dsayers

This was true of slavery too. And then it wasn't. Thanks to the people who stood steadfast on principles, unwilling to yield to such temporary opposition. I understand these ideas BECAUSE of the man you have faith in. The most amazing person I've ever known, I was only able to attract and connect with because of the ways I've remained virtuous in the face of social adversity. We're the alpha heroes doing the heavy lifting not because it's easy, but because it's the right thing to do. Try as you may, you cannot stop the truth. It's unfortunate that you're surrounded by enough of an echo chamber that you have the luxury of shirking this responsibility of yours!

<3 Sometimes I want to kiss your mind, brother How do you know?

A person said words... so what? The title is an appeal to emotion. Child labor only frightens people who wish for competition to be artificially culled.

"Non-rape isn't working fast enough for my liking, so I choose to manage my anxiety over this by participating in the rape." That's your choice, but it doesn't change the moral identity of your choice. So many people willing to parrot vague narratives about the future, all in an attempt to deflect from this fact. This is not true. I've made sure that nobody on these forums and other places are exposed to these ideas. In order to say what you are saying, you are actively rejecting them. By definition, legitimizing and adding to institutionalized violence invalidates any claim to be working towards freedom. Demonstrably false. Accepting that humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories and therefore the State is predicated on violations of property rights is what makes you free. Political voting is a demonstration that you are not free. And when coupled with your claim, also demonstrates that you're trying to farm out your responsibility to act with integrity to somebody who has already demonstrated they can't do it for you. You guys (talking to all pro-Trump/voters) need to own what you've done. You don't regret it and that's fine. But stop trying to wrap up the enslavement of 300 million people as if you're doing them a favor. That's how tyrants talk and it's disgusting.

Bowling balls, banks... lol. The bank does not own any of the restaurant. There are two different transactions here. Bank A voluntarily trades with Entrepreneur B, and B either commissions the building of or buys the building with which to start a restaurant from company/owner C. I have no doubt that a stipulation of A and B's deal is that if B defaults, the bank will get the restaurant or other collateral, but this is not your claim. Also, even if there is a deity and our property is merely on loan, this would not change the fact that I have a higher claim to my body than any other human. I've made this distinction to you before. Your input doesn't detract from the context of the conversation and only serves to obfuscate it unnecessarily.

Believe me, I understand the frustration. How much have you pursued self-knowledge? The first step I took was accepting my capacity for error. This was a huge relief because it allowed for me to be wrong after it being modeled for me as a child that failure was a flaw. When you're capable of being wrong, I found it was easier to discuss ideas. The more self-knowledge I gained, the more I could see people trying to deflect from the ideas being discussed to make it personal or otherwise indicate that they weren't even considering the idea by offering non-arguments as if they're arguments. It's sad to behold, but it's nice 1) that people really do wear their intentions on their sleeves and 2) that self-knowledge makes it easier to read such things. If you haven't already, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. The bottom line is that in order to change people's minds, you have to first understand WHY they think what they do. If they adhere to a conclusion they didn't arrive at by way of logic, reason, and evidence, then such things will not dissuade them. In fact, because from their perspective, their conclusion was under fire and survived, you'll actually strengthen their resolve; The opposite of your stated goal. Self-knowledge will help you to realize that you are frustrated with yourself for wasting additional time/effort where you know it is ineffective. If you want my amateur opinion, I think you're making the same mistake before. Namely allowing your zeal to lead you to charging in unprepared. Before, you were stating things you hadn't researched as certainties. Now, you're putting forth new ideas in a very divisive way. Not saying you shouldn't, but I certainly think there is a better was as outlined by my original criticisms. If nothing else, do you recall when you accepted that you had made this error? You specifically thanked me for being able to hold the discussion without injecting emotional investment into the subject matter. If you think this is a beneficial approach, then you can emulate it for greater effect. In fact, I referenced this emulation in the context of self-knowledge here.

