dsayers

Universality.

"Jefferson sez" is not an argument. If there's consent, it's not rape. If it's rape, there's no consent. This is also something that occurs after and therefore does nothing to presume consent before. If consent could be implied, then it would always be moral to punch you in the face. He MUST HAVE consented; he was standing within arm's reach...

History and evolution?

Well I certainly thank you for having the sensitivity to keep them out of the hands of the State as much as you can. At the risk of sounding like a breaking record, I want to continue to push the importance of yourself. Without self-knowledge, there's NOTHING to guarantee that they will not receive the same treatment under your care as they did under your mother. Because you were raised by that person and she at least chose to have them. Also, you have a child of your own and it's just a fact of life that your resources (within and without) are limited. So by definition, your child's care will suffer because of this also. This is precisely why self-care and self-love are so important. It helps you to fend off this situation overwhelming you, empowers you to be there for your child, and manage trying to manage all of this. It allows the care you provide for each of them to be that much better, efficient, and less of a strain on you. So to bring it full circle from our first posts here, I just wanted to summarize by saying that if you want to be there for others, you need to be there for yourself first. I'll leave you with a scenario that I rather enjoy a great deal. It's the nautical mantra of "one hand for yourself and one hand for the boat." In this case, picture your younger siblings as passengers in the same slave boat (your mother) as you. They got tossed overboard. If you don't reach out both of your arms, you might not be able to save them. However, if you reached out both of your arms, the water's surface could vary and then you'd be thrown from the boat. At which point, you cannot help anybody. So even though keeping one arm for yourself might result in the loss of your siblings, you'll still persist and be able to help those still on the boat, or with whom you have contact with the rest of your life.

Omniscience is all knowing, not just self-knowing. If knowing how to do something was the same as being able to do it, we wouldn't have competitions of any stripe because everybody would be the same.

I'm not glad to see stuff like this, but I am glad the ways the psychopaths are getting so far gone that even the apologists have nothing to stand behind. They need to see that stuff like this isn't an isolated incident, but the eventuality of mass-hysteria pretending people have super-human powers for any reason. Even if people were willing and able, it wouldn't matter. Because you're referring to redress (which comes after) whereas the Constitution itself dispenses with consent. Something that is required BEFORE an action can be moral.

Self-knowledge, self-care, and self-love. I appreciate your curiosity. I know you mentioned you have a child and yes, I agree that as a result, you have an obligation. Still, you will benefit them more if YOU are #2 on your list instead of your other family/in-group. Which will also benefit them. How did this come to pass? I'm sorry if this is legitimately the case. My doubt stems from this arrangement also sounding like something that was inflicted upon you. Even if this means the drive to carry them was what was inflicted upon you, which would appear at first glance as being a conscious, voluntary decision despite not being so. Does that make sense? If you're not strong enough to carry yourself, then this would actually prevent you from forward self-growth if not flat out forcing self-regression.

Knowing how to do something isn't the same as (being able to be) doing it. To be all knowing is to know what's going to happen in the future, which denotes the inability to change it. If you have the ability to change it, you can't know the way it will go. Before somebody goes for the trap of being able to know you will change it, the knowing makes it not a change at all. They are literally mutually exclusive.

Unless you have children, can you name one human being who's survival is dependent upon you? I can only think of one. The one you're missing. YOU. Then why do you eat? Seems productive and active to me. Also seems to take food away from your family and in-group. Millenia of empirical evidence says that self-interest is not only a biological imperative, but a perfectly legitimate way to perpetuate our entire species. Which means your erasure for the benefit of others was most certainly implanted in you. If you're as curious as you creating this topic suggests, you will start there. You're of less use to everybody, including yourself, without yourself.

First of all, welcome! Thank you for your honesty and vulnerability How did you find your way to FDR? You say you can't get enough; what topics interest you most so far? Search YouTube for "Larken Rose vs Mark Skousen Debate in Anarchapulco." Larken's up first and he totally destroys the minarchist position (which I assume is what you mean by not a complete anarchist). Your theist position is of interest to me. I had a childhood that was heavily damaged by religiosity and I noticed that you put forth your political and religious positions, but not your family/self-knowledge position. My bias tells me they're likely connected, so I was wondering if you might be willing to share a bit more.

I'm not sure what you mean by apparatuses, but you seem to be absent in your goal. The reason I point this out is that if you are not striving for what is best for YOU, then you cannot be as present or useful to others.

