dsayers

This seems to be contradictory. Because your second statement is true, it is revealed that the first statement is false. There's nothing arbitrary about people being equal in terms of rights.

Of course we can! In order for the Christian deity to exist, it would mean that 1 Consciousness can exist without matter or energy (CEwoME). This is not an accurate description of the real world. 2 Only one CEwoME. Nothing exists in uniquity. 3 Specifically that one CEwoME. What are the chances that of the thousands of deities humans have talked bout, THAT's the right one? 4 The CEwoME intervenes. That last step is extremely important. Because as wdiaz points out, without intervention, for it to exist or not exist would be functionally identical. If it existed, we could measure it and substantiate it. If it doesn't intervene after creating all the evil in the world, that this is not something worth praise or worship. It's intellectual sloth to claim we cannot know something that is easily tested for. I say this as somebody who once identified as agnostic.

Which god? How do you know?

But if you're focused on what you think is going to be there later, you might miss out on what's happening right now. Not many castles getting built these days. The ones that around around are hundreds of years old. Much older than a human life span. There's no reason to expect that the things you do have to outlive you. When you die, the people that knew you will carry your memory on. Every interaction with every person changes them in some way. This ripples from person to person. You've already planted so much that has the potential to outlive you. If this is your concern though, clinging to a fantasy would only exacerbate this concern. Using that time instead to make sure your life matters and your net impact on the world is a beneficial one would address your concern in the best possible way.

Saying rape is immoral is not wishful thinking. Also, the fact that you can't get rid of something horrible isn't a sufficient reason to settle for TRYING to reform it instead. Saying 80% (as if assigning a numerical value makes it true or righteous) of people want government only serves to demonstrate that you're addressing the symptom rather than the problem. This is exactly what trying to reform the Mafia into a charity does. Unsuccessfully at that.

I was having a conversation with a family member who is connected to my father and cares about me in a "your father loves you; he just doesn't know how to show it" kind of way. We got on the topic of circumcision by way of me saying "my parents mutilated my genitals." This was her reply: This was very troubling for me to read. I wanted to address it diplomatically while not leaving any room for thinking that it is okay to be so cavalier about sexually assaulting infants. What follows was my reply, shared with y'all for the sake of garnering feedback. Thanks for reading! First of all, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to double back to this email. Both of your emails were well-received. I am quite lonely out here and it's nice knowing that I'm still in your thoughts and worthy of your time. That said, this part here has been on my mind all night long. So while I don't have the time for a full reply, I wanted to address this much because it was painful for me to read. The first thing I noticed is that there's no attempt to validate my experience. No curiosity whatsoever. In fact, the part where you say "Your statement makes it sound like they were intentionally trying to cause you harm" seems emotionally charged. I said "my parents mutilated my genitals." This is an objective claim whose truth value is true. There is no indication of intent. I wonder if you're in touch with why you'd have such a reaction. Do you have any proof that they were not causing me harm? How do you know that intent is relevant? To not cut into the flesh of a living creature is the passive default. You and I are both doing that right now. To cut into the flesh of a living creature is an active decision. The onus is on the people making that decision and/or carrying out that action. Without reason to do so, I don't see how intent would even be relevant. "Who says stuff like this?" Can you explain what difference that would make? If Hitler said 2+2=4, would that make it false? If Einstein said 2+2=5, would that make it true? What is meant by "stuff like this"? Again, I spoke a true statement. Are you asking who speaks the truth? It's unclear as to what the purpose of your inquiry was other than possibly to deflect. "It just sounds off to me." In what way? Are you saying that I was NOT disfigured? That my parents had no control over it happening to me? Can you think of anything you've ever heard that sounded off, but was true anyways? The first step to wisdom is calling things by their proper names. When I started studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge, the most valuable lesson I received--indeed, the basis for all reason--was the ability to accept my own capacity for error. Meaning I accept that something might sound off to me, but as I am fallible, this is insufficient as a form of disproof. dictionary.com defines mutilate as "to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts." I was injured by way of elective removal of part of my body, which has left me disfigured. Whether it sounds right to you or me, "my parents mutilated my genitals" is an objectively verifiable true statement. One that is traumatic to any person, but particularly to an infant, who is already on sensory overload due to not yet developing filters for all the information they're taking in. It directly effects the early release of cortisol while the brain is still forming, providing a (perhaps not so) false indication that the child's environment is more hostile than nurturing. Why does that matter? Because when a child is born, their brain is scanning their environment. If it's perceived to be hostile, the brain develops down a more primitive path. If it's perceived to be nurturing, the upper brain develops with greater complexity. This is not a process that is reversible and has physiological effects that last a lifetime. And for what? This is why I wanted to point out a lack of curiosity. The information is out there if you're interested. Saying it sounds off to you is saying that you're interested enough to offer an opinion, even if that opinion isn't based on anything. It would also suggest that you're uninterested in the validity of my experience, which saddens me. "Circumcision is a standard practice in this country." If by standard you mean that it's performed only where requested, I guess so. But what does that mean? There was a time where it was standard practice for a man to beat his wife. If you came to me and told me that your spouse had assaulted you, how would you feel if my only feedback was that that was considered normal by other people who don't know you and have no investment in your well-being? If everybody likes apples or everybody hates apples, this does not fundamentally alter the identity of the apple. I really don't see what your statement is meant to convey. Could you explain it to me please? I know this topic arose from a conversation about Jane. But just to be clear, I'm sharing with you MY experience. Jane only entered into it in so far as she was sympathetic as to why I'd rather not wear a condom. She was empathetic to the point of voluntarily exposing herself to elective hormones so that I wouldn't have to feel her even less than my parents had already relegated me to. I just didn't want you to mistake my rational push back in this email as some misguided defense of Jane just because she understood this also. I knew the harm in circumcision before meeting her. It just wasn't until I fell in love with her specifically that I became emotionally connected to the reality that it was done to me.

For what it's worth, I understand how big of a deal that is. Religion was inflicted upon me also. I believed in it so much that when the inclination first arrived to explore the possibility that it was bullshit, I was overwhelmed with fear that I would go to hell just for thinking that. 2+2=4 never did that to me. At any rate, in your quote here, I think the "no one else is there" part is WAY more important than the god part. Maybe it's just your wording, but this suggests that it's up to you. Either god exists or he does not. The question becomes: How do you know? I can tell you how I know my Montana mug exists. I can't tell you how I ever "knew" god exists. I remember when I asked Christ into my heart, I opened my eyes and everything seemed brighter. Of course, it was a bright day and I had just had my eyes closed for a couple minutes straight because I desperately needed SOMEBODY to love me. Pirates wore eye patches to keep one eye acclimated to darkness. I think this better explains the brightness I experienced than a deity could.

I think RoseCodex's questions were intended to invite scrutiny on your part, not just parroting the narrative AGAIN. Government does not provide anything. It steals from everybody, keeps more and more for itself, and yes, invests some of it into people who will "righteously" threaten others, inflict the will of the leader class, and bolster the superstition that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. "Evidence" can be fabricated, guilty people released on technicalities, innocent people framed, and the public has no intervention, sometimes not even in a juror capacity. Murder still takes place where such disincentives are in place, making this a false claim, as well as a non-answer to the question your were offered. Every official is above "the law" because they ARE "the law," have friends in "the law," and so on. It's absolutely mad to pretend that I can tell you that you can fly in your imagination AND that I get to limit where you get to fly within that imagination. This is the folly in turning to "some thing that some guy wrote down some time ago"--what you refer to as a law--for determining what's true: All they have to do is write down something different--sometimes even in that same moment!--and you'll be convinced.

Since I maintain the position that political voting is the initiation of the use of force, I wonder if I might offer some push back and spark a debate on the matter? In the video, you said that what a person does in a coercive environment is up to them. I agree that where coercion is present, consent is not. However, I would argue this does not apply to political voting at least in some places in the world. While the system itself is a coercive one, most people are not commanded to vote under threat of violence. As such, political voting is a choice. It's my first time watching one of your videos. I've always been impressed by this genre of youtube video and am curious how you execute it. I liked it a lot. Also, I admire your embracing of criticism as valuable. @AccuTron: I understand what you said and share your opinion in general. I hope you'll revisit the video though. It went in a different direction than I had anticipated. My only issue with the music is that it compete with the narration too much.

Getting behind the wheel of a car in an unfit state to operate that car is not an accident. He created a debt to his victim. He is responsible for that debt. I don't know if this directly translates into being able to take his blood. Certainly not so much that he himself would die, but any amount could risk serious health side effects.

Thanks for that clarification. Yes, directly shaming somebody is problematic. When I read "making fun of," I pictured doing it to strangers, behind their back, for the amusement of you and your partner.

You're using opposing language here. If it's moral, it's not force, and vice versa. Also, the way you tell the story seems as if it's deliberately manipulative. For starters, the identity of one of the actors as a baby isn't useful to the consideration being asked. Also, the scenario where a hospital would have no access to a particular blood type is fantastically improbable. It's as if you're attempting to steer the consideration rather than genuinely seeking an answer to an ethical problem.

A person is only as good as their training. By what criteria did you choose them? Where did you get this criteria? If your parents did not provide a good model for social interaction and did not prepare you for the undertaking of choosing friends, then how would it be your responsibility? Also, being in a school means you only got to choose your friends among other inmates, without any supervision or input from the people who sent you there. The people we choose to associate with reinforces who we are. As for time outs, I'm not familiar with any particular literature. In lieu of that, just think about it for a moment. It's teaching the child to avoid consequence, rather than how to make better decisions. As somebody who was raised in that environment, I've done the bare minimum most of my life since it wasn't about providing for my future, but rather avoiding consequences in the short term.

How do you protect people by stealing from them?

Only you can know. Whether it's your parents, your friends, or your society, the root shouldn't be hard to find. As long as you didn't father a child or contract an STD, you're no different that somebody who's never had sex. If she says she's okay with that and you respect her, then let that be okay would be my suggestion.

Is love making more forceful than rape? I suppose it can be, but consent is the difference.

You put forth believing in something as if that's meaningful. I'm willing to hear the argument for that. As opposed to just asserting it a second time as if no challenge has been offered. ALL candidates spend their own money. Pointing it out about one person as if it differentiates them isn't meaningful. Neither is saying it's for something they believe in. Unless you mean the belief that they will get more out of their investment than they put in. This is not only true of every campaigner, but every human decision. He believes people will listen to him, talk about him, that he stands to gain a LOT more money back, as well as power over other people, which has been proven to have biochemical satisfaction as potent as narcotics. The power over other people is the only belief that is of interest to me.

Assuming that the label "goody goody" is intended to shame, then I would argue that you WERE being punished by whomever you feared would shame you. Unless there was no reason to suspect that they would. In which case, that fear was instilled upon you from someone else who was punishing you in this fashion. One of the ways in which psychological abuse can be worse than physical is that it implants in you an inner-critic. A away for your abuser to continue to abuse you even in their absence, and almost without a trace. Though to be clear, "time out" is a form of physical abuse even if it's not as obvious in the moment. With regards to your follow up post, I'm curious as to why you specify "home life." When you are born, your parents literally create your entire environment. If they send you to a (insert not-home here), that's an extension of your home life even though you're not home. Any abuse you suffered as a result of being separated from them, they are responsible for as they were the ones to expose you to it.

I think your use of the word "punishment" is poisoning the well.

If the place had no rule against rape, would you say there's nothing to enforce? Noise pollution is the initiation of the use of force because it is binding upon others.

Qe7 would be my play. I'm not the best player though. Qh2 Those look like phone pics. lichess.org is a website that uses a very stylish and lightweight design that doesn't require an account to use. Haven't tried it on a mobile, but I'd definitely be up for some games sometime. What times of day are good for you?

I can choose (not) to respond to whatever I choose. It's no indication of what I did or did not read. A distinction worth bearing in mind when trying to inflict "polite" as a standard onto others.

grithin, your life is full of empirical evidence that anarchy works right now. People work together because it's a more efficient way to achieve our goals. Also, competition and consequences are free market forces that make it self-correcting. Monopolies will not form in a free market because it would mean that one product/service provider could literally satisfy EVERY demand better than everybody else for everybody else.

Politicians being dangerous to the people they pretend to be able to lord over isn't new or news.

Ross Perot had money. Believing in what we say doesn't mean we're saying anything useful or important.