Jump to content

dsayers

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,319

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    95

 Content Type 

Everything posted by dsayers

  1. dsayers
    Pardon my ambiguity. I wasn't referring to you specifically. I meant "One does not get to poison a well just because it's THEIR poison." It was meant to be an analogy to highlight the way in which I would disagree that how a child is raised is the business of that child's progenitors alone. Like the poison, that child will go on to influence and potentially harm many other people. As such, those many other people have a stake in how that child/poison is dispensed with. Does that clarify at all?
  2. dsayers
    Have you watched the Bomb in the Brain series? Until you can identify WHY somebody thinks what they do, you might not be able to convince them otherwise. People aren't big into personal responsibility, so the idea that the State is immoral frightens them. They're not going to accept that theft in the name of the State is immoral, so trying to convince them is a waste of time. One of the ways in which the State triumphs is getting good people to waste their time in this fashion.
  3. dsayers
    How do you know that they should? Did they consent? Were they consulted? Except that humans are raise and release. What a child is subjected to in the home, they will carry with them out into the world. You don't get to poison a well just because it's YOUR poison. Does that make sense?
  4. dsayers
    OMG, what a heartbreaking story. I find it truly tragic that people in love, who want to raise a child peacefully wouldn't be able to for any reason. I cannot express how sympathetic I feel towards your situation. I want to address your title and your topic separately, since they appear to not be the same to me. As for the topic, I would agree that an abortion sounds like the kind way to go. But that's not a decision anybody else can make for you. As for the title, there's a couple things to take into consideration. The only one I'm comfortable going into here is that "reasonable expectation" is a valid part of overriding another person's agency. For example, if you were to find somebody passed out in the middle of the road, it is reasonable to expect that they would consent to being moved out of harm's way by you if they could. I don't have to imagine that one of the worst tortures a person could endure is feeling like a prisoner in their own body/life.
  5. dsayers
    No references to man-made edicts here. But thank you, lakona, for letting me know that you have no intentions of providing/honoring a null hypothesis. I prefer to spend my time on people who express curiosity and accept their own capacity for error.
  6. dsayers
    In other words, what one guy wrote down one time. I can't answer for other people. I was referring to that which is philosophically sound.
  7. dsayers
    You can't derive a universal from an instance. Nor can you derive an ought from an is. If a parent fails to negotiate with their child, it only serves to reveal a way in which the parent failed at an earlier point in the relationship. This is not an excuse to punish the child.
  8. dsayers
    The ability to describe a unicorn is not proof of its existence. Not that one person could undo the perverse incentives that the thousands of other politicians wish to preserve and grow.
  9. dsayers
    Saying lesser of two evils acknowledges both as evil. To vote for one is to give permission for that evil. That which is immoral in practice is unethical in proposition. As such, political voting is unethical at the very least. It is personally green-lighting aggression. Political voting does nothing to protect anybody. It only serves to dignify the rulers' claim of ownership over you (and others). Somebody who politically votes is not free even in their own mind.
  10. dsayers
    The problem with State corrosion is that the effects are so far removed from the cause that you really can't find "proof." You have to apply logic. Take welfare for example. When most people apply for welfare, they are literally telling you that they have no support network and/or nobody who believes that their squalor is temporary. Combine that with welfare on the whole not actually solving the problem but growing it, no proof is necessary. Any more than rational folk would require "proof" that 2+2=4.
  11. dsayers
    Thank you for sharing. Would you share what college you attended so others can know where they can take ethics and not fail for not towing the line?
  12. dsayers
    Part of the reason I avoid minutia is because it avoids obfuscation. If my position is that inaction incurs no responsibility, then of course it would be my position that NOT VOTING* incurs no responsibility. *You poison the well when you say "choosing not to vote." Also, the word citizen is referring to somebody solely in the context of somebody else's claim of ownership of them. You know when we, as PEOPLE have the option to vote? When Taco Bell opens their doors to provide products/services and I'm free to decline. Even those who do not vote are not free to decline the edicts of whomever gets votes. Suggesting that there is choice only serves to mask, protect, and perpetuate the evil that is carried out in the name of the State. If you find fault in my position, I welcome you to identify where I've erred. Just asserting the opposite is not an argument.
  13. dsayers
    Legislation is commands backed by threats of violence. Without enumerated consequences and enforcement, there is no legislation. Also, what you're proposing is NOT working on the honor system. The honor system would be no legislation.
  14. dsayers
    The source of the pink slip/disciplinary action is not inaction, but actively violating your contract with your employer. For every action you engage in, you're not engaging in every other possible action. To try and assign responsibility to inaction would short circuit immediately.
  15. dsayers
    Great point. My response was more of a generic answer. But you are correct that shaming should be included. @shirgall: It is true that shaming isn't inherently violent. However, in the parent-child relationship, it does run contrary to the voluntarily created positive obligation to nurture and protect that child until such a time as they are able to do so without their parents. It is a violation of that contract and therefore the initiation of the use of force.
  16. dsayers
    The only things human nature can refer to are about the same for all lifeforms: They adapt to survive. Both altruism and greed are products of consciousness and not innate.
  17. dsayers
    Credible threats.
  18. dsayers
    Inaction doesn't produce anything.
  19. dsayers
    This is the answer you seek. The initiation of the use of force cannot be universalized. Not sure where the word noble ties in. Nobility denotes superiority while a free market is between equals.
  20. dsayers
    This sentence contradicts itself so many times, I thought you were quoting Monty Python.
  21. dsayers
    I only glanced over this, but see no denotation of penalties for violating this edict. The irony being that as soon as you give it teeth, it becomes the initiation of the use of force. As all prior restraint is. Assault is already immoral. You might be better served making the case for the personhood of children.
  22. dsayers
    I'll take it a step further and claim that political voting itself is the initiation of the use of force. So to address the problem at it's source, I'd make the opening line "If you're thinking about voting... look in the mirror."
  23. dsayers
    Presumably, a free society is only possible by way of peaceful parenting and rational thought. As such, daycare wouldn't be an ongoing thing and would be provided by way of an individual's support network and then only in rare times of need. I think the negative effects on children would make such things unfavorable to the point of being ostracized. People aren't going to let individuals poison the well if they say "but it's just a tiny drop!"
  24. dsayers
    Sorry I didn't see this reply sooner. Life was busy for a while there... I didn't choose to occupy this body. This does nothing to diminish my legitimate, exclusive claim over my body. Similarly, the ability to minimize risk also has no part in determining ownership. For sure. I for one make it a point to rarely if ever get bogged down in minutia. My input wasn't meant to address the topic, but rather the underlying consideration that makes the topic possible. If we assume that the State is righteous (for the sake of argument), then that which the State can/should move on would be concentric with that which is philosophically sound. Would you agree?
  25. dsayers
    I'm always skeptical when somebody's post 1 is to tell people things. Given your username, I don't think your inquiry is an honest one.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept