dsayers

@Coal Jack: I'm not the person whose forgiveness you should seek. If this post is genuine, then I would suggest humbling yourself in front of your children, talking to them about the way that you've failed them, and make it up to them. You will probably need therapy and self-knowledge for yourself and therapy for them. By about age 5, the personality is formed. So if you have a 6.5 year old, it's going to take some serious deprogramming. You are right that you will pay for it sooner or later. Please choose sooner so that your child has the most opportunities possible I appreciate your feedback on my approach, but it makes it seem as if you don't take the damage done seriously. If person A was raping person B, would you critique person C for the level of kindness they extend the rapist while trying to interrupt their aggression? At least in most rapes, the victim has some chance of fighting back. When the victim is your own children, not only is there a physical power disparity, but a mental and emotional one to you. They NEED you to survive. This severely limits their ability to fight back because to do so would biologically mean their own death. I do not apologize for calling things by their proper names. If you do not enjoy the way this stranger reacts to your violence, you could always cease the violence; Something you actually have control over.

Strawman. The rest of your post was deflection.

You keep going back to family as if humans can NOT be born or just pop up fully formed. There is no unchosen positive obligation in having been born. Also not comparable to citizenship. When I stopped having anything to do with my mother, I didn't have to worry about armed thugs throwing me in a cage, stealing my stuff, or threatening to kill me. I probably have as much of an idea of what you're on about as you do. Your claim was that leaving a job is comparable to renouncing citizenship. This is moving the goalposts once your assertion was refuted. Assertion followed by ad hominem. I'm sure convinced!

You can have lots of free stuff or you can take responsibility for your actions, stand against the grain, and work hard for the things you want in life. This is the paradigm in the west for women. Translation: They have much more to lose by adhering to integrity. So it's harder for them to resist. Plus, various equal rights programs gone too far have turned towards coddling women, which will only weaken them. Either one of these should present in the way you describe, but combined...

Most people didn't choose to take it on. This is an unchosen positive obligation, unethical, and not comparable. Also, a person can NOT just do that. They also have to move and leave behind everything they've ever known, and a bunch of other steps. It's not the same as saying, "I will no longer work for my former employer" where all other aspects of one's life persist, because it was a VOLUNTARY relationship. LMAO! How does one accomplish regarding fiction as valid while accusing somebody else of adhering to fantasy?!

In theory, it's what shirgall touched on: The opportunity cost of investing their time effort in something that will enhance the relationship and/or the life of our future child. My fiancee added in practice: the lack of extra expense, extra time, no space taken up, no worries of mess on bedding, my skin, etc. Simply put, it's one of those things that gets done because everybody else does it. While I wouldn't say it's diametrically opposed to self-knowledge, they do seem to me to be in competition. To be fair, I've always been a function over form kind of guy. I own a pair of clippers because I don't care what my hair looks like and I'd rather save the time/money. So it could just be my projection of practicality.

So what you're saying is that there's a subjective component to it? Well, "women can up their game with makeup" is an objective claim. Who cares would be anybody that can see the difference and the value of the difference between objective and subjective, which appears to include you. In the future, when you're looking to offset something that somebody says, it helps to not actually repeat them

Shouldn't I be let off the hook though since you're asserting that I wasn't able to choose that anyways? I think you may have missed my point, so I'll try and frame it a different way. I have never once considered walking outside and picking up my garage. The reason for that is because I am convinced that I would be unable to lift it. The focus isn't the inability, but the way that perception frames our decisions. If you thought people couldn't choose, you wouldn't engage in behaviors designed to solicit that choice. You haven't done anything to address this contradiction. Do you experience no cognitive dissonance? Is this an indication that you NEED for this to be true even if it doesn't bear out? I mean, look at how many appeals to authority are being used. Even the thread itself is predicated on one. Also, if you want to make the case that free will = nothing, typing it larger will not make it so, make it axiomatic, or dispense with the need for the case to be made. Also, the very idea that nothing comes from nothing is poisoning the well. For if validity was based on source, where does something come from? Where did where it came from come from? Infinite regression. Would you agree?

Says who? I find makeup to be a turnoff.

This is not comparable. You can choose to cease your employment. No it is not. Government is a concept and therefore cannot own property. Both "arrest" and "deportation" are words used to conceal the initiation of the use of force. Also, you beg the question and/or poison the well when you specify "illegal," which is not a philosophically sound conclusion, but rather the arbitrary command backed by threats of violence. So even the actors in your examples are not comparable.

For these people, the pleasure they receive comes from the chase and/or conquest of somebody they hadn't had before and/or the idea that they can have multiple partners, often with little/no commitment. As opposed to the joy of truly connecting with and sharing with somebody. I've done both and nothing compares to the latter. Especially when that connection is born out of virtue. In fact, my only solace in being so isolated in such an environment is the knowledge that I've seen levels of a heaven on Earth they don't even realize exist, which is surprisingly comforting.

How do you know? My values are very different than they were 5 years ago. As a result, who I would allow in my life to varying degrees is very different than how it was 5 years ago. You're essentially saying that you cannot move the shadow while disregarding that you CAN move the object that casts the shadow, thus effectively moving the shadow. Simple. If you truly believed that we have no free will, you would not engage in behavior engineered for the purpose of encouraging others to exercise that free will. You would arrive at the conclusion that people believe what they believe and that's that. To move beyond that is to establish that you (and all of us) are capable of moving beyond that. Or at the very least that you believe that we are capable of moving beyond that, while claiming that we can't. A performative contradiction. Using your Christian analogy, the moment you see a "Christian" buckle their seat belt, you know they don't believe in a deity or an afterlife. Otherwise they would accept that God is going to take them when He sees fit no matter what they do, and it would be to their benefit since they would get to go to a better place.

You're talking in circles. This was the initial point of contention. Thank you for revealing that you are output only on this topic.

I'm so sorry that this was your experience, but am very glad you've made this connection. I've had a similar experience. Both my parents treated sexuality as shameful and inflicted religion upon me which achieved the same effect. My father has always modeled a lack of romanticism. The first girlfriend I had tried to break my romanticism, which was largely successful most of my life. And now, I work with a bunch of people who have a "flavor of the week" kind of attitude, which leaves me in a position where I cannot share with them on a level of things that matter to me because I'd be speaking a foreign language to them. It's very isolating. Which is ironic because being romantic should lead to the greatest connection available.

THIS is an assertion. I pointed out the way in which your comparison was dishonest. You did nothing to reconcile the discrepancy. Therefore, simply saying "nuh uh" is an assertion. Also, you continue to speak about the Constitution as if it's anything more than what a few people wrote down one time. This does nothing to substantiate your previous assertions that it functions as a binding contract for the unborn.

A person who's hands are bound but feet are not is free to walk. Thus context is necessary. When we say that people are/should be free, it means from without. The binding you're contemplating is from within. As such, these words are not antonyms in the context of this discussion. I consider myself a pragmatist, so I often do not engage in contemplation I do not find useful. So you'll have to pardon me if I'm ill-equipped for this level of philosophizing. That said, it seems to me that the fact that people can and do act in self-destructive ways, in ways that are not good for them, and indeed in ways that override their own biological imperatives sufficiently refutes that we cannot will what we will. For that matter, isn't the very suggestion that we cannot will what we will absurd? For if whomever would claim as much could be convinced that we could, then wouldn't they just say "Ah, but we cannot will what we will that we will," and so on? It's true that I cannot choose that blueberries, cherries, and peaches taste good to me and Monistat 7 doesn't, but how would this disprove free will? Doesn't trying to discuss/convince others of a lack of free will a performative contradiction?

How did you arrive at the conclusion that the two are not intertwined? I think the discussion that ensued helped to demonstrate how they are. Does that make you uncomfortable?

@thebride440: You didn't answer my questions about how you know and whether X, Y, and Z was sufficient for you to question your conclusion. These are base integrity checks, and without answering them, I have no way of knowing if it's at all worth my time to have this discussion. Please answer those questions or know that a deliberate avoidance of them will be interpreted as a lack of integrity. Yes and it said that Congress has powers that individuals do not. How did they get those powers? How can person X give to person Y something that person X doesn't have to give? This is one form of proof that it is arbitrary. If the laws were half as pure as you paint them to be, this simply wouldn't be possible. The fact that it is possible is another form of proof that it is arbitrary. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc actually emerged from constitutional republics where those constitutions were legally amended to pave their way. The topic is not about killing humans. Also, most of the discussion was NOT arbitrary, because it DID pull from philosophy, morality, and ethics. You used these words as if you understand their value and are now jettisoning them when they're inconvenient. Answer how you came to those conclusions and if they are allowed to be challenged and we can continue to talk. As it was, the whole "'laws' come from ethics" remark gave me a pretty good idea that the person saying it was of a closed mind.

How do you know? Does the sheer number of them, the way they vary (sometimes from one day to the next) and even contradict themselves do anything to challenge your conclusion? Yes, words like morality, philosophy, and ethics are important, but that doesn't mean you can put them next to other words and make them righteous by association. If a "law" says ANYTHING other than "thou shalt not steal, assault, rape, or murder," it is arbitrary and not at all based on philosophy, morality, or ethics.

Matthew M., I agree with the bulk of your sentiment and respect you as a member. So I hope you'll find my criticisms to be born out of my love for specificity. I'm not sure what the meaning is here. "Need" is not a standard for any voluntary, moral action. Everybody has things that they do that not only isn't what they need, but probably isn't the best for them. I think it's easy to focus on a tattoo bearer because their trauma/perceived bad decision is on display. But if you order a burger and fries instead of a salad or smoke a cigarette, you're just as permanently damaging yourself, probably out of a lack of self-love and/or the ripple of childhood trauma. I look forward to your feedback as I'm biased to hell on the topic, on both sides of the fence really.

You're just repeating yourself, with assertions and no arguments. Inaction not only doesn't equal action, but CAN'T equal action. Your comparison is dishonest. The State is a concept and therefore cannot own anything, let alone anybody. Comparing commands backed by threats of violence in the name of the State to somebody dispensing with their property as they see fit is inaccurate. If I say to you that you can borrow my car if you do not smoke in it, I can do that because A) it's MY car and B) you consented to it voluntarily in advance. Standing still is not the same as, "Yes, you can steal from me, boss me around, threaten me, harm me if I don't coalesce with your arbitrary edicts, kill me if I protect myself, and engage in all levels of atrocities in my name with the moneys you've stolen from me, my community, my tribe, and my loved ones." Not only does it NOT mean that, but I cannot give to another that which I don't have to give. Which means even if I consented to all of that with regards to me, I cannot consent on your behalf.

The first part is an assertion. In the second part, "law" means arbitrary thing somebody wrote down one time. And posting content showing how horrible it looks is not an argument.

Irrelevant. You said consent of the governed. One cannot retract consent that was never given. That was the point. I say what you said in a way that helps you to understand how absurd what you said is. Bzzzt! A piece of paper cannot embody consent of anybody that doesn't sign it, let alone people who aren't even born yet.