dsayers

I don't find this example to be challenging either. Was the person drunk as the result of the voluntary action of imbibing substances that are known for being judgement impairing, the very reason they are imbibed? Then driving while drunk and killing somebody is perfectly equivalent to having sex and claiming you got pregnant by accident. You might as well hold a knife and spin around in a crowd. "I didn't MEAN to hurt anybody!" If you voluntarily engage in a behavior that you know will likely end in a particular outcome, you are not absolved of responsibility of that outcome. Interestingly enough, THIS is why I think it's so important that we make the case about child abuse. Even if it's rejected out of hand, abusers can no longer claim they didn't know.

Yes, "immoral" refers to the performative contradiction that property rights are valid and invalid simultaneously during the initiation of the use of force. Including lying is as much of an assertion as saying that two people who have sex while being recorded and people that watch that recording are initiating the use of force. "Be honest always" refers to unchosen positive obligations, and is therefore an unethical proposition. Meaning that by claiming people must be honest always or they are initiating the use of force, you are being less consistent in your values than people who have sex while being recorded or watch that recording! All you've done in this post is use words like unethical and virtuous instead of immoral, which doesn't get you off the hook. Look, my most sophisticated and established abuser also passes off his opinions/values as fact in an attempt to manipulate others into thinking he is virtuous and/or not scrutinizing his words. This is probably why once I was able to think rationally, these contradictory and/or self-congratulatory nonsenses stick out to me. So I say again: It's a different thing to have a preference than it is to objectively claim something is "wrong." You've also now moved the goalposts from watching porn to having promiscuous sex. For that matter, "sex" isn't fundamentally different if somebody engages in it once or a hundred times. All you're doing is using a bunch of language to paint something as sinister since that is your opinion instead of providing a rational case for why other should abstain. Again, and I wish you would at least acknowledge this, I'm taking the time to say all this because I think it's dangerous and harmful to improperly identify something that is harmless as harmful and/or labeling people that are engaging in voluntary behaviors as being subjected to coercion. This is not good for you and it's irresponsible (if not makes you culpable) to encourage others to engage in similar mis-categorization. I also pointed out collectivizing, which is a challenge you haven't answered. Also, quoting somebody isn't an argument. But how about "reason = virtue = happiness"? If your motivation is virtue and happiness, then you need reason. Calling things not by what they are is not reasonable. It almost seems as if you're not open to the possibility that you could be wrong. Is this the case?

One of those... ugh! These scenarios are absurd, they're meant to reconcile the irreconcilable, and their contemplation is not beneficial in any way. Saying somebody NOT giving something (inaction) is homicide (action) is incredibly misleading. Unless the person with the water has abducted and/or restrained the person, in which case I'm pretty sure this violent action is a bit more important than a bottle of water even if it was given.

I think you missed my point. You used morality a couple times (as if morality is up to us), but then later express it as your values. There's nothing wrong with disliking something. It's another thing entirely to say that others who do it are committing a crime. Also, you've collectivized other people in defiance of the rationality of collectivization and competing data presented in this thread. I hope you read the post where I shared how damaging it was for me to be misled into thinking that something that is natural is in fact tantamount to burning for eternity.

Can you give an example of what you mean by negligent homicide? There are people that claim they weren't trying to get pregnant for example. They engaged in the behavior they knew could lead to pregnancy, making the claim of negligent false.

Snark. Snark. You said yourself to be skeptical, but his is just mocking somebody for being skeptical*. A simple explanation of where a mistake was made would suffice. You found it to be sufficient when I asked the exact same question (albeit coupled with a seemingly anonymous downvote). When I see rational discourse, I understand I'm seeing discussion of facts. When I see emotional outbursts, I understand that I'm seeing dogma, personalization of something impersonal, and unprocessed trauma. It's not easy, but when I encounter somebody I think is irrational, I try to remember that I'm dealing with a victim of child abuse. If multiple people indicate that they are not aware of how correlation is calculated in reaction to it being expressed, this is valuable feedback. Unless the person receiving the feedback believes themselves infallible or does NOT want their efforts at communication to be received (performative contradiction). The problem is compounded when you wear a staff badge, essentially setting this as the standard by which discourse is to take place here. Would you rather convince somebody because you've put forth a valid argument, point, or correction or because you could ban them? The greater the power disparity... *Kind of like asking people to provide a description, and then responding to it with "Instead of participating in this thread, I worked on something which will bring more eyeballs to material which demonstrates the negative impact of spanking. At least one kid, somewhere will grow up in a violence free household because of how I've spent that time. How are you spending your time?" as if that at all contributes to the discussion

Thanks. Though I don't think downvoting for ignorance when certainty wasn't claimed is productive. It's possible to correct others and reveal the flaws in their input without snark born from treating scrutiny as if audacious. Not everybody that expresses curiosity is attempting to resist facts.

This is a good point. In the infancy days of Napster (back before Metallica's assault, Dr. Dre, etc), a buddy of mine (who was gullible) told me he had been chatting with the guy who was the leader of an obscure Christian techno group called Aleixa. I really liked their music and I shared it on Napster when it couldn't be found there already. Anyways, my buddy said that during their chat, he let the guy know that I was the one that was sharing their music and he wanted to talk with me. My mailing address at the time was a PO Box, so I consented despite my apprehension about possible negative outcomes. Turns out the guy wanted to thank me for helping to get their music out there. He also said they were closing their website down and wanted to send me some CDs, a t-shirt, bumper stickers, etc. Which he did, including a note signed by Lauren since her vocals were my favorite part of their music. I couldn't list the amount of musicians I thoroughly enjoy and have financially supported as the result of it being shared. Isn't that what a radio station does? Why don't IP advocates ever target broadcast companies? When I was a teen, more than half of my music trivia knowledge came from watching the original Beavis and Butt-heads back when they had music videos before IP claims started cracking down on such things. Anyways, binding upon just means literally to directly and unavoidably effect. If you punch me in the face, it's not something I can ignore because it's binding upon me. If I park my car in your driveway, you cannot choose to use your driveway anyways because my physical occupation of that space is binding upon you.

I don't feel this sufficiently explains (let alone acknowledges) how correlation values were arrived upon. I too was curious about this. I've never worked with data collection/analysis, so perhaps this is considered to be a given in that field. However, if the layperson is to attach any meaning to those numbers, understanding how they're arrive upon would be useful, and was directly asked for. I understand your overarching scrutiny, but this particular quote would be an example of "analysis being meh." If rates differed from NYS to NYC, it wouldn't necessarily be explained by population density.

Begging the question. The point of contention is whether we're talking about labor or not. To not acknowledge this is a demonstration of the closed-mindedness you are again trying to project with this "I know you are, but what am I?" post. Two of my posts ago, I concisely explained every flaw you utilized to arrive upon that conclusion. Here and in the post before it, you are just proceeding as if those challenges have not been offered. The philosophical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling la la la la la. We're at an impasse because we do not agree on an arbiter for resolving this conflict. While I'm holding the real world as the arbiter, you're holding your conclusion as the arbiter. My approach is objective while yours is subjective.

I've argued in the past that joint ownership is mythic. Like if somebody dies and leaves their car to their son and daughter, they can't dispose of that property simultaneously. If two people were looking to go into buying a car together, they would literally have to conceive of every possible contingency (impossible) and plan for it in order to accurately both own the same thing at the same time. In other words, you'd need some agreed upon method for conflict resolution for it to even be attainable. However, since property is derived from self-ownership, it's pretty clear that two people cannot own the same thing at the same time.

No he's not because using an idea isn't binding upon another. The reason we're not getting anywhere is because you're engaging in bigotry while feigning conversation. You're output only. Now if what you said accurately described the real world, you would convince others. Since it doesn't and you're output only, THIS is why we're not getting anywhere. You're projecting this stagnation to deflect attention from your engaging in it, while accusing somebody else of that very projection. That's some rather sophisticated manipulation you've got going on there!

How do you know? I owned a record player as a child. Records died, cassettes died, CDs died. This is just within my lifetime. More people listening to music than ever before, paying for it as much as before, without having to burn fuel to travel to the record store, pay for their rent and employees, etc. What part of this process threatened my survival? We're all better off for it, which is why we chose that way without anybody pointing a gun to our head to make us do so. I've noticed that "have to point guns at people's heads" types never address the infinite regression in that proposition. Namely, if people are so unmotivated you can only force them to do things, who forces the forcers? Who points guns at their heads to make them get guns to point at other people's heads? And so on. I drive a car, so I can name a dozen ways in that process alone in which the State steals from me. That money is used in part to initiate the use of force against others. This is not me initiating the use of force against others. What you're doing here is trying to normalize YOUR willingness to dispense with consent by making it sound like it's unavoidable and something everybody does. As such, we have nothing further to discuss. I will not give of myself to somebody who understands that violence is immoral, but is okay with it anyways.

Ease of duplication was never the issue. You cannot control other people's brains is an accurate description of the real world. Assertion and begging the question, as was most of your post. I don't share your pretense that an idea is work. Also, effecting is not the same as binding. If you have a taco stand and I sell tacos too, my actions might effect you, but they're not binding upon you. If scarcity can be decreased, then it isn't scarcity. You reveal that you're speaking from bigotry when I say "cannot be owned" and you hear "is owned." You cannot derive an ought from an is. The limitations with what they can do with it is the result of coercion and not a description of the real world. You might as well say God exists because people build churches. When in fact that churches serve as evidence that people THINK God exists.

It takes courage to risk your own social acceptance to talk down a common, yet harmful narrative. Good for you! I don't know if this will help at all, but don't forget that "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. I know I have an easier time answering questions while keeping that in mind. If you say 2+2=4, you don't have to also be able to find the area under a curve in order for 2+2=4 to be true. I know when I first approached the idea of anarchy for example, having it pointed out to me that nobody can have all the answers and it's actually a red flag when somebody claims to for this reason made it easier to accept. I thought the "why people parent the way they were" question was uninformed. If a person hasn't learned deferral of gratification for example in obese people, they wouldn't even think to question it, or necessarily understand how it's harmful and therefore not something to pass onto a child. Also, in the context of abuse, it's common not to process child abuse because as you mentioned, there's a biological imperative for the child to conform to the parent for survival's sake. If they normalize, internalize, or repress the trauma instead, it's going to come out when they are the ones parenting. In other words, it's easy to perpetuate; it takes exposure to contrasting ideas and a lot of difficult work to break the cycle. This exposure is exactly why it's so important that we continue to speak out just as you have, as well as even intervene when we see children being aggressed against. They need to be exposed to competing ideas so that at some point, they will question that which they just accept as normal and above reproach. Thanks for sharing.

Celebrities are a form of the media and the media is the right hand of the State. They tend to praise the State and distract people from talking about important things. Finger pointing is for the purpose of distraction, so there'd be no point in pointing the finger at those who already distract.

Knowledge is a concept. Meaning it isn't comprised of matter and energy. It describes an acquaintance with other things. It's not something that is created. In a classroom where a teacher discusses something that everybody else in the room has had no exposure to previously, they are all gaining that knowledge simultaneously. In doing so, they are not engaging in behaviors that are binding upon somebody else. When you have an idea, the idea is in your head and nobody else even has the capability of doing anything with it. Once you release it, you release control over it. Kind of like you can own a guitar, but the moment you strum its strings, you are causing vibrations in the air. You have no further control over those vibrations or the copy of it that is created in every person's brain within earshot. Those vibrations are binding upon those within earshot, which is how we know that noise pollution is immoral. But were those people listening to strum a guitar in the exact same way would not be binding upon you, which is how we know that copying something isn't immoral. If you owned a car and I had a wand I could point at your car and have a duplicate of my own, my using this wand to provide myself with a car would not be binding upon you and therefore could not accurately be described as theft. Know that if you choose to reply to this, I will be attentively looking for you to addressed the characteristic of binding upon others as a requisite of theft (immorality in general). I hope telling you this again will encourage you to address this or revise your theory to more accurately describe the real world.

The sun appears to rise and set each day all over the world because of Earth's spin. In what way does referencing this at the same time as something else that has no impact on either the Earth's spin or man's ability to see the sun have any meaning?

You have yet to offer a philosophical proof that an idea is property. Also, in what way is using an idea binding upon others? Until you address these issues, it's irresponsible to make these claims as if they're factual when in fact they don't describe the real world at all.

I don't see it that way. Saying "this system is a scam" is different from saying "political voting is the initiation of the use of force and therefore immoral." The article itself was good though. Other than the first half that concerned itself with what random joe X had to say.

