dsayers

Have you partaken of any of Stef's recent youtube videos? He's been unrelenting in holding the media accountable (and rightly so) for the way just about everything is being packaged and sold as priviliged group A holding down less fortunate group B. In his discussion with Jason Richwine called IQ and Immigration, Mr. Richwine mentions how this happens because we're not allowed to talk about IQ disparities among ethnicities, which leads to problems that have reasonable explanation instead being repackaged as group A oppressing group B. Stef has been unrelenting in pointing out how if you tell people these things long enough, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you're a member of group A and are told your whole life that group B is holding you down, you will grow up hating group B and not actually putting forth any effort because you believe it to be futile. He shares a very enthusiastic recount of growing up with nuclear and environmental scares in his talk with Alex Epstein called Why You Should Love Fossil Fuels (which is a worthwhile video to listen to for any reason). I'm not usually one to hold up "Stef says," but there's a substantial body of explanation answering your question. Check them out and see if it helps to understand why ethnicity is going to be decried even when it's not accurate.

One of the ways property is meaningful is exclusivity. You cannot just use my car without my consent because then I cannot use it. My car is my property, which means I can dispose of it however I see fit. If I cease to exist, then my property becomes the property of whomever I chose, so long as I make this known ahead of time. It sounds as if the deceased in this case had made it clear who gets his property, whether it's your cousin or your uncle. "that might skew his life experience" is not a standard. For starters, it is vague. Secondly, it implies that person A can know what is better for person B than person B does. Which can only be true in the parent-child relationship. Children are capable of being able to make their own age-appropriate mistakes as early as 5. In every way, everywhere, 22 year old is not a child. Even if the person was mentally retarded, this was the decision of the deceased. I would like to think that no attorney would include a vague clause such as the uncle is the custodian of the cousin's inheritance with no specific terms. If however I'm wrong, then the uncle isn't engaging in immorality, he's just being a dick. At which point, the people near to all this should try and persuade him to pass on the inheritance and stand by their values in the event that he doesn't.

No. Most of the people you would do this to already achieve their goals without initiating the use of force. This is what boggles my mind the most about the struggle we find ourselves in: People who live peacefully swearing to the death that we cannot survive peacefully. Gah! Kurtis and McBeer nailed it. The people in my life (including my most established abuser!) can see I'm happy, am able to think rationally, can articulate my thoughts and not get side-tracked by obfuscations. My life has conspicuously improved simply by accepting that I own myself, I have the capacity for error, and these are universal to all of us. If you're trying to make the case for somebody, try to identify where their mental block is. Are they afraid of being responsible for their own lives and decisions? Are they afraid of what their friends and family will think? Are they afraid of the "services" they will lose out on if they simply admit that violence is internally inconsistent?

Promoting violence against humans is the opposite of being in favor of humanity. Violence is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights and therefore invalid. Whether there's an alternative or not won't change this. Now that the moral argument is out of the way, I have pointed out a few times right here that there is nothing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence except violence itself. From that, how do you get that I do not accept the power of ostracism? By insisting I'm wrong because of (example), it is you who are rejecting the power of ostracism. I've just demonstrated how you've actually spoken in the exact opposite of the truth. I continue to demonstrate that I accept reality. So I can't even think of what "uncomfortable truth" would look like in the context of my comfort. Oh and I wasn't trying to black ball you. People ask about debating tactics all the time and seeing that you're willing to move the goalposts (and now resort to polar lies) means there will likely be no convincing you. I was trying to save others time. The only reason I'm investing the time is because I spent decades subscribing to narrative and only a couple years thinking rationally. So I like the practice with spotting internal inconsistencies.

If your cousin is of age, how is it that his father has the power to withhold inheritance from him? Can't really answer whether he has the right to or not until we know what the will say. You could still talk to all parties involved to try and encourage him to hand over the inheritance. Do you know how many other family members would join you in such an effort?

So what you're saying is that you're going to believe what you want to believe even in the face of data to the contrary. This is bigotry. You're saying that violence is acceptable as long as YOU agree with what it will be used for. This is an unprincipled conclusion and cannot be universalized. I urge others not to bother convincing him. His behavior thus far indicates that if you were to convince him, he'd just bring up the next reason to not accept that he owns himself AND others own themselves also. Moving the goalposts as it were.

