dsayers

Very nice approach. The proposition does seem to fail to infinite regression. Which is why it's much simpler and more accurate to understand how organic self-ownership is.

OP hasn't clarified, so all we can do is speculate. Occam's Razor tells us that asking about a voluntary(State)--which is say 95% of all use of the word government--requires less assumptions than asking about a voluntary(voluntary society). Why would you waste your time interacting with a condescending prick who treats you like you are beneath them? That's a performative contradiction. Not to mention personalization. I understand since making the case that somebody would mean voluntary(voluntary society) would be daunting if even possible.

Yes. This is why for about 11 years now, I've been big into language specificity. I think the most egregious example is the word "law." In science, laws are binding upon all. By calling commands backed by threats of violence "laws," they not only conceal the aggression, but also poison the well by portraying it as irrefutable and not at all arbitrary or whimsical.

Sorry I wasn't clearer before. I mentioned reason because that is the requisite for self-ownership. You understand the consequences of your actions and therefore you are responsible for them. Human children are in a unique moral category. They are the only set that doesn't possess reason, but will certainly develop it. As a result, most people would argue that they deserve all the protections of people. Such as they cannot be stolen from, assaulted, raped, or murdered. Nor are the responsible for the effects of their actions immediately. Like if they break a window, their parents are financially responsible. Check out Troubador's post if you haven't already.

I like what you did here I think it would be a little more effective if you outlined what you've done to set the example for others.

Meh. He's spot on that people in general have a lack of self-control and acceptance of responsibility. However, it seemed as if he was suggesting that the problem at the governmental level was HOW violence was used instead of the fact that violence was used. In fact, he similarly did not address the root when he brought up the example of the toddler throwing a tantrum. And spoke as if assault were acceptable. I think the more a person has a voice, the more they are responsible for using that voice to tell the truth, not mislead people into addressing symptoms rather than problems. As such, I was not impressed and would not recommend.

There's a difference between making a case and erecting a strawman. Something to keep in mind when you utilize ad hominem while accusing somebody else of not engaging in an "actual discussion."

If you ignored what I said the first time, I'm not going to pretend with you that saying it a second time would achieve a different result. The nice thing about public, written correspondence is that there is a record. Since you have yet to address my initial challenge (which I JUST said JUST before you asked me what you could do), maybe go back, read it, and address it. Your claims have been challenged and you've been filibustering. You don't HAVE to back up your claims. But know that this perpetual deflection will not be indulged. Also, there is no conflict. I gain nothing by you accepting that your initial claims were inaccurate. I press on because many have communicated to me that my ability to stay focused is inspirational and this is easy stuff to cut through. That is the extent of my investment. Your unwillingness to address your own error/stay on topic (personalization) is noted.

It starts with accepting that truth is preferable to falsehood. Then my acceptance of my own capacity for error. Then as I am exposed to ideas (which I generally seek out) that more accurately describe the real world than my previously held conclusions, I adjust or replace my conclusion accordingly. Quadrupling down... I will say that your commitment to this transparent lack of integrity is impressive were it not shameful. Your responsibility is to yourself. YOU entered a discussion that was pretty much over with and leveled the provocative and provably false claims that "he was just trying to support his position" and "if they refuse to yield then they down-vote them." You have yet to substantiate these claims and have instead been deflecting; YOU claimed that you were asking for help when in fact you were demonstrating a lack of receptivity. Pointing at me is just a way of trying to weasel out of your own responsibility for the words YOU put forth. Which carries added irony given your accusation of rushed judgement I even went so far as to point out that the example I gave was just that: an example. Yet you regarded it as some form I'd make you fill out just to listen to you *facepalm*. Here's a challenge for you: See if you can post a reply that doesn't speak of ME at all. See if you can just deal with what's on the table without any personalization. If you're half as interested in help as you claim, you will find this to be a valuable exercise in terms of your own self-knowledge work.

I suppose I could type it all out again. This topic is about the State. Nobody would waste time trying to figure out how to reconcile peace and a peaceful organization... still.

I don't think it would be sudden. The degree to which a (young) mind is capable of reason can be found on a continuum. Decisions we make in life come in varying degrees of complexity. "fetus" "baby" and "person" are not interchangeable words

I agree, WasatchMan, and would even take it a step farther. Think of Halloween. Some men dress as women and vice versa. If I saw somebody in the men's room in a dress, I wouldn't think anything of it. If they try to invade my privacy, it's the invasion of privacy that is the issue, not their biological gender, identified gender, gender of dress, etc.

I think the transition from animal to person is one of the most complex areas of objective morality. I think that the fetus is no question the property of the woman as it is a part of her body. However, once out of the womb, the human baby has the certainty of becoming a person (capable of reason). For this reason, I think the most accurate description is that the parents are in a voluntarily created obligation of acting as custodians to the child, nurturing and protecting it until such a time as it is able to do so without its parents. Keep in mind that in a free society, the question will mostly be moot since people will not have a desire to own other people.

Agreed. There are rest areas in Montana where each "stall" is actually its own room. And those were marked with gender placards *facepalm*

I will invest my every moment for those who are curious, accept their capacity for error, challenge and are receptive to challenge, and are honest. This strawman is just MORE of the same lack of integrity. Telling a person they have judged YOU because they accurately described some of your BEHAVIORS is not asking for help. In fact, it demonstrates a lack of receptivity. A person asking for help would say, "Ugh, I feel frustrated. You are right, to say... is poisoning the well. The reason I feel frustrated is because I try really hard to stay as objective as possible and not let my biases creep in, but sometimes I fail. It is something I am working on so I really appreciate you pointing it out because I honestly didn't even notice I did it." That's an actual response to a similar claim from somebody who was genuinely asking for help. If you'll notice, they were direct with their feelings, admitted their capacity for error, assimilated the correction, and was thankful to receive it. As opposed to tripling down because they are so maried to their own conclusion, they refuse to diverge from it.

I was referencing behaviors, not a person. Yes, I am very efficient at cutting through bullshit, obfuscation, and logical fallacies. Comes from pursuing self-knowledge and developing rational thought after decades of being forged in some of the most sophisticated manipulation I've ever heard of. I am not sorry for when this makes maneuvering in my presence that much more challenging for people who are prone to such underhanded tactics. Instead of resorting to personalization, ad hominem, and lashing out, why not up your own self-knowledge and/or rational thinking? Something you actually have control over. Or hang out where people of such insight don't congregate. -1 for responding to a lack of integrity being pointed out by doubling down.

This is the kind of lack of integrity I was referring to. First, you made no effort to address the challenge to your claim that he was JUST trying to support his position. Secondly, you poison the well and beg the question by referring to what you've observed as "hounding." Third, you poison the well by saying that people here, who are in no position to force him to do anything, had FORCED him to do something. Finally, you engage in the manipulative behavior of telling people what they're GOING to do. Where were you when the most established members of the community were "hounding" me to the point of "forcing" me to leave because they took issue with my controversial (/sarcasm) claim that the word gender encompasses both male and female?

rule - to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over You're talking about self-ownership.

8th and final one

I think you're compartmentalizing on both counts here. Your claim was that it was problematic to the point of being "unjust enrichment" because the proprietor and would-be patron are amid the same market. You have yet to flesh this out despite numerous challenges. I know what the word network means. I don't know what the phrase network benefit means. I've made this clear and challenged your every attempt to make it fit your initial conclusion. It's as if you refuse to revise your position. I highly recommend you check out Stef's Introduction to Philosophy series. I think you'll find particular value in the part where he explains how bananas are not fundamentally different when you place any number of them beside one another. Likewise, there is now "crowd" or "network benefit." If patron A is free to trade for lodging from proprietor B, that also means that proprietor B is free to refuse to trade with patron C for whatever reason he sees fit. You have yet to refute this claim other than to say that because B and C exist in the same market, B is required to trade with C. This is an unchosen positive obligation and therefore must be an unethical proposition. For more on this, check out:

It's ironic that while you conceal his actions and claim to know WHY people have down-voted him, you gloss over the fact that HE down-voted somebody for a similarly hollow reason. He was not "just" trying to support his position. He revealed his position was unfounded (as you have observed for yourself), trivialized the most important question of "how do you know," has deflected, etc. I cannot speak for others, but I usually use the down-vote to address this particular lack of integrity. You can vote. You can elect to use your votes to offset votes you disagree with. As shirgall pointed out, it doesn't really mean much unless an individual amasses a net negative beyond a certain threshold. At that point, member who have the option turned on will have their posts collapsed by default.

Self-knowledge is a requisite for happiness and virtuous love. Self-love is a requisite for protecting yourself from external emotional and psychological harm. At 3:07, she says that people are whole right now. I think this is inaccurate. Self-knowledge is a journey with no end because you haven't ended yet. At 4:19, she says that both of her parents had hearts of gold. I must reject this as that particular phrase has special meaning to me and should not be handed out lightly. Her father spending her whole life in prison is NOT a heart of gold. This is pretty important since the underlying premise is self-knowledge, which begins with calling things by their proper names. You will not be able to know/love yourself if you have an inaccurate understanding of where you've come from. I didn't watch too much beyond that. I hope this was helpful input.

I would think that somebody that claims that others are engaging in strawman would refrain from putting words into people's mouths. You're claiming here that you can get something from nothing. Obviously you are mistaken.

The statement I quoted was explicit in that it was all inclusive. As opposed to your use of the phrase "the kind" here, indicating that there ARE in fact different kinds. Meaning that we cannot accurately make blanket statements as to what consumption patterns all porn is made for. Which was the correction I was offering. Trying to make it personal will not alter the fact that not all porn is made for 3rd party consumption.

Trace it back; How do you know they owned the currency used to buy it? Did the hospital own you before your parents paid for their SERVICES? What about the people not born in hospitals?