dsayers

The only reason things like this look complicated is due to a lack of precise terminology. For example, take the phrases "sensible voluntaryist position" and "refugee situation." It's talking about people, so why is terminology that hides the people being used? As Stef recently pointed out, "refugees" aren't even what's being discussed. Secondly, let's boil it down to people. You are a person. Another person threatens you and wants to come live in your house and eat all of your food. Do you let them in? Since you asked for voluntaryist position, all that you need to ask is: Are you obligated to let them in? If you are free to decline, this is a philosophically sound proposition. You don't even have to have a reason. These sorts of things can only happen and/or be mysterious where there's a State. "State" and "government" also removes from the conversation that we're talking about people. You wouldn't let a threatening would-be thief into your house. But as a member of a "country," you "have to" because "your decision" is supposed to represent everybody. I'm more pissed off by this widespread obfuscation that anything. SO MANY PEOPLE are talking about this without realizing they're not actually talking about what they think they are. It's maddening.

Actually, that's not what you said. I agree with this quote here. In fact, in my first post here, I said "If one of them doesn't initiate the use of force, what difference does it make if some entity tells him to? Likewise, if one does initiate the use of force, what difference does it make what their motivation was? The aggression is the problem." There's a difference between claiming that a book or religion is not the cause of their violence and saying that religion cannot be violent. You sort of moved the goalposts there. Also, if you accept that a child needs to be traumatized in order to speak the language of dysfunction/aggression/violence, then I could argue that a book or religion could very well be the cause of violence. Imagine a pair of parents who for the most part possess self-knowledge, are rational, and very much in a healthy, bonded relationship. They get pregnant and do not expose the carrying mother to stress or potentially damaging drugs. The child is born and they don't mutilate its genitals. They provide a loving home, with lots of contact and interaction. They don't abandon them to daycare or government schools. They do everything right they possibly could... except they also regard a fictitious book as not only factual, but a template for how to live life. This is all the trauma a developing being needs to have the capacity for aggression later in life. I know that some of the aggression I've engaged in in my life was in defiance of being mentally caged by having a religion inflicted upon me. I think you undervalue the damaging potential of anti-rationality. I wish you would address it. To not makes it look like you have a prejudice/bigotry that you will not alter were you to learn it doesn't accurately describe the real world.

If you choose to watch it, please watch it all the way through. As I began to watch it, I had some criticisms. Namely that all the things she was attributing to "radical Islam" applies to Christians and the US gov't (among others) as well. Then she totally flipped the script and made that point for me. Some of you may know from my post history that I can be quite critical. I continue to find Miss Wedler's work to be surprisingly reliable in this regard. Enjoy.

"If an agreement to have sex is in place, that agreement is voluntary, and that consent is rape by another name. Outside of an hermitage, there is no escaping rape, whether it is perpetrated by the State or by voluntary love-making." I now see where the communications disconnect is. I specifically pointed out the way consent can change a behavior to its polar opposite. I even doubled back to this the first time you tried to ignore it. It's funny because I usually point out that laws cannot be man-made and that people call commands backed by threats of violence "laws" to poison the well that they cannot be questioned or escaped just to avoid this very problem. Here, one of the few times I decide to meet somebody (you) by way of the erroneous standard you've put forth, you demonstrate the very danger of not being precise with your language (and therefore imprecise with your thoughts). If you'd like to continue to have a conversation with me, it will have to be a COnversation WITH ME. This means not continuing on as if the very challenge that reveals your thinking error was never made. Twice. You're saying that you're a valid participation in this exchange while I am not, despite the fact that you're replying confirms that I am. Have some integrity please.

Right here is all you need to know. She did not express curiosity as to WHY you felt that way. She didn't take time to consider her participation and entertain the possibility that your experience was valid or otherwise empathize with your experience. Worst of all, she took something you were sharing about you and made it all about here. To universalize her position, your reaction would've had to have been to start crying, saying how could she accuse you of ruining her day after all you've done for her and that she's made you feel bad and ruined your day. How would that have gone over despite her putting this forth as a standard for interaction? "all I've done for you" is almost always a red flag in and of itself. If I buy you a meal, that doesn't mean you owe me anything in the future unless that was a condition of my buying you the meal. Otherwise, it's manipulative in the highest order. It reveals that any act of kindness was for the purpose of inflicting this artificial obligation. Does she know the specifics? How does she feel about you sharing your feelings with your sister and your sister reacting in all the ways I've described? Is she saying the same thing to your sister? What does she mean by "resolve the issue"? Has she shared WHY she feels you need to resolve the issue? If it's for the sake of her own comfort, then she too is trying to erase you for the sake of her preferences. Which may also indicate how it came to be that her daughter is capable of doing that. What your mother provided was advice. In order for advice to be useful, the person providing the advice has to understand what the goal of the person they're providing the advice to is. In this case, if your goal is to protect yourself from abuse, then an argument could be made that the advice offered runs counter to this. Which is how you'd know that the advice is for their benefit, not yours. Which could lead to something like "how could you accuse me of _____ after I was nice enough to give you advice." See the potential pattern?

Unless you could have all your stuff taken from you and still get along perfectly fine, choosing who you live with is extremely important. I would use this as a learning experience. Namely in the future, I would only live with people you have an agreed upon method for conflict resolution. When I read you say that interactions can only be positive, this tells me that conflict resolution was something that wasn't discussed up front. In fact, just bringing up conflict resolution will put some people off, instantly letting you know that they reject their own capacity for error and/or lack empathy for others. It doesn't matter how similar two people are; No two people are identical. There's always going to be conflict, regardless of how mild. It's important to have an agreed upon way to resolve such conflicts. Based on your side of the story, it doesn't sound like confronting them will do anything other than motivate retaliation or otherwise make things worse for you. I'd start taking steps to secure living arrangements that aren't dependent upon them and avail yourself of those options as soon as you are able.

This doesn't follow. We live in a world where non-institutionalized theft, assault, rape, and murder have consequences. Therefore those who are of a mind that such things are valid options will find lesser forms of abuses and/or ways to not get caught. I covered this earlier when I said "Make spousal abuse illegal and you just end up with more secretive and sophisticated abusers. You don't cure the abuse." For example, the person who thinks rape is a valid option doesn't just go and take their victim. They may try to woo them first, in order to better fit in with the world around them. They will still likely manipulate and verbally/mentally abuse their victim, which doesn't show up in the news. The problem here is that viewing rape as an option severely limits how much personal investment they will put in. Meaning that once resistance is enough, they'll just rape. Mizzou is a good example of one way you can engage in terrorism without shooting/bombing. We know of almost none of those people's names because many of those people are regarded by the public at large as having been "peaceful." I've made arguments and an entire case for that right here. In order to maintain this position, you'd have to point out where I have erred.

I forgot add too that pointing out private roads will come across to Statists as a NEW cost. Not realizing exactly how much of their wealth is taken from them by the State, how much more efficiently business is conducted without the overhead of a coercive regime, etc. No, I have not read that book. Are you able to identify a flaw in my claim? Because I think it's logically consistent. If as your brain forms, your standard for determining what is truth is "what my parents tell me" then unless your parents tell you we could build flat things without pointing guns at people's heads, you will reject it. If your standard for determining the truth is what the most people claim is true, then unless most people say that we don't need to threaten people to compel them to satisfy their goals, they will reject it. It's like expecting somebody to arrive at the correct answer for an addition problem by applying multiplication to it. Which I realize is a bad analogy since multiplication is a shortcut for long addition

You said this in direct response to my claim that law doesn't denote voluntary participation. Until you address that, I have no way of identifying with certainty where the communications disconnect is occurring. Because I read this question (in the context of this conversation) as: Once somebody consents, isn't a lack of consent inflicted upon them? Which makes no sense. Also, if you're going to continue to use law in that context, you can't refer to theft, assault, rape, and murder. Because with these behaviors, the perpetrator is flat out telling you they are violating property rights by asserting that they are valid and invalid simultaneously. To take something that is obviously a violation and tack on an arbitrary conclusion that it is a violation, you're just obfuscating the analysis. Not usually the effort of somebody who has truth in mind.

This was my reaction too. For what it's worth, there was a time before I pursued self-knowledge that I started to believe my compass was broken. It's the same shit with drugging children for not accepting faulty programming. I think the therapist made a mistake by using the word "perfect." You can be imperfect and still not steal from people. Also, what if the child decides theft is right for them? Would you therapist argue that this is a question without an objectively correct answer? It sucks that some therapists focus on personal acquiescence rather than personal health. I hear you. Is she saying to you that if you don't have kids with her, she's never going to speak with you again? Because I don't see how you will "lose that" if you don't have kids with her. Have you been able to make use of the time you've spent together to identify how/why she believes a State is necessary despite being intelligent? Learning this might help to understand how to help her reconcile this information. Have you discussed this with her? How you enjoy your time together and don't want to lose that. But find an acceptance of aggression to be problematic with taking your relationship further. Have you slept with her? Obviously you don't have to answer. I don't know if you're aware of how much enjoyable and fulfilling relationships with people who accept reality are compared to relationships with those who don't.

I'm glad you brought this up. As somebody who accepts the importance of precise language, the fact that car COLLISIONS are referred to as accidents is a pet peeve of mine. I accept that it is possible for a vehicle to break/malfunction in a way that would lead to a loss of control. That said, most collisions are the result of the operator not driving safely. Whether that be driving too fast for conditions, distracted, whatever. It sucks because things like the word "accident", State-mandated insurance, and traffic control devices actually lead to people driving with a diminished acceptance/acknowledgement of their own responsibility.

Logically, if you can find one example that contradicts an absolute claim, that claim is false. Yes, anecdotal evidence is not evidence, but why? Two reasons. The first being if one were to use their experience as the only form of proof, they are potentially rejecting their own capacity for error. Which I do not. Secondly, because you cannot derive a universal from an instance. Which I was not, although the instance I referenced did serve as an example of the universal. What universal is that? How does Christianity or any religion propagate? Having a child is the creation of a positive obligation to that child to protect and nurture them until such a time as they're able to do so for themselves. This entails many things, not the least of which is the primary wisdom of calling things by their proper names. Religiosity isn't just irrational, it is anti-rational when inflicted upon a developing mind. As this is a violation of the aforementioned obligation, it IS the initiation of the use of force. In other words, the very method by which religions are transmitted IS the initiation of the use of force.

This is the problem with slogans. Repeat it enough times and you stop examining it for the words that it is. Clearly "blacklivesmatter" is an easier sell than "whitelivesdontmatter".

Actually no. If somebody has arrived at a conclusion not by way of logic, reason, or evidence, then logic, reason, or EVIDENCE will not dissuade them. If somebody emotionally NEEDS police to be benevolent, presenting them with an example of abuse will lead to them marginalizing it as an isolated incident, think they've succeeded in defending their position from attack, and therefore believe it MORE for having weathered a storm. Without evidence, logic tells us as much. That's why I'm keen on pointing out that the only thing you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence is violence. Because this address roads, welfare, medical, etc. It is still nice to see real world, present day examples. Because as the world burns at the hands of the States of the world while private individuals continue to solve problems, I think it warms the general perception that MAYBE the State ain't so great. The warmer people are to that idea, the more they'll likely not react to empires falling by rushing to get a new master in its place.

That's an interesting way to put it. I think I understand your main point. I like the bear at a picnic analogy myself. Sure that's YOUR sandwich, but what would standing your ground accomplish? That said, the biological imperative precedes reason. Preserving yourself is not at odds with philosophy.

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.

You said you have a strong interest in somebody who is okay with violence as a method of problem solving. What does this mean? Are they smoking hot? Can you honestly say that you "stick with NAP as a basis for my morality" if you're willing to look past somebody who advocates aggression to the point of entertaining having children with them from the "strong interest" phase of your non-relationship? "How much of myself would I be willing to sacrifice for the bragging rights of having been with Eliza Dushku for one night?" I'm with Matthew M. in that this is an opportunity for self-knowledge. Look at how much you're saying by avoiding saying it?

Right. You had said that already. I didn't respond to it because it's an opinion and I don't pretend to have any say over your opinions. What I was responding to, as evidenced by my quoting it specifically, was where you quoted Michael Bloomberg as having said (paraphrased) "the stupidest thing we've done yet is stop threatening to harm people for engaging in a particular voluntary behavior" was something that you agreed with. I sought clarification, to which you've responded with deflection. Thankfully, this provides the answer I was looking for all the same.