Good stuff. There was one element that was left to implication that I think should be explicated. Stef has pointed out that State violence primarily manifests in "slave on slave" violence. Yes, the State will on occasion descend on the Ed and Elaine Browns of the world. In the meantime, it's the other slaves that point to these instances and/or scare others and/or comply out of this same fear that help to perpetuate the myth despite the huge power disparity the slaves have OVER the so-called rulers. I point this out because there are people that can see through the myth, but still act to the contrary out of fear of what their peers and family will do to them for disagreeing.

I loved reading your entire post, but this part in particular. Thank you so much for sharing.

This isn't a feeling. Also, it seems you have presented this as if it is problematic without explaining why it's problematic. As such, you've engaged in problem -> end instead of problem -> solution. I've been in one-on-one interactions with somebody of the opposite gender without there being sexual tension (never before self-knowledge). The last time I was in a one-on-one situation with a person of the opposite gender and I DID experience sexual tension, talking about it honestly with that honest, virtuous person was all it took to dispel the tension. So what you've put forth as a problem with no solution (as I see it), the solution I utilized strengthened the relationship by keeping it honest and working through a problem together.

What a crock of shit. It's so easy for somebody in the calm of their chair to pontificate how they MIGHT have handled it. If somebody doesn't like how person X responds to having a gun pulled on them, they could always just not pull a gun on somebody.

Not only that, but humans have evolved for survival in an environment with the physical laws/properties that we have now. A sudden shift would likely lead to the inability to survive. Not to mention the effects of stability and reliability on our psychology. That's why I think questions that are essentially "what if gravity reversed tomorrow?" are worth little more than deepity points in a 70's Show weed circle.

Not in the context of human behavior. Because we all exist in the same moral category, ANY attempt at a "should" in terms of human behavior is assuming "if you wish to live consistently."

The momentum of the known universe is a pretty good sign. But what difference would it make? How would you life change right now if there was a time when gravity repelled, but for as long as we've known, you've known, your life span, gravity attracts?

I detected no snark. There is never any harm in asking one's self or others questions like "how do you know?" or "why is this important to me/you?" Based on the posts I've seen, I would wager that the answer is something along the lines of "this is a topic that I am passionate about and I wanted to get the input of a philosophical community."

Unless those decisions include irreversible features such as STDs or pregnancy, such bad decisions can be great educators. Not just in specific lessons, but also in coping with things like rejection, loss, negotiating, etc. Not seeing your parents modeling affection is probably a big part. As you developed, you didn't see such things as necessary to survival. So your post-formative brain tacked it on at some later point as something people engage in. As far as past relationships go, just be honest is my advice. The part where you say you don't know why, I would fix that. Not for the sake of the relationship, but for your own self-knowledge gain. The more self-knowledge you have, the higher your market value in ALL relationships (not just romantic) and the higher quality people you can attract and engage with.

I think you poison the well when you say "atoms cannot ever change." Have never changed I believe is the observation. Hence the phrase the consistency of matter. If we wake up tomorrow and gravity now repels, then yes, we're right back to the drawing board on a grate many (more pressing) issues. The safe money is on gravity behaving tomorrow as it always has.

What you are representing as arguing from morality couldn't be an argument from effect. Effects come after the behavior which creates the effect and morality is a consideration before the behavior.

Do you know what positive and negative mean? Right TO live/life is positive. Right to NOT be murdered is negative (as evidenced by the presence of not). I can not murder you all day long BECAUSE it's the opposite of action. That's why unchosen NEGATIVE obligations are POTENTIALLY ethical while unchosen positive obligations can never be ethical. The fact that they're positive means they require action, which means in order to be ethical, must also require consent. If you believe you have a right to life/live, why not just stop eating? It's costly and time-consuming. 99% of everybody who has ever lived has died. 100% of everybody who is alive is going to die. It was clear before that your hang up is a definition break down. I provided definitions and you're still clinging to your original conclusion, even going so far as poisoning the well by saying that if I understand that people can die, I'm X, Y, or Z adjectives (none of which include empiricist). So why don't you instead of deflecting make the case as to why you have a right to life/live and provide a null hypothesis so that an actual discussion can begin? Otherwise, this is yet another exercise in bias confirmation.

I think you're being dishonest with at least one of us. Also, you're moving the goalposts a lot. You're not going to meet these leaders. Whether or not they're cowards, on top of being psychopaths still is of little use.

Relevance? You walk up and tell a guy to give you his wallet, you risk him hurting you and/or society shunning you. Command an army from afar while the soldiers' peers bow to you... bit of a risk disparity, would you agree? I'm not cowardly when I reach for a reciprocating saw instead of a hacksaw. I'm trying to accomplish my goal with greater ease, lower risk, increased payoff, etc because I respond to incentives. Why do you need for these people to be cowards and for others to agree so badly I wonder.