dsayers

This tells me that you only see things in terms of religion, have a bigoted view of Christianity, and therefore will not be receptive to any information to the contrary.

Dispatching suicide bombers to France is the only way to initiate the use of force?

What would your first point here matter? I've heard claims that the internet was invented by the government. But so what? Does that mean the government is benevolent? How can you reject instances of Christian aggression, but poise yourself atop instances of what you refer to as Christian benevolence? As for your second point, if it had any bearing, it would mean that after separation of church and state, Christians would no longer be responsible for faith-derived aggression, which is demonstrably false.

Oddly enough, the answer is sort of baked right into the question. We are the point of origin in the plane/realm of our own understanding. Everything we "know" and understand about the world is derived from our understanding of ourselves (consequently why self-knowledge and acceptance of capacity for error are SO crucial). If you could be warped to believe that you are anything but you, then everything around you is distorted also. This is why the parent-child relationship is potentially so disastrous. If your parents erased you to any extent, they are creating a false reality where you are fundamentally inferior to them. While this has the effect mentioned above, it manifests specifically in deferring to them. Which means you're now calling them by something other than their proper name as a result (infallible for example). Which is so very easy to do given the child's original and developmental characteristic of being dependent upon that person. I'm sorry this was your experience. I'm thankful you've been able to rise above that bad programming. I'm sorry this has opened up for you a world of incompatibility with the people you've spent so much time with.

I totally agree. My example wasn't realistic. It was meant to be hyperbole. Being off-course is much easier to see at a distance than at the origin. Not to talk about somebody as if they're not right there, but Donnadogsoth is a fantastic example of why this is problematic. So much time arguing this irrationality is not as bad as that irrationality. How much time could they save by processing that survival is dependent upon identifying your environment and calling things by not their proper names can lead to dangerous behaviors? Addressing the problem is far more efficient than addressing the symptom.

Since nobody owns the roads in a statist society, it's not the only thing that matters. You cannot use active language to refer to inactivity. Nor can you ethically propose an unchosen positive obligation. So person A is neither obligated to interact with person B nor doing anything to them while not interacting. It's begging the question to approach whether or not noise can be harmful as if noise cannot be harmful. "Insulted" is yet another non-standard YOU have introduced. Trying to speak for "every board member" is equally lacking in integrity. Something somebody who was motivated by emotion and not rational arguments might do. Saying binding upon somebody is not injurious is to assert that people do not own themselves, which is false. Billboards are not binding upon people as evidenced by how many of them you're NOT partaking of right now. Whereas if I was honking my horn for no reason other than to harm others within earshot of you, you coudln't NOT hear it. Hence binding upon you, and you DO own your ears. I wish you could leave the absurd behind. A raccoon digging in your trash isn't theft, stealing, or trespassing because a raccoon has no moral agency. Do you agree? Were a human to do the same thing, it would be. Do you agree? If you reject self-ownership, say so. This is the 3rd time I've pointed out that you cannot use those without moral agency to derive morality. If you reject this claim, confront it. Don't just repeat animals. And yes, in the context of you owned a hydroplant and beavers built a dam that reduced flow, that would be pollution, you would treat them as pests, and you would intervene to rectify the situation. Not at all relevant though since beavers are not moral actors. I only respond to draw attention to the fact that you put forth "pollution could include beaver dams" not as a rational argument, but to solicit an emotional response by introducing a strawman. This was my initial reaction to. After thinking about it though, he's fundamentally right. Imagine a club that had a rule for entry that rape is allowed. By voluntarily entering, you are agreeing to that condition. Making it no longer possible to rape since both parties have consented. If my theory that noise pollution is immoral holds, a private road that had the condition for use that horns, loud music, peeling tires, screaming, etc was all allowed, then by using that road, I am providing consent, removing the possibility of it being binding upon me without my consent.

Keep in mind that studying philosophy and studying philosophers aren't the same thing. Also keep in mind that historically, the philosophers whose infamy has stood the test of time likely did so by somewhat supporting the State. In the day and age of the internet, there are no more gate keepers. So people like Stef can speak the truth and not get the hemlock. I recommend Stef's Intrdocution to Philosophy youtube series. It's long, but it starts from first principles and builds from there. Very handy for learning rational thought.

All. Most notably statism. In a couple places on these forums, I've made the case that since religion transmits by way of violating the obligation to children for raising them to be capable of taking care of themselves (since religion is anti-rationality to the forming mind), all religions are the initiation of the use of force. If the problem is irrationality, naming one religion is just focusing on a symptom, which isn't very useful.

In my mind, this is considerably worse. How much can anybody know about anybody else without knowing about their parents/childhood? Seems highly irrational (and alarming) to say that topic is off-limits. My family history is ugly, but something I view as an integral part of every relationship I've ever had or will have. My condolences.

I don't know how "UPB" compares to "voluntary behavior that is binding upon another moral actor without their consent." As such, I cannot ascertain if we've agreed upon a method for determining what the truth is regarding ethical considerations. I reject your claim that consent can be implicit. It is not reasonable to assume that if a driver could give consent to the use of a car horn for the purpose of harming somebody, they would. Again, "Not sure where crows come in, given they're not moral actors as they're not able to conceptualize ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, calculate consequences, etc." This quote of yours here does nothing to address this challenge, but only serves to re-assert your position despite the challenge offered to it. I reject that what a being who lacks the capacity for reason and therefore lacks self-ownership does is any measure of what is moral discourse for those that do. Using the standard you've put forth here, anybody can waltz onto your property and run off with anything they can carry because hey, non-moral agents do that too. @Wasatchman: You've moved the goalposts. At first, you spoke of shooting people. Then you changed it to "enforceable through violence." While imprecise, one thing that is clear is that shooting somebody is not the only way to enforce something. Don't forget that one of the wonderful parts of objective morality is that we understand that the violator has created a debt; has consented to property rights being proportionately violated (force).

I see that. This is one example, on top of calling clarification obfuscation and asserting that specifics within a set are fundamentally different than their set. Are you interested in having a discussion to find out what the truth is? Pollution is introducing harmful agents into the environment. Noise pollution therefore would be doing this by way of sound. This is begging the question. Neither of these statements does anything to cast doubt on whether or not sound can be used to create pollution and/or be used in an immoral fashion. You acknowledged obfuscation isn't helpful, so let's remove it. Short of asking me to define my terms, you've done nothing to address my arguments. So now it's your turn: What is the method for determining whether or not a behavior is immoral? I put forth my definition of this and this seems to be the point of contention.

Like theft is immoral, but taxation is not because it's a specific kind of theft? Inefficiency is a type of obscurity. I thought I was removing the obscurity. We could consider every instance of theft (or noise pollution), or we could consider the entirety of theft or noise pollution since instances aren't fundamentally different. Is a car horn honk not a subset of noise? If noise pollution is binding upon others without their consent, how is a car horn honk then not binding upon others or suddenly with consent where none was given? I've already addressed that context is necessary. If you're driving down the road and somebody jumps in front of your car, it's reasonable to expect that if they could consent to your horn, they would. Is this the same as somebody using it to realize harm against you in a way that is consequence free? Clearly not. Not sure where crows come in, given they're not moral actors as they're not able to conceptualize ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, calculate consequences, etc.

If it's helpful, keep in mind that morality evaluates behaviors, not people. Does she agree that theft is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights? Can she explain why this is true for "just some guy," but not true for politicians, police, and soldiers? See if this is of any use to you/her:

So if somebody steals your pencil, it's not immoral because you wouldn't shoot them over it? Or is it perhaps that whether or not you'd shoot somebody isn't the measure of what is a violation of property rights? For those having a hard time separating their bias of having adjusted to the sounds around them, here's an example of how noise pollution and infrasound waves can effect moral actors without their consent: TL;DW: LRAD is a (sub)sonic gun that doesn't rely on ammo and could seize your body without your knowledge of its presence.

I don't think car horns is the issue. The underlying question is: Is noise pollution immoral?

All politicians are going to have a stance that somebody doesn't like. The problem is with the acceptance of people existing in different, opposing moral categories. People think they have to choose between persons A and B, so they are distracted from the question of whether or not either can legitimately initiate the use of force against people.

Actually, it's the other way around. This is what happens when people put too much weight into what morality is. Think of it like court; the verdict and the sentencing are two different processes. Similarly, morality is just a way of determining if a behavior is moral, immoral, or amoral. To say that stealing a pencil, raping a person, and nuking a city are morally identical is not saying that the damage done is identical. Morality cannot tell us how much damage was done, only that the behavior was damaging. In fact, this is why questions like the man on the flagpole end up being so problematic. Not long ago, on this very forum, there was a member who had the darnedest time accepting that for somebody to break into another person's home was immoral because "his life depended on it." Which is fine. Nobody in society would damn a person for saving their own life or look fondly upon somebody that said, "No, you cannot enter my abode, so you will have to perish." The purpose of morality in that instance only serves to help us understand who's responsible for the broken window. In that case, people try to add to what morality is by implying that the ability to identify the behavior as immoral is the same as saying don't do it. Morality is only useful for answering this one question: Can property rights be valid and invalid at the same time? That's it. To assess damages, you'll need a different tool.

Yep. Just remember, this is no accident. This is actually why self-knowledge and peaceful parenting is so important. While I'm sure your mother never said "I want to raise manipulative sociopaths," it doesn't sound like she ever pledged not to. On a not so side note, where is your father in all of this? In keeping with calling things by their proper names, I think it's important to point out that it's not that you're struggling with it, it's that you were made to have difficulty with expressing yourself. I face the same challenge as you and have also read RTR. I was raised to best others, to manipulate others, to be willing to make others lose so that I could win, etc. To communicate in a non-provocative way was like a foreign language to me. I still struggle with accidentally phrasing things in an accusatory manner. So it will take practice. I just think it's important that you not take responsibility for something that was inflicted upon you. This needlessly puts you down and it spares those responsible from being held accountable even in your own mind.

