dsayers

Well then maybe I can help just a little bit more. How do you know that "balance" is synonymous with "value"? 2+2 doesn't equal something between 3 and 5. It absolutely equals 4. That "extreme" is what makes it valuable. Also, you mentioned acquiring knowledge "too quickly" as problematic. How do you know? I think "too quickly" is poisoning the well. If you can handle it, then it isn't too quickly. Maybe it is for the people around you, but your life isn't theirs. You have to do right by you and telling yourself this lie is the old way of thinking. With the internet, the sum of human experience is at our fingertips. The only limiting factor is YOU.

As did Alison Gopnik in her her 1998 book The Philosophical Baby. It's crazy how long some of this information has been around. I remember one time, Stef made a video where he read an article from 1975(!) that spoke of an aspect of human nature that we're not talked about despite it's misuse being prevalent in our society.

Accept it for what it is: a rebirth. Once you've shattered the narratives that you and everybody around you have mistakenly subscribed to, you're literally a babe in a brand new world. That's the fear you're experiencing. Which by the by, calling it paranoia is poisoning the well. Fear is healthy and shouldn't be regarded as problematic when it's valid. I recommend continuing on with self-knowledge. The better you get with that, not only will you be better able to see this or lack thereof in others, but you will be improving your own capabilities as a beacon of self-knowledge. If you continue to accept hard truths, welcome challenge, have the courage to challenge others, and do not allow TOXIC people (not the same as people that make mistakes; even big ones), you will also be a beacon of virtue. Be curious, start to put yourself out there as you're comfortable in doing so, and it won't be too long before that level of comfort returns. Only then it will be so much better because it's real. I hope that helps.

Of course somebody who can say something like "the ONLY solution is to steal" cannot envision a world where people don't steal. Creative destruction isn't the end of the world, just as it wasn't all the other times as much has been predicted. Unless you put this text on my screen by pushing a bunch of 1s and 0s yourself, I cannot take your pretending you hate technology seriously.

Property rights begin with self. When you steal, assault, rape, or murder you are using your property (body, time, effort) to deprive others of their property. They are internally inconsistent propositions.

Because these behaviors are not binding upon other moral actors. Therefore, there is no moral component. No, it is objectively self-contradictory. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are all the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. Something cannot be both valid and invalid.

Why do you ask?

I spoke of unchosen positive obligations. You're referring to a chosen positive obligation.

Is it natural to experience shame with regards to one's body/nudity/sexuality? I don't think so. I think those are inflicted from without, for the purpose of cultural norms.

By left, do you mean left brain? Also, when you talk about rational thought, are you also talking about self-knowledge? You need self-knowledge in order to understand your emotional experiences and/or control your behavior. Just remember that it also takes practice, and that virtuous people make mistakes also. Sometimes big ones. But that doesn't mean that's who they are. Especially after SO MUCH empirical evidence to the contrary. Sometimes one's inner abusers can even trick them into focusing on the mistakes of others to the point of overlooking that evidence. Some people make ginormous mistakes in their lives by focusing too much on the abuser-fueled mistake rather than the actual person. Then again some people, when after a life of abuse, they get close to happiness, will panic and accidentally re-create that unhappiness. It's really unfortunate watching empathetic people stick to a bad decision when they think it's a good one for these reasons :cry:

Guilty of what? Littering? Person A is responsible for watching where person A walks, not person B. Right?

You're poisoning the well with the word degenerate. I would say that going from a time when humans pretended humans weren't sexual to suit a deity to a time when people can be honest is progress, not regress.

This is also not a standard. You cannot get an ought from an is. Unchosen positive obligations cannot be ethical.

Can you define what a "Christian value" is?

This is why I read the topic title as "group predicated on the initiation of the use of force rejects the claim that the initiation of the use of force is immoral." Political parties REQUIRE the initiation of the use of force to be valid. This is not news.

That's true. But if people who know better can mistake it for serious, then people who don't know better can also. If the video was called "why you should rape," then I would agree with you. Because we live in a society that accepts that rape is immoral. This isn't the same for assaulting defenseless, dependent, not there by choice children.

By way of performative contradiction. "This statement is false." Can you see how that's "wrong"?

Not enough information. There's a difference between kill and murder. The answer to the question "Why shouldn't I murder you?" is an easy one. The murderer is using their life to deprive another of their life. It is an internally inconsistent proposition.

No. You accept the validity of something because of its validity, not the validity of other things. It's not even a question. The person committing theft, assault, rape, or murder is telling you with their own actions that their own actions are wrong. How do you measure what is a "greater" good? How do you achieve good for a group if you don't achieve good for the individuals within that group. Individuals exist. "Group" is a concept.

I think "homeowner's association" is confusing terminology. If a person owns their home, then they are free to do as they please within it. If people make rules for themselves, then it is more than association. Of course people can agree to whatever they like and violating that agreement is a breach of contract. However, the HA model is unsustainable. What happens when somebody dies and leaves their house to another? That person cannot be bound by the contracts of other people. Say they do something that HA doesn't like. They can ostracize them or buy the house from them. But these things are true without an HA in place.

Have you checked out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series? Before you can change people's minds, you have to understand WHY they think what they do. Being true isn't enough for many people if the falsehoods bring them deep-seated comfort. Trying to spread truth to those types will only cause them to respond viscerally, the act of which will actually serve to bolster their opinion.

You mean INVOLUNTARY transfer of property rights. The assailant's use of their own body asserts that consent is required to use the body of another. My claim stands.

I don't follow. Terrorist attacks are retaliation for State action. What would they be retaliating against in the absence of the State?