dsayers

And therefore it is obfuscation, imprecision, deflection. These are competing claims that cannot prove any point, other than the fact that you're engaging in anthropomorphism to obfuscate the truth. Groups cannot accomplish what a person cannot because a group is a concept, comprised of people, who would have to be the ones achieving what you've ascribed to the group, proving that an individual CAN accomplish it. The topic of discussion is nationalism. You are the one that painted it as necessary for survival's sake. A sentiment I have refuted since it was presented because your implication was that the "group" needed protection from without, when in fact that truth is it would need protection from within. Something that nationalism exacerbates, which incidentally leads to the threat from without.

Strawman. 1) Saying that nobody has proven it should be saved is not deriding and degrading. 2) Saying that we've achieved better is not deriding and degrading. Pointing out that statism is a feature of western civilization, while a blight, is a statement of fact and therefore not deriding and degrading. There is a reason you cannot broach this topic head on and have to consistently reach for every fallacy in the book to pretend to offset it.

I stopped reading here as I grow weary of your deliberate lack of integrity. I am not responsible for the fact that A) self-ownership and property rights are valid and therefore the State is immoral and B) political voting is making use of the State in an attempt to inflict your will onto others without their consent are in opposition of one another. So while I never said these are the only two options, it is true that with regards to voting, either voting or not voting are the options. But my claim has been the ways in which they are incompatible.

Personalization to excuse yourself from having to make the case that people do NOT pay their taxes under threat of escalated theft/violence. This isn't even competent to the point of qualifying as sophistry. The topic is political voting. You chose to try and inflict Trump onto the rest of us because of what he said he would do, regardless of whether empirical evidence tells us that POTUS doesn't have to keep their promises and/or what POTUS even has the power to do. Politicians pose a credible threat and you chose to inflict them upon those who do not consent. You can make the (side) case of it being necessary or beneficial. But the bottom lines remains that it IS immoral. It DOES bind people without their consent.

I don't even buy into the narratives that "Western civilization" should be saved, that the US could dictate it, that Trump could control what the US does, or that the citizens could put Trump there. However, if you use "he may" as a philosophical jumping off point for consideration, I've voiced the idea that if this were a so-called "necessary" evil, then people would be disgusted with themselves for engaging in it, even as they acknowledged that it was necessary. This is not what we've seen. People were "ready to crawl on broken glass" to make it happen. Since it's happened, many of them have delighted in the tears of those whom they've enslaved. Others still refuse to acknowledge the truth of what they've done. To me, this is the null hypothesis that it was necessary. Just as it was not necessary for a parent to hit a child, it was not necessary for anarchists to use the gun of the State to inflict their will onto others. It's a mark of victimhood. Of unprocessed trauma. Of a displacement of rational thought. And I seriously question how much of it was group think since this of all places should understand and yield to these ideas as they have before.

The thread poses the question of whether or not X is virtuous. If part of X is unchosen, that part can be dismissed from the overarching consideration. Would you agree that in order to be virtuous, something must be deliberate? Group is a concept, making this an anthropomorphism. The individual (who is capable of behavior) is unable to defend themselves from the State because the State WILL escalate, and with the benefit of societal acceptance of their aggression as benevolent and... indeed... necessary. Therefore, nationalism cannot be virtuous, especially not for the reason you've put forth.

Did your parents consult you before moving you thousands of miles away? How did you feel about this? Do you have any memories from before or during when you were adopted?

I address this in my article and reference its value in discarding subjective models here. Did you read either?

It's easier to put forth a position in a place when you feel you have backup, eh? Takes the responsibility away of maintaining personal integrity by not putting words into people's mouth to "win" by attacking what you say they said. You are demonstrating that you understand that your position lacks merit. Both by your emotional investment and your willingness to defer to the population rather than put forth a sound argument and address it when you err in doing so. Personalization and poisoning the well. Political voting is either internally inconsistent by binding others without their consent or it is not. This will remain as such whether I say it is or not. You do not level this same hokey accusation to those "running around the FDR boards" telling people it's okay to enslave their neighbors. Which reveals that your issue isn't with the "running around the FDR boards," but that what is being said contradicts the conclusions you NEED to be true because of your emotional investment. It's manipulation and it is transparent to me. If you don't empty the register, you might not immediately get shot. This does nothing to address the fact that there is a credible threat, nor that the emptying of the register is not voluntary because of it. You are grasping for ways to make your conclusion fit instead of being honest.

I can rationally explain the ways in which you own yourself and you ought to be free. I cannot make you accept it. "magnitude of the situation" is vague and "delete your account" is not an argument. It's easier to play morally superior than to be morally consistent, eh? The magnitude of the situation is that people in the name of the State steals from ALL OF US EVERY DAY. The State threatens ALL OF US EVERY DAY. This includes our children and our unborn. The State kills some of us EVERY DAY while caging many more EVERY DAY. The State kills other people across the world EVERY DAY in our name. They do all of this under the cloak of perceived legitimacy. THAT is the problem. Not understanding the magnitude of the situation is looking at your own life, barely recognizing the ways in which you are oppressed, and therefore justifying oppressing others to perpetuate your perceived comfort.

White is an ethnicity and an unchosen one, so we can disregard it altogether in terms of a person's value or identity. Nationalism is the worship of dirt. It is an unprincipled conclusion. In a society where such a narrative that nationalism is benevolent is pushed, it can be a mark of virtue being able to resist the temptation of conformity to adhere to reality, where dirt isn't special even if you were born on it. Especially when you consider that nationalism is used to kill and imprison so many people.

I'm sorry you were with somebody who was emotionally abusive. Have you been able to identify since then how/why you allowed such a person in your life? Thank you for sharing that a lack of abuse made it easier to spot. That's sort of a necessary component to peaceful parenting in the context of saving the world. Hit me up on facebook if you'd like to chat more. I wouldn't mind hearing more about that relationship. And I'm fascinated by not having experienced any abuse before. Hope to hear from you.

I agree with you about the delivery. I was able to look past it here because it is a message not communicated often enough in our snowflake society. That's the one way the video failed: It didn't specify that self-knowledge is a way of not only identifying why, but empowering one to override it. But at least people being exposed to the idea of it being them might give them motivation to seek out how/why to go about effecting change regarding it.

Yes. It fails to infinite regression. I actually did a good job of explaining how/why you can reject any subjective model for morality here. Near as I can tell, the relationship between morality and ethics is the relationship between action and theory. The proposition that if enough people agree, we can steal from everybody to pay for schooling is unethical. Actually putting such a levy on a ballot and/or voting on it would be immoral. In other words, that which is immoral in practice is unethical in theory.

There are "detrimental personal consequences" for driving your car across town in the form of wear and tear on the vehicle, elevated exposure to exhaust fumes... This is not a measure of morality. It's also being obtuse because you know full well the reason you try to liken voting to paying taxes is because it is widely accepted that paying taxes is not immoral even though the monies are used to fund immoral things. This is true BECAUSE of the coercion. The moment this is pointed out, you are moving the goal posts if you do not circle back to revise your theory to more accurately describe the real world. You don't get to enslave 300 million people to avoid something personal. You don't get to drop a nuke because somebody stole a candy bar. It's not defense because the yield is astronomically larger, and you have no control over this. True attacks of self-defense include an immediate threat and counter-action. If you think that filling in a bubble at all changes your life months down the road, you are engaging in extreme delusion. And oh yeah, you don't own me! This post will be the 3rd time in this thread I've personally pointed out that nobody is threatening people in the US if they do not vote, therefor the immorality of voting accrues to the voter. As opposed to the immorality of paying taxes accrues to the people credibly threatening the tax payer in the event that they do not comply. You've been exposed to this idea many times. Strawman. Morality is a characteristic of behaviors, not people. Strange that somebody who is accusing me of not reading doesn't appear to have read. Not that I have to read anything, but you know. I don't care if you care. You questioned my belaboring the point that where coercion is present, consent is not. Of course you misrepresented the fact that I was talking about two separate behaviors (the coercion, then the behavior the coercion is designed to solicit). The fact that people try to use the fact that paying taxes isn't immoral to escape the immorality of political voting is precisely why I belabored the point. So whether you care or not, it was prudent for me to include. I didn't isolate anything. I reference what I found to be convincing in the past of the opposing position. What you did was quote one sentence, say I offered an opinion and not a refutation, where a refutation was provided elsewhere. You said that already. And then I said "you skipped over the part that pointed out that the distinction is scenarios where one cannot consent." Consent cannot be implied of me because if one wished to know whether I consent or not, they can ask me. You cannot ask somebody who is unconscious for example. Therefore, consent can be implied because it can be determined that a reasonable person would consent if they could. Your attempt at revealing a disparity speaks as if no variables are present, where one is.

Amen! I've been living this truth for about a year now. For a good 3 years after starting my pursuit of self-knowledge, I had the tools, but I wasn't applying myself. I then received inspiration that made me both very regretful for the time I had wasted and very motivated to start making up for that lost time. Then I lost EVERYTHING. I had every excuse to give up. But I did not. It was too late; the fire had already been ignited in me. Since then, I've been doing so much to build my life back up from scratch (literally). Recently, this included an opportunity I was counting on falling through. Which there was another part of my life I was making do with because it was supposed to be temporary. Old me would've continued to wallow where I was, waiting for things to improve. However, I said to myself, "This isn't working," and so I made some changes. Already, I've been greatly rewarded as a result! I think this advice is most important when it comes to interpersonal relationships. It's never them; It's always YOU. Because the love you show for yourself will ward off the bad people and attract better people. It will allow you to capitalize on struggles in your relationships by healing the ones that got bruised and learning from the ones that failed you. Don't look for Mr(s). Right, BE Mr(s). Right!

I hear you, brother. The whole purpose of abusing their power to inflict false narratives is put the price of social discomfort on doing the right thing. It's a sophisticated way for them to clear the path in front of them of anything that might stand in their way. I don't say this to pressure or judge you. But rather to empathize with the struggle that it is choosing between what's right and what's comfortable. It's not something anybody can decide for you. I will say that I admire anybody who would ask themselves the question of what they are doing. Even more so if their answer is not enough. Just take care to use that sentiment as encouragement and motivation, not as a tool with which to punish yourself. I'm doing more today than I was last week than I was last year. Thank you for speaking up here. I hope you will share your future challenges and successes as well

This post is proof of your DISagreement. These things could only be made from within a prison in your own mind. You DO have another option. IF (and that's a big if since there are way more of us than there are of them) there was going to be a president either way, do you agree with it? If not, why would you play along? And again, "best outcome" is begging the question and subscribing to a false dichotomy. You're right that the article is about morality. However, choosing yourself when somebody insists you pick somebody else to rule you is having dignity as well as not being immoral. Because everything you've said might justify your preference, but it does nothing to assail the immoral identity of political voting.

Sounds to me like I care enough about myself to not allow abusive and manipulative people to inflict unchosen positive obligations upon me. And smart enough to recognize that you're putting forth a standard for others that you exempt yourself (and others who agree with you) from.

You misspelled has. This psuedo-challenge was already put forth here. Projection. People are not being threatened to vote... still. Can you guys really do no better than parroting the exact same non-arguments over and over?

Assertion and poisoning the well. Many people have been doing just this. As opposed to filling in a bubble on a piece of paper and patting ourselves on the back for "doing something." But I don't come here to polish laurels or get into a pissing match with you. I speak the truth and no amount of downvoting tantrums will change that.

Welcome, Ivana. You can count me in. In addition to honest and logical conversations, I'm into deep and personal conversations as well. I like connecting with people after decades of abusers isolating me.

That's quite a journey! Welcome. What sort of questions/issues are you struggling with? I too was raised as a Christian, with very destructive effects in my youth as a result. Today, I am very pleased to be a liberated, rational thinker.

You misspelled debunked. Tyler's reply bottom lines it well. Putting forth ignoring things as a standard, then exempting yourself from it. It has already been pointed out (to you) many times that taxation is coercive. Nobody is threatening you with anything if you do not vote. Is that to say that if somebody is already being gang raped, it's okay to join in? Or is rape still immoral even if others are doing it? To your first question: False dichotomy. If you came up to me and asked me who I wanted to rule me, I don't care how many options you provide; My answer will be the same: Me. The second question is a false analogy. It suggests that you have a choice at all. I've debunked that too. Simply put, if you are in the grips of a master who is promising to torture you, asking you to pick your poison is part of the torture. Participating just makes you an accomplice to that torture. Have some dignity! What bearing does that have on the truth value of the objective claim that political voting is immoral? You only have to ask the question because my efforts challenge your conclusion and you reject your own capacity for error.

Isn't this moving the goalposts? Before, you were talking about the State not having to use force. Here, you are talking about softer force. No, softer rape is NOT a good thing. It IS evil. This is poisoning the well twice. Nobody overthrew cassette tapes. They replaced it with something being obsolete. It started with people being free in their own mind enough to entertain the possibility that they could listen to music without cassettes. Saying "I will not rape, nor condone rape" is not a revolutionary act. I don't know enough about the specifics to be able to answer that question. Bylaw is usually a word used internally, in a group with voluntary membership. If that's the case, they you're comparing apples to oranges. I do know this: Morality isn't determined by whether or not something is easy to accept. It is determined by (lack of) consent.