In this thread you claimed that people don't have a choice but to initiate the use of force. I think I sympathize with what you're saying though. I remember having similar thoughts after I started carrying a gun. I was delivering pizzas at the time, so I drove as if I actually wanted to reach my destination. This led to some people honking at me. I always chuckled that if they knew I had a firearm on me, would they behave so provocatively?

Willing to violate property rights compared to willing to violate property rights. That's morally identical (immoral). That wasn't what I saw. For me, the takeaway was the lack of cognitive dissonance in saying, "Our team's good. Their team's bad," when both teams are doing the exact same thing. Larken Rose has pointed out that the problem with this mindset is you miss the good in the other team and the bad of your team. Stef's most recent video asks why there's teams at all. It's a good point/question.

Do you mean that the State says selling crack is illegal and therefore to sell crack is to introduce criminality? Or are you saying that in order to pay for the crack, somebody might break into your car and steal your stereo. Because in that scenario, the breaking into the car and the stealing of the stereo are the violations of property rights, not the selling of the crack. As long as the people buying and selling the crack are free to decline, that is a voluntary action and not binding upon any 3rd party. The trend I think you're referring to is actually the result of something being called illegal. Say two people offer to exchange crack for cash. Then it turns out what the buyer received wasn't crack at all. If crack is illegal, then he has no legal recourse for legitimately having been defrauded. If something is criminalized, it becomes more dangerous to engage in. Which leads to a greater need for being armed for protection/enforcement, which leads to conflicts being with higher stakes. If you go to a restaurant and they get your order wrong, you bring it up and they remake it for you and/or discount your meal. If you engage in an illegal exchange and they get your order wrong, people get hurt/killed. Calling crack illegal is saying "we will aggress against you if you engage in that behavior." The very act of declaring it illegal is the initiation of the use of force.

You lost me here. It is reasonable to assume that if somebody could consent to you moving them out of harm's way, they would. In what way does this compare to taxation? Even if every last person who was taxed agreed with the way every last penny was spent (virtually impossible), it is done without their consent. Talking about harms and benefits is consequentialism, and not principled, especially when you consider that they are subjective. In your metaphor, taxation would be like saying give me your wallet, or I will push you in front of the train. Except that a mugger is clearly in the wrong and forthcoming about his identity and intention. You didn't mention if you've shared your feelings with her about not wanting to lose what you have, but this being something you're concerned about.

I have sensitive hearing. Loudness is like nails on a chalkboard to me. So I struggled with the morality of noise pollution due to my strong bias. However, it became clearer to me when I thought of it in terms of being binding upon another person. If your neighbors sell crack, you might not like it, but it doesn't directly effect you. If they sunbathe in the nude in the backyard, you can look away. If however they're yelling and screaming at each other (or honking their horn), you can't not hear this. It is binding upon you and therefore the initiation of the use of force. Many caveats of course. In the suburbs you'll have lawnmowers in the summer and nail guns when somebody's fixing their roofs, etc. On the road, there are engines and horns when used for commanding attention for safety purposes. Otherwise, yes, I'd say the use of a horn as an ideological weapon is the initiation of the use of force. As for defensive measures, there's next to none in a statist society. In fact, were you to take any action whatsoever, society would label you as having engaged in road rage despite it being the opposite of the truth. What do you think of this summary?

How does she feel about her mother choosing to have children with a man that would abandon them? How does she feel about her mother choosing a follow up that would be verbally abusive to her children? How does she feel about her mother not doing anything about the verbal abuse? Does she hold her mother responsible for any of this? How did she come to thinking there's a deity? Let's suppose her mother told her so. Okay. What would be her reaction if her mother gave her an empty box for a gift and told her that _____ was inside? How would she feel if she went through the drive thru, paid some money, and got an empty bag? Let's suppose she claims she can just feel it. Has she never felt water so hot it seemed cold? Has she sometimes felt as if time flew by or dragged on? Since the conclusion is flawed, we can assume the methodology is flawed. I'll bet that whatever methodology she used to arrive at that conclusion, it is a methodology she would not accept for anything else. If you can point out this contradiction to her own values, she can at least begin to process that however reluctantly. But be prepared for some backlash. It MIGHT end up being that she pushes you away as being the one to finally break through. If this happens, she will almost surely eventually be back and grateful. Best of luck to you. I hope you'll share so we can help if she throws you a curve ball. As a Christianity survivor, I can assure her that I get way more out of a life of rational thought than I ever thought I did thinking there was some big guy in the sky who cared and looked out for me.

Consent is not me. Your confusion comes from consent. You continue to conflate words that indicate consent with words that dispense with consent. I can't keep pointing this out. There's nothing confusing about my post that said "Love making doesn't contain rape. They are distinctive based on the presence of consent or lack thereof. Contract denotes voluntary participation (consent) while law does not." If I'm wrong about this, then you'll have no problem showing me where. Just as I've been able to show you how you're almost obliviously holding a blind spot for consent.