dsayers

By borders, do you mean political borders? Political borders are established in the name of the State, which is predicated on violating the property rights of everybody within those borders. It's annoying to me when people waste their time trying to make rape fit, thinking "if we just did it the right way..."

More obfuscation. The measure of morality is consent, not whether somebody likes it after the fact. You can say "suppose" all you like, but it won't change the fact that you're describing an impossibility.

The title doesn't make sense to me. How does one specialize in fear? Aren't the terms "specialize" and "chaos" incompatible? Can intimidation be described as virtuous?

I'm not sure where the disconnect is. I said first thing that I've been convinced that political voting is not immoral. You brought up providing feedback and I pointed out that the feedback isn't heeded. Your initial question was "what are the good arguments." There are no good arguments when talking to the wind.

Do you think that describing something as democratic makes it okay? Gang rape is democracy in action. Saying theft is low is not the same thing as saying no theft. If consent isn't secured in advance then yes, a behavior that is binding upon another moral actor is immoral.

Government is either predicated on the initiation of the use of force or it is not. Since I accept that it is, your post reads to me as if we cannot simply "switch (poisoning the well)" to non-rape, and that their version of rape makes more sense to more people. If you would like to convince me otherwise, you're going to have to address the underlying principles.

Unless all people put into it equally, it could never represent all people equally. Reality does this. Constitutions distract from this.

These are competing claims.

You're asking how politicians initiate the use of force?

I hadn't commented as it was undefined. I've looked it up and just a few words in, we see the word "legal." In my opinion, "legal" constructs have no bearing on or in a philosophical analysis.

The fallacy is that slave feedback has any impact on how people initiate the use of force in the name of the State.

At 1:22 you say that if nobody votes, the politicians will just go away as if this is the anarchist's position. I think this is a misrepresentation. An anarchist is simply somebody who accepts that humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories. At 3:09, you say that people who don't vote are voting for something. I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that inaction is action. I think the premise is flawed. The title itself is a contradiction in ideas. You literally CAN'T create a guide that would assist an atheist in choosing a deity. The video description says "How an anarchist ought to vote if voting in a democratic society." Ought is a pretty big claim. My chief issue though is with the phrase "in a democratic society." Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Unless you assume the claim that I am owned by somebody else is valid, it seems paradoxical to me. Since this assumption is not axiomatic, I feel as if you've skipped over a step.

To add to the pile would be to legitimize the system and further obfuscate the root evil. Much better is to reveal that this is yet another corrupt side effect of the proposition that humans exist in different, opposing moral categories to encourage others to discard this antiquated mythology.

Individuals exist. Family is a concept. You cannot have families without individuals.

Inflation is the increase in money supply. So this is the only way to induce inflation in fiat currency.

As that which is political is predicated on the initiation of the use of force, there is no should be that will be philosophically sound.

"I have no idea what's going on." -Towelie A person is a racist because they have unsubstantiated beliefs that specific ethnicities are inferior based on their ethnicity alone. I'm not sure what the image has to do with ethnicity. It seems like a lot of investment to try and convince somebody who isn't listening of something they don't care about. I'm wondering: Why this investment of time and energy?

How do you know that they are? Could this be a case of assuming a generality based on the observations of a vocal minority? I think if I were gay, I'd want nothing more than to avoid special attention/treatment for it since it's nobody else's business.

Been thinking about #8 and was reminded of this thread, so... bump!

Your description makes it sound as if this isn't worth people's time, but more people will spend time on it because you've linked it. Not saying you shouldn't. I'm curious as to your motivation.

So why perpetuate it?

Simply put, it is easier to love an animal than it is a human. It is easier to earn the affections of an animal than it is a human. Some people love animals as a way of avoiding processing their interactions with humans.

Don't let scale stop you please. Feminists weren't able to change things overnight either. Stick to your convictions by voicing them and not allowing people into your life who run contrary to them.

Without context, you're just referring to lying, which isn't immoral. Within the context of the parent-child relationship, the concept of original sin is the initiation of the use of force. As it is a violation of the implicit contract between that parent and child. Every parent voluntarily creates the positive obligation to nurture and protect the child until such a time as they are able to do so without their parents. Here, the concept of original sin fundamentally alters the child's ability to process reality and therefore their future ability to nurture and protect themselves.

In terms of subject matter, this is one of the most engaging videos I've seen in a while. Thank you for taking the time to make it. As somebody who first opened this thread with the conclusion that political voting is the initiation of the use of force, you have convinced me otherwise I hold truth above all, so this is very valuable to me. Thank you.