dsayers

Is it that you're misrepresenting the material? Reality is objective while values are subjective. Therefore there could be no specific value that could help discover anything about reality. Superior in what way? The only way I can think of that the descriptor "superior" could be applied to "ideas" is in the context of more accurately describing the real world. Also, "you cannot get an is without an ought" is an assertion and therefore could not serve as a proof of anything. We can observe what speed a car IS traveling at without any consideration as to what speed it ought to be traveling. So without having partaken of the material, I must confess that I have rejected it as it does not seem to accurately describe the real world. As an aside, I'm not one for labels. So I'm not sure what "moral relativism" is. However, given that I understand that morality is both objective and simple, I cannot fathom that identifying the flaw in "moral relativism" would be relatively easy even without such claims as not being able to have an is without an ought.

Too long for me to feel it's worth my time reading given it's post 1 and the title is misleading. There's no such thing as anarcholibertarian ethics. That which is immoral in practice is unethical in proposition and morality is objective. It would be like saying that 2+2=4 is MY math. This personalization is almost always the premise for rejecting something without having to think about it. Which is antithetical to rational thought.

The initiation of the use of force is immoral. Politics is founded on the initiation of the use of force. There is no question that this means that the political right and the political left are immoral. I don't see any room for uncertainty, but I've gone and said it out loud just the same.

Assertion. How do you know? Religion is not a conclusion arrived at by way of logic, reason, or evidence. It is inflicted upon helpless children by their parents (or people their parents expose them to). It is anti-rationality as it displaces rationality, making it a violation of the voluntarily created obligation to that child by its parents to protect and nurture it until such a time as they can do so without their parents. You cannot survive if you cannot differentiate fact from fiction, teddy bears from grizzly bears.

For the benefit of others: I am SO sorry that this is one of those things that's really hard to understand until you've experienced it, but the fact of the matter is that if it takes work BETWEEN you, trying to force it will accomplish nothing. The work has to be done BY you FOR you, and your partner has to have done the same. If you both have this level of commitment to growth, you will recognize the virtue in your partner and use the strength you've developed to watch, help, and challenge them AND THEY WILL DO THE SAME FOR YOU. Because this is a commitment you've made to yourself before meeting the other person, this process is STUNNINGLY effortless. "trying to make it work" is self-congratulatory way of saying that you fail to accept that the two of you are not on the same page for reasons that cannot be reconciled by way of additional effort towards that which is outside of yourself. This is precisely why self-knowledge is a requisite for healthy relationships outside of yourself.

The American Revolution was won against a larger army. Firearms were one of the great equalizers, so that is why they felt the need to enumerate their importance.

Word Nothing's sexier than integrity.

Threatening children with eternal hellfire IS coercion (and an action). Most importantly, it is inflicting anti-rationality, which violates the parents' voluntarily created obligation to nurture and protect the child until such a time as they can do so without their parents.

ResidingOnEarth, why'd you have to go and be all convincing? Can't you see I'm trying to teach the man HOW to fish? Not that it matters, but I'm a private investigator. I work for a security firm. So I'm well-versed in what that looks like in the real world, as well as the distinction between the various deployments of force. In the consideration of morality, I will never accept any shorthand as the truth is concise already and imprecision historically has lead to the murder of millions of human beings. If a person is able to accept the difference between an entity and a person, and what a behavior is, the answer to questions such as these become exceedingly clear.

No, I agree with your definition, and upvoted that post for being concise and accurate.

Democracy is incompatible with consensus. If all people chose something identically, there would be no reason to vote, nor any reason to coerce them. Nobody in any government is beholden to anybody, including their own job description. Don't forget that gang rape is democracy in practice.

You're welcome. Can you show your gratitude by defining your terms? I'm not trying to be obtuse here. I'm trying to demonstrate how we can apply rational thought in such a way as to arrive at the answer you seek. Same thing. "Security firm" is a concept. "taking out" is vaguely a behavior. So I don't know what you're talking about.

Again? How many times must we do this dance? I haven't been able to convince you any of the other times. However, since this is public, and I agree that the analogy could be considered ambiguous, I oblige... Self-ownership is the root of all property. If I defined ownership in such a way that it only applied to self-ownership, this wouldn't invalidate my legitimate, exclusionary claim to MY car. Because if I own myself, that means I own my life, time, the effects of my labor, etc. If I use those to provide value to others to such an extent that I've legitimately earned that car, that car is mine even if the definition of ownership doesn't fit that relationship.

Definitely a cry for help. If you read his post history as of late, it's wracked with inner turmoil. However, I disagree that telling somebody that 2+2=4 when they submit the answer is 5 is insensitive. If somebody rejects reality, how will supporting their delusion be of any use to them?

This is why I abhor labels in the first place. Like, how useful would it be to anybody if I was labeled a non-Santa Clausist? Summing somebody up based on how they process one thing is the epitome of imprecision.

Yeah. Pretty much anything that avoids the necessity of consent floors me. "Taxes are in exchange for services" for example. Or "you can always leave." As if the fact that I can stay at greater than arm's length from somebody is proof that I consented to them assaulting me.

In what way does "obey my arbitrary and contradictory demands or I will set you on fire for eternity" fall under all things good I wonder? Are you saying that a transaction has to be "good" in order to be voluntary? Good according to whom? If good is subjective, how would we measure whether or not a transaction is voluntary if "good" is a requisite?

"Isreal" is a country, which is a concept. "Attack" is a behavior. Concepts cannot engage in behaviors. I don't know what you're looking for. If it's the truth, you have to start by defining your terms and approaching the topic rationally.

The definition of a root is useless above ground. This doesn't change the fact that ALL of the rest of the plant stems from its roots.

Deny in the context of determining truth means to be presented with facts and reject them for no rational reason. What facts does an atheist reject? If you cannot answer this, then you must concede that saying that atheists deny is problematic.

The enforcer class is the violent arm of the State. The media is the arm of the State that is just as damaging, but less obviously so (to the sheep) and more prevalent in people's daily lives. I'd say that just about everything FDR does pertaining to politics and current events is specifically for the purpose of providing count-narrative, pretty much in real time. Very important stuff. So I don't think there's anything pro-Trump, but rather the entertainment value that Trump defies the media. And the fact that despite the media's efforts, "the people have spoken" out again political correctness (communism's shield) by supporting him despite the media's best efforts.

shirgall, this is a strawman. The point of contention is not whether the person who lied is responsible for their lie, but whether it is a violation of property rights. This is not proof that somebody else is more responsible for a person's expectations than they are themselves.

I thought I had refuted the scenario as presented minus the marital contract. At which point, rather than addressing my arguments, you brought up cars instead. If my position is flawed, please show me how. Changing the scenario entirely just looks as if you're trying to communicate that the reason I don't agree with you is because I don't understand what we're talking about. Which I feel my refutation demonstrates that I do. Particularly if you are unable to show me where I have erred.

This does not address my refutation, so I reject your use of the word explore.