dsayers

Then you would be serving no purpose attempting to convince me otherwise

Where coercion is present, choice cannot be.

I think so, yes. Wanting for them to be happy is a great, over-arching goal. But it isn't realistic in a moment to moment basis. If when they were learning to walk, they fell and experienced happiness, they would have no motivation to overcome that failing. To say that you'd want for them to be happy in that moment that they're feeling what some might describe as less savory emotions, you would be invalidating their experiences. It would be like saying that you want them to be happy so unrealistically so that you would ignore and try to overwrite any other experience. Thank you very much for peacefully parenting your children. And for loving them enough that you would seek help in a time of need. I hope that this has been helpful. Of course I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. But sometimes in the middle of it all, it can be challenging keeping sight of it all and applying things we know evenly.

Anybody who responds to the question "how do you know?" with "who cares?" is communicating they have no interest in accuracy. The answer to your question is that YOU care. You did NOT ask them. Then when YOU were asked, you responded as if truth is NOT preferable to falsehood, despite demonstrating you accept as much with every objective claim that you make. Instead of showing value received by adorning a badge, why not instead demonstrate consistency? I would much rather a person exhibit curiosity and integrity than a willingness to pay money.

Already covered in my first reply to you. Talking in circles will not alter reality. Inaction is not action and "choosing to stay" is not concentric with "choosing to be stolen from." You've been arguing that citizenship IS voluntary. Also, rent is voluntary. You have no criteria by which you're basing your random claims, so we are done here. Thanks for just repeating things you've heard other people say.

Already refuted. I didn't choose to be born here. Also, if you say I have to move, then you are conceding that it is not voluntary. Test your theory. Walk up to the next person you see and punch them in the face. When they press charges for assault, tell the judge that they are free to stay at greater than arm's length, so clearly it was voluntary.

Is that racist? I can tell you that black people tip less (often) than whites. I can tell you this because of my experience. While anecdotal, this is postjudice and I don't think them as inferior people because of this. Am I a racist? Do you cross the street because you think they're not worthy of walking on the same sidewalk as you? Or are you observing crime statistics?

I took a little Tae Kwon Do when I was younger. I appreciated learning about things such as center of gravity and the weak points of the human body. That said, prevention goes a LOT farther than cure. Much later in life, just the act of carrying a gun altered my manner of walk and talk that made it clear to any would be assailant that I will NOT be their victim. Situational awareness and self-knowledge are the most important aspects of self-defense.

Nope. People enter into jobs voluntarily. Also, nice try at poisoning the well by assuming that "deciding to stay" is both a behavior and coupled with "being subjected to taxes." Which is just a way of concealing the aggression of theft.

This is provably false, but also fails to infinite regression. By this standard, who then imparts legitimacy to those state officials? Then who gave legitimacy to those people... and so on.

I want to elaborate on how true this is. Say somebody was actually a racist. As in, they genuinely believed that ethnicity X is inferior. So what if they think that? Unless they actually attack people for that reason, it doesn't matter. At which point, the assault is what matters. So unless self-applied, the word truly has no meaning. Well, except to indicate the lack of integrity of its wielder.

If you're not a racist, why would you have a discussion with somebody who thinks such an accusation is productive?

My question was: how do you know? This does nothing to tell me how you know that they are not reciprocating. Pick one account without a badge and tell me how you know that this person is not spreading the ideas of rational thought, empathy, peaceful parenting, the non-initiation of the use of force, etc.

Are you saying that when government was smaller, it was correct to pretend that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories?

How do you know? Also, I think you poison the well with the label "free rider."

Sarah Connor in (leading up to) Terminator 2.

In terms of inter-gender relations, how much would you say that women operate based on pre-disposition? Imagine a male and a female and the male engages in a particular behavior or says something specific to the female. It's been my experience that if she has already decided that the male is mate-worthy, the behavior/words will be received as "sweet." Whereas if she has already rejected him as not mate-worthy, the EXACT SAME behavior/words will be received as "creepy." What gives?

Yes, I will talk in circles with you! You had already said this. And then I said that this is the reason that pointing to Hawking fails and how pointing to that validation is where you find proof.

I would say not period. Your ire being aimed laterally is what allows those who are aggressing against us all alike go mostly undetected.

Precisely! And that's why you cannot regard "Hawking sez" as proof. Because he too is bound by the real world and so THAT is what we look to for proof. Rejecting something is not the same as it not being valid. The square triangle is logically IMPOSSIBLE, yet you're still on about the possibility.

So if Hawking said 2+2=5, it would be true because he's an authority of science, right? We are not on the same page and the point of contention is methodology. You think that saying something makes it so and that things can be themselves and the opposite of themselves simultaneously. As an aside, citing "semantics" is intellectual sloth; If you did not accept that words have meanings, you wouldn't be making use of specific words. I think your time would be better spent figuring out why you need these things to be true so badly that you would throw out anything that flew in the face of your baseless conclusions.

You said this already and they were appeals to authority the first time (read: not proof). I reject your claim that saying something makes it so. You asking the question appears to me to be a farce as you do not seem to be the least bit curious or open-minded.

This claim would have to be causal to be true. Which means everybody would be anorexic proportionately to their exposure to such things. Clearly this is not the case.