This is begging the question. Your consistent demonstration that this is not a discussion has led to my decision to no longer treat it as such. I offer the rest to further call attention to your lack of integrity for the benefit of others who are enticed by your sophistry... Nice word salad. I'm assuming ARTF is meant to indicate theft, assault, rape, and murder, even though it can't anagramatically, but must contextually. Theft is a person using their labor to deprive somebody else the effects of their labor. Assault and rape is a person using their body to deprive somebody else the use of their body. Murder is somebody using their life to deprive somebody else the use of their life. You are peddling your assertion in multiple places, so if I truly failed to elucidate my claim of performative contradiction here specifically, I do apologize to the audience. You had said: Your argument is about morality and your definition of morality is internally inconsistent. I'm not sure what mental gymnastics trying to claim it was not dependent upon is about when that's exactly how you framed your argument, but I'm done giving you my time. I'm not sure why you need for morality to be drek just because most people use it as such, and frankly I don't care at this point.

1) I accept my capacity for error. 2) I have a strong bias against the word "believe." I've argued numerous times that it is only useful as a motivator to test the belief to be able to either elevate it to truth or discard it as not accurately describing the real world. 3) I stopped using quotes several years ago because if it's true, it doesn't matter who said it. If it's false, it doesn't matter who said it. 4) One of the greatest joys I experienced after starting down the path of rational thought was when I found myself creating thoughts of my own instead of just validating the thoughts of others. Yet somehow, I never managed to connect the dots between these. Thankfully, Florian Kugler has to come with up with the idea of "epistemic anarchy." When I first saw the title, I thought for sure I knew what he was going to say. I'm so glad I watched this anyways as I got value out of it and other than that which I was anticipating.

His very next words answered this. Were telephones incrementally improved to evolve into the smartphones we have today? Or was the technology erected in tandem until the market decided that telephones were obsolete? @Voluntarist860: I like your approach of simply making the case that the State is immoral. In all of my materials on the topic of voting here, I just assumed my audience already understood as much because it's FDR. The prudent thing to do would be as you did: Simply make the case instead of treating it like a given. I would caution against the closed mindedness you exhibited in the beginning, as well as the anti-social hostility you exhibited later on. I for one am open to any argument that challenges my conclusions. I do not fear them because they will either bear out my conclusion as accurate or help me to improve my own understanding. It's win-win. And as for people who reject the immorality of the State, they are victims. Verbally attacking them is essentially victimizing them for being victims. Yes, I realize that they are advocating institutionalized violence, even against you and me. However, such things are fashionable. It's easy (for me) to be compassionate with such people because I was once lied to and indoctrinated as well. Plus, because it is fashionable, many people reject it out of fear of social ostracism. A very real and powerful motivator. We have to at the very least demonstrate that while they may lose some of their lower quality support network for accepting the truth, there are quality people that are ready to embrace them for doing the right thing, as it is literally tantamount to saving the world. Does that make sense?

I'm seeing dogmatic assertion as well as repeated jargon. So here's the deal. When somebody engages in theft, assault, rape, or murder, they are using something to deprive others the use of that same thing. THEY are telling you that their actions are wrong. This is true independent of individual consciousness (objective). I'll let you take it up with them how they are in fact right because of sentiment, ownership is not established, etc

Is not the topic. I would prefer Trump over Clinton. I just understand that's a false dichotomy. And don't have the audacity to inflict my preferences onto others. And am not so foolish as to think a vote makes a difference. Which was one of the many challenges/null hypotheses I offered, that went unanswered. In a philosophical analysis, any post that starts off talking about a bowling ball is going to be obfuscation and/or deflection. Your post was an appeal to emotion.

Not even close!

I get that. I didn't get on FB until way late in the game and even then, didn't start really using it until much later. I hope you reconsider though as I don't have access to direct messages here.

I agree, but take out the UPB part. I've not read the book, but have watched as great thinkers get tripped up by it. My ex felt she had a good grasp on objective morality, read the book, and ended up feeling she understood it less somehow. I find objective morality to be much simpler than book length. Which is a good thing because in the world we live in where narrative is used to subjugate people, obfuscation is usually a sign of exactly that taking place. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent. People can call it whatever they want, but it's that simple. Everything else masquerading as morality is just inflicted whim.

