dsayers

Pointing out that the definition is begging the question has nothing to do with me. Yet here you are trying to personalize it. Chronologically, the question would be why you would accept/repeat a definition that is problematic?

A lot of manipulative language here. Noble, god's work, supporting the front line, talking about possibly being offended. None of which have any bearing on whether two people are trading voluntarily or not.

If that is the case, then I submit that the term preemptive is misleading. The reaction to a credible threat comes after that threat, not before.

Yes, but it is co-operative as are all lies. If a person is aware that sex can lead to sexually transmitted diseases, then they are consenting to the potential of those diseases. If they are not aware, then I would argue that person's parents are more responsible than their partner. The partner is sleazy, no question. But it is not a violation of property rights.

Saying atheists deny is begging the question. This is either a superfluous position. We replaced the earth-centered model of the solar system when something that more accurately described the real world came along. If better evidence comes along, a rational thinker accepts this because he is committed to the truth, not one specific claim. "has yet to see" is meaningless. Suppose ghosts exist. Either they will impress upon our senses or they will not. If they will, then we can measure and substantiate them. If they will not, then whether they exist or not would be functionally identical. A person who claims a deity exists makes many claims, not the least of which is that it INTERVENES. Because if it didn't, then for it to exist or not would be meaningless. And if it intervenes, this would be the evidence. This very simple proof also serves to reveal that an agnostic is either cowardly or lazy. That is, either cowardly to denounce a deity out of fear of retribution from that deity, or too lazy to process that very simple proof. Not that it matters, but I once identified as agnostic, so this is not to throw stones, but speak truth.

SSRI's are like applying the brake to avoid hitting a brick wall, but NOT also taking your foot off the gas. In fact, with the brake in place, the brain only tries harder by pushing down on the accelerator harder. So that once the SSRI is no longer in place, you're actually worse off than when you started. Not sure how looking at a placebo will tell you what the biochemical effects of a non-placebo will be. Placebos are used as a control for self-reporting experiential data. Which biochemical reactions are not.

Usually "preemptive attack" is a phrase used in the context of nations. Since nations do not exist, the various problems with the phrase are quickly visible. So could you define your terms and/or specify what it is you're looking to talk about?

Despite its internal inconsistencies? We know that dysfunction can lead to the REJECTION of reality. Attributing the acceptance of reality to such is nonsensical. Suppose there was a deity or deities. Surely you can agree that a child is not born with this knowledge and cannot arrive at this conclusion empirically. Thus we see that the lack of theism is the origin. This has complex implications. First being that the acceptance of this sum of empiricism cannot be attributed to dysfunction. Also, the implication that the conclusion was arrived upon by way of damaging a child's ability to think rationally and test empirically. Which would be the result of childhood trauma. Since the child's environment is completely of the parents' creation, this is attributed to the parents. Thus if anything regarding theism could be attributed to the father, it would have to be the presence of theism, not its absence.

You keep using the word wife. Can we agree this means a marital contract? Assuming that fidelity was a feature of that contact, wouldn't the unfaithfulness be the violation of property rights? Furthermore, does this wife have no agency? I would argue that it is the wife's responsibility to choose who she has sex with. If she would have sex with somebody that could cheat on her, lie to her, and expose her to STD's, this is her responsibility. This is the problem with using shorthand such as UPB and NAP. If one doesn't grasp/agree on what the shorthand stands for, it only serves as a communications breakdown. The case I make for objective morality is as follows: Humans have the capacity for reason. That is, they can conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. Therefore reason begets self-ownership. Since we can universalize this, everybody owns themselves. Therefore theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. This isn't helpful here because the question basically boils down to is lying for the sake of entering into a contract theft? UPB, NAP, and the case I've made for objective morality all agree that theft is immoral. But is lying theft here? I've already taken the position that it is not and provided the null hypotheses for this claim. If you could provide a rational case that satisfied these null hypotheses, I would gladly yield my position as not accurately describing the real world.

Does anybody know of any work that's been done in terms of correlating the incidence of post-partum depression and possessing self-knowledge? I'm curious as to how much of that is tied to hormonal fluctuations and how much of it is unprocessed trauma resurfacing. Thanks!

