dsayers

That which is immoral in practice is unethical in theory. What you are doing is not initiating the use of force, so it is not immoral/unethical.

Why not try to reform rape instead of completely getting rid of it? The problems you talk about aren't solved with a State. The external force question is one of simple math. Take the population of a country compared to the amount of that population that is part of the ruler/enforcer class. The ratio is ginormous. A country's government isn't stealing from every single citizen by coming in with bigger guns. It's done with child abuse, superstition, and threats. Do enough of these and then the fearful slaves will enslave the less fearful slaves to stay on the master's good side. If there were am area of land where every person recognized that the initiation of the use of force is immoral, it would be much harder to conquer. It would also have no established system of institutionalized theft and would therefore be less lucrative to take over as well.

You asked if I had said something I had not said and I asked you to show me where I had said it. Obfuscation is not the mark of a reasoned, accurate argument.

That which is not naturally occurring--a chair for example--is proof of invested labor.

You can implement a lighting fixture on your porch. You can't implement a lighting fixture on your neighbor's porch.

Show me where. Health is a continuum.

Belief is temporal and is only useful when it serves as motivation to test that belief. Once tested, the belief is either discarded as not accurately describing the real world or upgraded to fact because it does.

This isn't true. Because those people don't HAVE to be close to you. Healthy people can die. Or get hit by a bus. Also, health is a general state and not the product of any single decision. And since it's internal, there is no moral component.

What happens when you tell them that what you're feeling is rejected? Are they truly emotionally available if they don't understand WHY you might be struggling?

That's right. You develop strength when you overcome challenge and resistance.

If you're choosing to hang out with narcissists and psychopaths, you're not working on being emotionally conscious yourself, right? I think an emotionally available person would have compassion for the reasons why you might not be as emotionally conscious as you would like to be. @topic: I think you have to define what a dishonest person is. Even if having a child with them was rewarding them, it's not immoral if both parties consent to having the child. I think it's very bad for the child though.

I think I missed the point. If politician X says they're going to do Y, what measures are in place to hold them to that? Would auditing the Fed do anything to address the involuntary nature of its existence?

The first two bullet points were horse crap, showed a lack of understanding of the subject matter, coupled with a lack of curiosity. I think it's dangerous and irresponsible to stand up before the world and say "this is how things are" without any information on the topic. It might as well have shown somebody changing a tire, not putting the nuts back on, the car driving down the road and the wheel falling off and say "see, the wheels always come off." If you build the relationship correctly, a child will only enhance it. Then if you love and nurture the child, it will have nothing to attack you for and will not view attacking you as a method for resolution. "I love kids and I love what they offer. I love watching them grow. But they are literally 24/7 work. Not labor intensive where if feels like a job but you always have to be alert and taking care of their needs. I wouldn't want to have kids too soon. I really want to solidify our bond and have all of that beforehand. If we did it too soon it would be like a long-distance relationship. There would be a hindrance. I don't want a child to be a hindrance. I want it to be a lovely addition."

Failure. It's not a four letter word. The first time each and every one of us tried to walk, we fell down first. The human race can not survive if we view failure as the end of the story. It is instead the beginning of the solution. It takes courage to put yourself out there. It's not easy to take a chance on happiness. There is no knowledge that is not power. If you should fall, the only real failure is if you don't pick yourself back up again. Don't allow others to tell you that you're wrong to pursue happiness.

I think you answered your own question here. Two people voluntarily entering into a contract (even if that contract is for labor) is not the initiation of the use of force. So the use of force to obstruct that from happening would be the initiation of the use of force.

Every day, I'm blown away at how helpful and supportive everybody has been. Thank you very much. Yes, Wuzzums. On a near daily basis, I'm getting more insight into what happened, as well as things I could've done and should've seen. Including a breakthrough yesterday that has allowed me to finally start processing it emotionally.

I remember how hard it was for me to accept the proposition that a person's emotions were their own to manage when I first heard it. I think this is because I was raised by abusers who very much wanted to be able to use my empathy to manipulate me with big, emotional shows. I think if you find yourself with such a vulnerability, chances are that during your formative years, your caregivers or people they exposed you to planted that seed in you. Have you been able to identify this in your own history?

I don't think anybody has questioned the value of using hindsight for risk assessment purposes. The point of contention is the level of responsibility of the afflicted party. Unless they consent, using their property is a violation. Having revealing clothing on or getting drunk are not consent.

I think the analogy fails. When you see a live human being, there's no reasonable expectation that their body has been abandoned and/or separated from its owner.

How do you know? If you were to believe a boiling pot of water was room temperature, would it be safe to touch? My bias is that use of the word believe amid statements of fact is hugely irresponsible.

Say you have item X in a microwave for Y time and it ends up in state Z. If you want to achieve getting 2X to state Z, how much time is needed? I don't understand the way microwave ovens work to know if the answer is as simple as 2Y or not. Anybody have an idea?

Don't tell us, show us. You speak as if it's possible to *poof* area with lots of people who are against something and that something is nowhere to be found. That's not natural, so to arrive at such a point would be at the end of a process. If at the start of that process, there's anybody around that has/wants the item in question, they're going to respond to people trying to take it away by defending themselves, asserting their preference, and encouraging like-minded individuals to join them. In other words, a pretty equal counter-effort. Maybe you don't like bubble gum. For me to live next door to you and own/chew bubble gum doesn't effect you. So you'd have no incentive to try and convince those around us to ostracize me for chewing bubble gum. You can't just say there's a magical place where everybody hates gum and therefore gum-toters won't be welcome. It's absurd.

I can't answer with historical specifics. However, everything you're asking about is the default. It's like asking for the origins of the absence of human flight. In terms of ownership, the only configuration that is both logically sound and universifiable is that people own themselves. This makes sense too because humans have developed the capacity for reason and therefore understand the consequences of their actions. This is the basis for all property rights, which free speech and self-defense are off-shoots of. It's also another way of saying capitalism since your body, time, and life are your capital.

Misleading language. If it's a contract, then the people who have agreed to it have agreed to it. There's no room for being told by an outside source what you can and cannot do, nor would such commands be binding to those who didn't voluntarily submit. Next, why would only the people against something be the only ones to buy land and/or encourage other land/road owners to agree with them? You'd think people that wanted something would be just as motivated to do so. Perhaps even more so since they would perceive others as trying to obstruct them. Finally, if you're a road owner, you're going to want as many people traveling on your road as possible. You're not going to prevent certain people from using your road based on the preferences of nearby people. No successful business plan includes a stipulation for willingly limiting your own customer base.

You're not. It looks to me like she's trying to control you by putting words into your mouth. Harmful words that you didn't say. I disagree that "rape" is an outcome of "wearing revealing clothing." My proof is all the times that revealing clothing is worn where rapes do not occur. If I throw a ball and break your window, that's MY destruction. That outcome is a direct result of my actions and one that I as a reasonable person understood before engaging in it. Rape is the outcome of a person choosing to ignore consent, not an outcome of an outfit worn.