While it's interesting for knowledge's sake, there's not much difference in whether it's hereditary, epigenetic, or a choice. As long as they're not initiating the use of force, I don't care what somebody does or why. Making the source more important than it might actually be is just a way to divide people. Distract them so they won't notice that the State steals from and threatens all the same. I used to enjoy Ann Coulter's writings once upon a time. After a book or two, I was turned off by the way everything's right vs left with her when the reality is that it's top vs bottom. Anyways, she once had me convinced that it MUST be a choice because if there was a biological root, it's something that would've died off since it's not conducive to reproduction. It's a convincing argument... until you consider things like epigenetics, recessive traits, ancestral traits, etc.

utopian, I'm not one for minutia. The initiation of the use of force is immoral. Behaviors that are not binding upon others are preferences. Behaviors that are binding upon others but with their consent is none of my concern. I just wanted to be clear about that since your response seemed to miss that. Which could by my fault for not staying as focused as I'd like. This does not fundamentally change the fact that using one's property to deny others the use of their property is internally inconsistent. I don't know what upset the economy means. Though I think I've made the point that creative destruction is a normal part of progress. A minority who deal with the obsolete technology loses out, humanity wins. It's nobody's fault and it cannot be controlled. I tried to make the point that we've survived technological paradigm shifts in the past. If the advent of Blu-ray players would cause society to fall apart, then either we wouldn't adopt it or we'd gradually work towards it. This is an appeal to authority. 2+2=4 is true because it's objectively reproducible, not because Einstein wrote it down one time. People who use the phrase "economic system" are disposing of consent. If people are free to trade what they want with whomever they want whenever they want for whatever reason they want, this isn't exactly a system, thought it would be relatively "new" in that economies have been taken over by the State throughout the world. In a free market, the economy is self-correcting because it is subject to the market forces of competition and consequence. So if it were true that the economy is so rigid it couldn't adapt, the State would be the reason, not the solution.

I second Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy series. It's long, but that's because it starts from first principles and builds from there, leaving no stone unturned. For something more bite-sized, this video was pretty instrumental in helping me understand property rights and universality: The following video helped me take ideas I already understood and articulate them more clearly (made by another FDR member):

lol Nah, it just shows that ideas are more important and that words serve ideas. I know a guy who's not big into real conversations, so he plays devil's advocate just for the sake of contributing without actually investing HIMSELF. If I say 2+2=4, he objects that this isn't absolutely true because in base 3, it would be a false statement. But the words aren't what matters, it's the idea. The concept of four is the same whether you express it as 11 in base 3 or 4 in base 10.

The word disagree suggests it is up to us. It is not. Watch some nature show and see how some predators disguise themselves and lay in wait to fool their prey into thinking a situation is safe when it is not. Take note of how much simpler your life is because gravity is consistent and how this frees your mind up to consider other things. There is no question that survival comes from accurate assessment of the world around us. Regarding your use of the word condescending: If I think I see something that you don't and I try to show it to you, how is this indicative of us existing on "different levels"? And if it were indicative of us being on different "levels," how would me trying to nurture you (bring you up to my level in your framing) be a sign of somebody trying to harm you instead of help you? It's because what I'm trying to show you would mean that people you think are helpful are harmful, so you have to call my trying to help as me trying to harm. I'm not trying to tell you your experience. But whether you realize it or not, we communicate with others with far more than just our words. For example, a person who puts forth an objective claim is also saying that there's such a thing as truth, such a thing as falsehood, and that truth is preferable to falsehood. Or when somebody says god exists, they're also saying that consciousness exists without matter or energy (CEw/oME), only one CEw/oME, the one CEw/oME happens to be the one they were taught about, and that they intervene. My point is that I felt you communicated a need for abusers to not be abusers when you rejected that safety is derived from calling things by their proper names. In this thread, you opened by telling us (between the lines) the abuse of your childhood with no mention of your parent's responsibility. When I pointed out this void, you tried to convince me of the narrative that comes from normalizing your abuse. And just as I predicted, you're describing me as abusive to avoid calling your abusers abusive. You can call it confirmation bias, but I think you've been consistent to the point of removing all doubt that this assessment fits. Also, I think it's dismissive to say that I'm projecting. If you say you want to head north but you're heading south, for me to point out to you how to go north is not projecting. If you want health, you need nutrition. If you want to remove a screw, you have to turn it. If you want to fix a problem, you can't address only the symptoms. Personalizing it is just a way of ignoring that your stated goal doesn't coalesce with the actions you're taking with regards to it. And you know what else? I see a lot of people here trying to help you by pointing out blind spots. We all have them. Can you admit that much please?