This is part of it. The other if freedom and the advancement of humanity. I lived my life for decades without self-knowledge. I prevented me from doing so much. Then I got to see the ways in which others are held back by their abusers and cannot even figure out where to begin to overcome it. Then you have the FDR community. People who have been widely exposed to numerous ideas, and all the progress they can bring humanity... Then choosing to jettison it all. Falling for the exact same tricks that they learned better than. It's tragic enough to watch people who don't have the answer be powerless to improve anything. Watching those who have the answers choose to throw it away and actually fight against it... I don't even know how to describe that experience. But I know that I and my future child cannot be free until they're free too.

Self-knowledge accomplishes all of the above The article kind of hints to this by prompting the reader to ask why. Unfortunately, the article doesn't delve further into that. For some people, "why?" might lead to a "after this, therefore because of this" error. Without tracing back further, they're chasing a symptom, not the problem. Which might make this a non-solution for some, only leading to being disenfranchised with trying.

This just indicates you don't understand what you're talking about even when you provide the definition! Kudos. Imposed by another fails to infinite regression. In order for this imposition to be just, people would have to be fundamentally different in such a way that for some people, it would be valid to do the inflicting and other people it would be valid to be inflicted upon. If you cannot provide this distinction, then it fails to infinite regression, as well as self-detonation.

You're the one who introduced the idea of "sentiment." It's not something I'm discussing (assuming this is a discussion). If you take my bike and then I take it back, we have mechanically engaged in the exact same behavior. If you own yourself, then objective morality follows because it would mean everybody owns themselves and that theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent. Everything else you're claiming is morality is in fact opinions. You're just calling them morality to assert that morality is subjective. Even though I've pointed out the ways in which such a thing would be of no use to anybody and you yourself have explicated why people do such a thing.

I'm not arguing from effect or claiming it's not of value to you. I'm saying it's also immoral, which is an objective claim whose truth value is true. Oh and I had just come from the supermarket before I got home and read this. I spent cash there after having not tried to enslave anybody through political voting. So I think you've put forth a false dichotomy. I also think you're poisoning the well with your use of the word superiority. The actual word you're looking for is consistency. Without a State, nobody could level that extent of theft against you and everybody else. The State doesn't exist. So instead of using our energies to try to enslave each other, we could help those out there who don't understand that the State doesn't exist and evaporate the State and save us all the wealth.

I first read you express this sentiment here, so I'll just link to it here instead of repeating it. You're welcome for the pushback. I hope you are willing and able to bring up any challenges you experience as you process it all. Always happy to help bring about human freedom.

Still begging the question. If we both claim to own the same bike, this is a competing claim that has a right and wrong answer. Especially if you repaint it as subjective and throw in the things you want them to do and rename the things nobody should do to make them seem different and somehow permissible. You're making my point for me

Poisoning the well by pretending POTUS can accomplish anything. Or that any one man can. People of integrity judge others by things like HOW they achieve results (as in not initiating the use of force) and how they address their mistakes. That he thinks people can rule over each other is all I need to know about the man.

A word of caution if I may. It's not YOUR ignorance. According to your words here and your actions regarding race relations, when given a choice, you chose the opposite of ignorance. The ignorance you are referring to was inflicted upon you by your parents, the government schools they exposed you to, and the nationalism narrative that so many other abuse victims are ready to repeat. This is important to understand because owning that which was inflicted upon you will only serve to hold you back. Does that make sense? I speak from experience. It wasn't until I was about 36 that I first accepted my own capacity for error. Like you had demonstrated in the thread you're referring to, I had once spoken with certainty of conclusions which I had not scrutinized for myself. Once I accepted my capacity for error, two things happened: 1) I was no longer carrying the burden of having to be perfect; I understood that being wrong doesn't make me a bad person or a failure. Rather 2) I was then able to use those as opportunities for growth. Which I am all too happy to do because it means I am breaking free of the chains of those who wish to subjugate me and healing from the damage those who claimed to care for me inflicted upon me. Thank you for your kind feedback. It is something that I have been doing for years now. You are right that I was calm. One of the things I love about accepting my capacity for error and yielding to the truth is that I don't need to be emotionally invested in the outcome like those who use rhetoric and propaganda to spread a narrative do. It makes discussing such things easier. I'm glad it was of value to you.

All you did was offer a tautology, replacing authority with the same thing. If you understood how it fell to infinite regression to make the correction, then you understand how it fails now. And I did point it out by addressing that people are not fundamentally different.