Um... where is the mother? It's weird because the article talks about regarding ourselves the way our parents regard us, but says nothing of a female's approach/reaction to a man the way our parents do. This requires the mother. What if daddy starts drinking and mommy holds him accountable? Up to and including removing herself and her defenseless children from the drunk's life? Certainly these behaviors would be of more value than the drinking itself. This is after the fact. What about before? That man is only your daddy because your mommy chose to reproduce with him. There's nothing that you can attribute to one parent that the other doesn't also get credit for, for this very reason. This is very important to understand because we cannot raise the standard of parenting on the whole if we don't hold all responsible parties properly accountable.

I agree if by wrong you mean somebody I would choose to avoid for being willing to engage in that behavior and lie in such a high stakes manner. I would disagree if by wrong you meant a violation of property rights. Not trying to steer the conversation. Just that this is what I made the thread to explore.

In that scenario, the lie isn't the violation of property rights. The breaking of the marital contract would be.

Faith of atheism? Is this experienced by the people who enjoy the amount of chocolate in vanilla ice cream? What is your MO for converting to being bound by Earth's gravitational pull?

Is the goal bulk long term preservation of value? Or are people literally investing in things that would allow them to go to the store and settle their debt with precious metals? I want to look into this for myself and am not quite sure if I'm looking for bricks, coins, or what is the sensible thing to do. Any help would be appreciated.

Sorry, but -107 doesn't inspire to spend that much time reading. To answer the title, the way I introduce what I "believe" in is sharing that I accept that what I believe in has no bearing on what is true. I think you're missing a step here. I tend to avoid labels altogether. They are shorthand and therefore inherently imprecise. I never call myself an atheist or an anarchist or a capitalist, but if somebody called me those things, I wouldn't correct them. Because there is no deity, humans do not exist in opposing moral categories, and we all own ourselves are all accurate descriptions of the real world. The problem is that not everybody that sees "anarchist" sees this as somebody who accepts that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories. Therein lies the problem. If labels are what you lead with, then this means you're not actually having a conversation with them. Like if I met somebody and I wanted to stay true to my values of not perpetuating predation by giving my time to somebody who would initiate the use of force, I wouldn't ask them if they're an anarchist. I would ask them who owns you? Then can we universalize this? Then can we agree that this means that theft, assault, rape, and murder are invalid as they are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights? Then you can't have a government. If they respond with "but," then I know I'm not talking to a rational thinker. Whereas if somebody wanted to push back against the promotion of anarchy, not only would I not know if they're a rational thinker, but I would identify with their pushing back! I don't like the word either. For one, it denotes that governments are the default and anarchism is the deviation. Also because it invokes in so many people visions of chaos that it's not an effective way of communicating an idea, regardless of which way you mean it. That's one of the reasons why I'm glad people started using the word voluntarist. It's better, but it's still a label. Some self-described voluntarists also promote political action and support minarchism. These labels conceal the fact that they're holding competing beliefs and therefore actually damaging.

I still laugh out loud whenever I'm reminded of Stef's example from his An Introduction to Philosophy series. When trying to approach this topic, he repeatedly refers to the cop/politician as "just some guy." Of course the whole point of words like government and "war on drugs" is to conceal the fact that we're talking about PEOPLE. The click or it ticket is a real pet peeve of mine. Mostly because of how blatant the threat is. You WILL protect yourself or we'll give you something to protect yourself from. The past few years, the highways around where I live started putting up those electronic signs. Worthless waste of money 99% of the time. Anyways, last summer, those signs actually said something like "keep your eyes on the road." As in "look away from the road long enough to be told not to look away from the road." Dopes.

This actually has helped me to take the breakthrough one step further. When I first began my self-knowledge journey, I had learned that empathy is a complexity that if you don't develop it as a child, you can't really get it later. This terrified me. As luck would have it, in my first few years of life, my mother was stay at home. She spent a lot of time with me. I am told I was able to walk, talk, read, and do math at a very early age. Being on the couch with her, reading a book together is one of the few childhood memories I actually have, and it was a very pleasing one. My mother was one of the biggest abusers in my life. Once I learned that I did have empathy (if rusty from lack of practice), it took me awhile to realize that this time my mother spent with me is likely the reason why. So I think you might be right that it's more about getting back to the real you than it is just about recreating yourself. Thank you for helping me with that. I think the never done changing is a fair assessment. A lot of self-knowledge work is revisiting things you've taken for granted and applying new ideas and standards to. For me, I was old me a lot longer than I've been new me. So it would be impossible to think of all the ways our abusers damaged us or made us think incorrectly about things for their benefit. As time goes on, you encounter more of those, so more opportunities to improve

Haven't you heard? We live in a rape culture! Every boy is a potential rapists. Pay no attention the abuse at the hands of females those boys suffer because women are the victims.

I wonder why you've left out that I also said "I've watched a lot of Destin's work. He seems like a really nice guy and his presentation is always worth my time." Is it because this would invalidate your theory?

It's hard to throw fuel on the fire when everybody has access to extinguishers. I don't know which is worse, the women are all innocent men are all evil message, or the message that evil is spontaneous and that somebody "well brought up" could attract people that would almost kill them.

Then you need to circle back and admit that I was correct when I said "This analogy is misleading. People in the political voting booth were not kidnapped." The point of contention if the voluntary act of voting itself. If you use any analogy that talks about people involuntarily being kidnapped, you are saying that those in the voting booth are not there voluntarily which is either a lie or a misleading analogy. I do appreciate your input though. It serves to demonstrate why moral clarity regarding political voting is so important. I will be the first to concede that fire isn't inherently bad. Because while it can burn down a person's house, it can also be used to cook them a nourishing meal. It's all about how it is used. I also acknowledge that rape is mechanically identical to love making, theft is mechanically identical to borrowing, etc. The thing is, there is no use of political voting that isn't violence because it is POLITICAL voting. So even if the vote being cast was for the reduction of something, it legitimizes that there's something in need of reduction while not doing anything to contribute to its elimination. It's like handing a rapist a condom so they don't also spread a disease. It is the initiation of the use of force. It's tragic to me that part of the reason why so many have a hard time seeing this is because they see it as something that's just there. So while I despise such distractions, I want to bring up ye olde runaway train with a fork in the tracks where there's disparate groups tied to either track and you're in range of the switch. The reason why the scenario is bullshit (beyond its unrealism) is that the innocent bystander has done nothing to tie those people to the tracks or send a train uncontrollably down the tracks. They are not guilty of anything. The moment they touch that switch though, they are an accomplice. I hope this helps to elucidate how contributing to the violence makes one culpable. Though I think the stealing from a neighbor for schooling vs voting for that same theft was sufficient.

Dishonesty is not a very compelling argument. For those interested in what he's talking about, the conversation can be found here. What was actually said is that a person's honesty is their property and that person X cannot be MORE responsible for person Y's behavior than Y is. Here, I've made no claim that voters are MORE responsible for the aggression carried out at their behest than those carrying out the aggression. I think you would do well to acquaint yourself with chain of causality. Let's say you're driving along, hurting nobody. Suddenly, there are red and blue light in your rear view mirror. Which make no mistake about it IS a death threat. You pull over. Is the cop initiating the use of force? What about the people who legitimize his artificial existence in a different, opposing moral category? What about the people that wrote down whatever arbitrary edict he feels you've crossed that motivated him to detain you? He writes you a ticket. You appear before a judge and plead no contest. You are given a fine. Is the judge initiating the use of force? What about the clerk you end up giving your money to? What about the prosecutor that is representing "the city's will"? Or is it just the bailiff who will harm you if you try to defend yourself? Is it the clerk that will issue a summons if you don't pay? What if the reason you were pulled over is because you had a warrant for your arrest? What if that warrant was the result of not paying taxes? Is the specific person at the IRS the one who initiated the use of force? Is it the person who is dead now, but originally penned whatever claim that said they could do this to you? You haven't even addressed my answer to your question. Which is not surprising since you've demonstrated before that you think rejecting a claim is refuting it even if you reject it on no specific basis.

My relationship with my "boss" is an unwritten one. I enjoy it very much and not having a contract or even needing one is very comfortable. That said, going into a business can be a bit different. Lots of risk and investment. Even if you choose not to enter into a formal contract, it's something I think you guys do pretend to engage in. That will help you to think of some of the conditionals you would put in, which could help you make sure that you both have a good understanding of what you're getting into.

I understand why people vote. It's really easy to steal from your neighbor when you don't have to take on the risk of doing it directly and the vehicle by which you do it is viewed by most as righteous. That's why I'm willing to persist in helping to expose the gun in the room. When you expose people to the idea that they're initiating the use of force, they become responsible for that decision. Agency is the greatest gift you can give and this easter bunny's got a great big sack o' gifts. I wish you wouldn't just repeat yourself as if no challenge has been offered. This is truly staggering that you can continue to point out that you don't vote AND assert that people are forced to vote.