates with the child and nurtures them, the child will have all they need to be able to interact with anybody else. I also really liked this point: This part was a good point that I had never considered: This was another good point: Great article overall. I wanted to add something I came to realize a couple days ago about "physical education" class. I recently visited a friend who has been working out at a gym regularly for years. He's an engineer (read: desk jockey) with a small frame. However, he's in very great shape and pretty built. We went into his basement where he has some gym equipment. He told me about this book: The New Rules of Lifting Supercharged. We covered the basics and I did some exercises with him. Within the first 24 hours, the ways in which the knowledge I gained and exercises we did improved my life were incredible. I picked up a copy for myself, along with some basic equipment. I've read the entire book and I can honestly say that I've gotten more from it in the context of physical education than I did from 12 years of government school PE and Health classes combined, and in WAY shorter amount of time. Which was consumed because it was of interest to me, so the absorption was more meaningful and is being applied to my life because I've chosen to and enjoy it. I experience joy and self-motivation, which are polar opposites of what government phys ed instilled in me.

You think exposing manipulation like this is the initiation of the use of force?! Is this false accusation what you meant by working out differences?

I think maybe you're reading what you want to read. This is now the third post where you respond to me without responding to what I've ACTUALLY said. Which is really bizarre to me because I have an extensive post history demonstrating that I understand that the moral argument is paramount, that methodology is more important than the conclusion, and that I can spot somebody personalizing something to avoid it. My last post explained that I wasn't trying to make a moral argument and yet you continue to speak to me as if I was. *scratches head*

Not a good first impression. I didn't read most of it because the parts I did had overstatements, assertions, and sensationalism.

You're asking how it's moral philosophy and pointing out it's not ethics, but no such claim was made. Look above and you'll see that Des posed the question why adhere to morality? My point was that you don't have to sell this because it's what people already do out of self-interest. It's not something to fear in the absence of the State because it's actually a manifestation of our biological imperative.

I fear you're missing the point. I have friends in different time zones. So if either of us say a time, it could represent "two different positions." It doesn't matter WHAT you mean, just that you clarify what it is that you're talking about. Like I don't care if we agree to chat at 8pm EDST or 8pm PDST, as long as we're ON THE SAME PAGE. It doesn't matter if a word has 100 definitions. You cannot have a meaningful discussion if you're talking about two different things. Don't take my word for it. Next time your car is running, turn the key to the start position. You'll hear a very loud grinding noise (it can be very bad for your car). It's because the solenoid on your starter and the flywheel are not "shaking hands" because the starter's solenoid gear was meant to engage an idle flywheel. So you can either define your terms, shake hands, and put that solenoid's work to use, or you can object, try to start a running car, and render your car immobile. Anecdote: This isn't a hypothetical. I once turned a car off and realized I didn't mean to and tried to turn it right back on. This is a car that would "diesel," so it was technically running when I tried to restart it. The flywheel torqued the started in such a way that its electrical got grounded and shorted the battery. The car was immobile up until the point the starter was replaced. So yeah, make sure you hand shake before you start talking past people

I'm not sure why you'd ask this question. Was my claim factually inaccurate? Have you found some other flaw with it?

I don't understand the question. The value of living your life as if you only have one to live and it won't last forever is sound advice for all of humanity even after I perish as it was before I was born. I'm not a variable in that equation.

I think the answer is simpler, more primal, and harder to deny. Namely that not initiating the use of force directly contributes to one's self-preservation. Anybody can be the victim of an attack or an accident. However, when you initiate the use of force, you give others reason to target and pursue you. Providing value to others in order to be able to earn a car for example might seem harder than just taking one in the moment. However, in the long term, establishing trade partners at multiple levels makes life a LOT easier than instead creating as many enemies. You can sleep easy at night or sleep with one eye open, always looking over your shoulder, wondering if each knock at the door of phone call is consequences catching up to you. Does that make sense? I also like this explanation because it helps deal with the fear mongering of people who wonder how we'll interact without a nanny State threatening us to fly right. Even though their lives are full of examples of as much, for this very reason. Another way to think of it: Imagine you're driving down the road and somebody turns right in front of you. You COULD plow into them, since it would be their fault. But then you'd sustain injury, wreck your car, which will both add multiple layers of complication to your life, if you ever survive. It's better to brake/swerve to avoid the collision. Sure, the person responsible won't get their consequences, but you choose this path for the way it simplifies YOUR life. Self-interest is both demonized and highly under-rated. Opponents do not realize the way that self-interest directly translates into peaceful interactions with others.

Not relevant. A willingness to define one's terms is not only a baseline mark of integrity, but is actually a requisite for any meaningful conversation stemming from a point of contention. Asking somebody to define their terms isn't for the purpose of etymology, but to establish what's being talked about to eliminate the potential for miscommunication, which is ineffective an inefficient.

Too true! One of the more valuable lessons I've learned in the past 7.5 months. Prior to that, I was in defeatist mode, happily looking forward to days when I had nothing else to do so I could spend as long a chunk of time playing World of Warcraft as possible. Since then, such things (while fun) seem like such a colossal waste of time to me. I watch so few movies/shows these days as a result. My schedule present day is so full of meaning and self-care. In fact, I recently had a day where a minor mis-prioritization, followed by accidentally giving somebody more of my time than they were worth led to the first half of my day going by with unfulfilled goals. I was surprised at how much this weighed on me during the second half of my day. I'm glad that it did though because on the day I was ready to start formally working out, I had a number of pretty good reasons to hold off. I consulted a buddy of mine who's well-versed in such things and he encouraged me to go for it anyways. I was conflicted. In the end, I chose to go for it simply because I remembered how much that un-productive half day weighed on me. Sure enough, I was productive, did not regret it, upped my human capital and health, and learned more about myself in the process. The best part is that I recognize the ways in which my scheduling and prioritization--including addressing problems with them as I detect them--is yet another way I get live free from the abuse of my childhood. I was groomed to be self-destructive and this is yet another way I have risen above that programming BTW Carl, what motivated you to post this if you don't mind sharing?

The fact that I haven't read the article doesn't mean my opinion is invalid. I didn't read the article because the parts that I did read were laced with "this isn't worth reading" tactics. My point was that if this "process" doesn't include holding the parents accountable for priming that child for victimhood and then exposing them to more overt victimizers, then it's not recovery at all and will in fact CONCEAL the true victimization. The opposite of their stated goal. The "if" makes this a contingent statement. Do you disagree with it? If so, can you convince me how letting the parents off the hook when parental abuse is the root of human aggression is something to celebrate?

This is not an argument. Calling an embryo a "human being" is misleading and indicates your bias as well as a lack of curiosity. Which leads me to believe that the reason why you took issue to the actual arguments presented is because they didn't confirm your bias. Also, your use of the word "vulnerable" is an appeal to emotion. Vulnerability is not relevant when testing for aggression. The test for aggression is consent and an embryo cannot consent.

Careful, Eh Steve. The person you were quoting here claimed to use that marriage to assault children. Then here claimed to be manipulating the entire FDR community. At the very least, I would conclude that you cannot believe a word that he says.

He's avoiding answering your challenge by pretending to speak for somebody else while not referring to that somebody else by name as part of his ongoing looking down his nose at everybody except those who actually modeled this sophisticated form of manipulation for him. I feel like Neo at the end of the first Matrix because this is all SO my father, which is why it all stands out so clear to me. It kind of reminds me of when little kids dig at one another while "fighting" by telling a 3rd party to tell something to their adversary, even thought they are actually within earshot. Oh shit, that's what I just did!

How? Did he not use his capital to think of and write the book? Is he giving it away for free? I don't find comparing something to the trait of a fictitious entity to be a compelling argument. If he's going to talk about nations, then he has to talk about how he's NOT talking about free markets. And how State power is used coercively to force profits into the hands of those that can pay for it and incentivizes the poor to remain poor, etc. Theft is not a capitalist behavior.

Yes and if I drop $250 today on a suspension trainer, that sets me back $250 from all of my future financial goals. However, it will help me build my core and up my metabolism. Which will save me from injury, sparing me from untold amounts of lost productivity due to injury. It will also improve my health, sparing me from untold amounts of unnecessary health related costs in the future. It will also improve my mind-body connection, upping the amount of value I can provide myself and others with that mind. Finally, times spent working towards these goals is way more fulfilling than say playing World of Warcraft, which was how I once used my time. This alone will have untold positive ripple effects in my life from the endorphins in the moment to the increased human capital which will ripple all the way into my future child's life. It's called an investment. Pointing out something's cost does nothing to indicate the opportunity cost. Which seems to me that if you were to weigh not only the costs, but also the benefits, you would find that if you truly wanted to address the issue for which you took the time to make the thread, such a cost would provide exponential yield. Perhaps even up your human capital in your capacity as a leader as you reap the rewards of your effort, learn from it, and effectively have a new/improved tool in your toolbox What do you think?