I take issue with the phrase "Anarchistic beliefs." Is the claim "people do not exist in different, opposing moral categories" not an accurate description of the real world? To me, the word "Anarchist" means somebody who accepts this. If it's an objective claim whose truth value is true, I think it's dismissive to refer to it as a belief. I also take issue with "the folly of trying to bring utopia to earth as a delusional and destructive path." First of all, the word utopia is poisoning the well. Secondly, prescribing that people do nothing to improve the world around them would be the destructive path. Finally, to do this for the reason that they believe there's an afterlife is precisely why the irrational are understatedly dangerous people. In keeping with defining our terms for the sake of clear discourse, "religious texts" is another way of saying "something a human wrote down one time." You're basically saying that they are inherently infallible and that flawed institutions built on top of them somehow sully them. The error actually begins with the text if it says (for example) "don't murder because I said so" or "don't murder because I will punish you" instead of "murder is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights." For a corrupt institution to be built atop of the former follows. The common enemy is the State, which is a religion. Saying that people who think rationally need to ally the irrational to fend off other irrationals is irrational. There's only one way to meaningfully divide people: those who are willing to initiate the use of force to achieve their goals and those who will not. Having a child is the creation of a positive obligation to that child to protect and nurture them until such a time as they're able to do so for themselves. This entails many things, not the least of which is the primary wisdom of calling things by their proper names. Religiosity isn't just irrational, it is anti-rational when inflicted upon a developing mind. As this is a violation of the aforementioned obligation, it IS the initiation of the use of force. Rational thought in our current world is a lot like the agent program (woman in red dress) scene of The Matrix. I will try and unplug as many minds as I can. However, until they become unplugged, they are a part of that system, and therefore a threat to rational thought. I don't care how pretty that red dress is, I'm more focused that that. Distraction is so very very powerful :*(

I admire your clarity! The worst part is that most people would guard such things, forever obfuscating WHY they reject reason. I can't share Stef's Bomb in the Brain series enough. I think it's WAY more important WHY people believe the things they do than what it is they actually believe. Having been abused myself, just the level of how much I didn't know that I didn't know is incomprehensible in hindsight. People get very defensive in reaction to anything they think might cast doubt on their self-perceived infallibility. Strangely enough, I think the single greatest freeing move in my own journey was just hearing humans' capacity for error explained in an objective, impersonal fashion. I guess that's also why I can't share Stef's Introduction to Philosophy series enough either.

You agree that people should be stolen from, abducted, and killed if they resist for disagreeing with you? At what point does it become problematic? Let's say your answer is X times without Y span of time. Why is X problematic, but X-1 is not? Wouldn't body weight factor into it? Diet? Since we're talking about a symptom, wouldn't the severity of the damage done be of greater importance that frequency? This is a totally unprincipled conclusion.

My childhood, identity, and sexual "normalcy" were stolen from me as the result of Christianity being inflicted upon me. As a "Christianity survivor," I can speak first hand as to the violence of Christianity. Feel free to ignore this data that conflicts with your conclusion on account of none of my blood was spilled. Even if you could make the case that Christianity isn't violent present day, what would that prove? Make spousal abuse illegal and you just end up with more secretive and sophisticated abusers. You don't cure the abuse. I think you're just looking for a way to ignore the truth when it doesn't suit you. Government is predicated on the initiation of the use of force. What a politician wants regarding the rights of others is unethical in theory as it would be immoral in practice. The point is that if it's rooted in irrationality, it is dangerous. It doesn't matter what you call the particular flavor of irrationality.

It's not normally my practice to share private messages, but this is a continuation of the conversation I was presented with (entitled "you sound like a noob"). I offer it as it is instructive as to why we need to think rationally and not allow claims to go unchallenged. And to demonstrate the damage that can be done by blindly accepting when people tell you that something is harmful despite being perfectly natural. If there's an argument in there, I missed it.

Great post There's no doubt that moderation is key. I wonder how much anxiety associated with cannabis use is external. When I drink a Mountain Dew, I don't have to worry about armed thugs kicking in my door or people judging me.

Is this what was said? Or is it being pointed out that irrational thought is the problem and one religion is a symptom?