I had just provided you with some. You continue to speak as if the parent-child relationship is comparable to just any two people as if I hadn't made the case for why it's not, while not pointing to any flaw in the case I made. When people decide to have a child, they are voluntarily creating a positive obligation to that child to protect and nurture it until such a time as it is capable of doing so for itself. Neglect is a violation of this contract.

One cannot argue against capitalism without making use of their capital (body, time, labor, keyboard or pen, etc) to make the argument. A performative contradiction.

Well I could make the case for self-knowledge leading to knowing what to look for in people you let near you. However, for the sake of this topic, I'll just say no. And that I think it's dishonest to continue to refer to the parent-child relationship as if it's comparable to the relationship of any two people. I'll try and make the case for that here. Let me know if/where you feel it ceases to describe the real world. I am not responsible for feeding random stranger X. If however I was to imprison X, it would be my responsibility to feed him because he is deprived of the means of feeding himself as the direct result of my actions. He's not there by choice. His survival is dependent on my feeding him. That is to say that when somebody is under my power against their will and/or dependent upon me for their survival, I have MORE of a moral obligation to them, because of the power disparities. It is immoral for me to assault another human being. Suppose I was a 7 foot tall, 250 pound, all muscle dude. It's still immoral to assault somebody, but we understand that the potential for damage is far greater if I was to assault some 4 foot tall, 100 pound weakling. I have MORE of a moral obligation to them, again because of the power disparity. In the parent-child relationship, the parent is larger than the child, the child is dependent on the parent, and the child is not there by choice. ALL OF THIS was decided upon by the parent. So they have an enormous power disparity over this human being. They have voluntarily created a positive obligation to them to protect and nurture them until such a time that they are able to for themselves. We could have a debate on when that should be, but I think we can agree that at 6 years old, no human being is qualified to fully take care of themselves. In conclusion, if a 6 year old does not share their experiences with their parents, this is a definite indication that the parent has neglected (abused) the child. If a parent does not notice a change of disposition in the 6 year old as the result of somebody taking clothes off and engaging in physical contact they've NEVER known before, this is a definite indication of serious neglect. This is all very important to understand. If we don't call an abuser an abuser, we are protecting abusers. That's not good. We all lose in that scenario. Thank you for your time.

I reject your claim that a hungry person would starve unless somebody pointed a gun at them. The fact that you and I exist is proof of a VERY long time of people seeking food and water out of biological necessity. Even if your claim were true, it fails to infinite regression. How do the people pointing the guns get the water to survive long enough to point guns at people if people would die rather than seek water unless a gun is pointed at them? I mean, if you're going to try and refute that violence is the only thing we could achieve with violence that we couldn't achieve without violence, at least cite something optional like roads. Food, water, and shelter we have millenia of empirical evidence to the contrary.

I don't know where this is coming from. The title of the thread is "If a parent doesn't know of sexual abuse are they responsible for that?" Within which, you said "the boy was a very charming english boy that impressed her mother with his manners. That kid knew exactly what he was doing by gaining the trust of adults, and how to avoid being suspicious." Which I then qualified by pointing out that this deception would've been ended the moment he molested a child IF that child had the basic support system of caring parents. Have you ever been around a healthy child? They are eager to tell you about... EVERYTHING. They'll especially do this with their perceived protectors since their protectors can help them interpret their experiences. If a child isn't able to share with their parents, this is because their parents have made it very clear that they are not there for the child. This is just addressing the voluntary actions of the child. There's also the disposition of the child to consider. Which will change dramatically enough that ANYBODY that has access to the child is going to notice. Which will concern anybody that cares for the child. So yeah, I reject the claim that the molester deceiving the parents up front absolves them of responsibility. I reiterate that a child's world is literally of the parent's creation. There is absolutely no reason to leave a 6 year old alone with a 12 year old no matter how nice he seems. A 6 year old should not be outside of earshot of the parent, with the exception of a trusted adult. And if THAT trust ends up being misplaced, it again is the responsibility of the parents for not properly vetting the person they are entrusting their child's well-being to. It is no secret that even a singular such occurrence can have lasting effects on the child.

Are you asking if it's possible to get people to do things they want to do without pointing a gun to their head?

...up until the point he molested a child. In a healthy parent-child relationship, this would lead to the child telling the parent of what happened, even if they didn't perceive it as traumatic in the moment. And again assuming a healthy parent-child relationship, the parent would then nurture the child, acknowledge that THEY failed, and adjust accordingly. Which could lead to the parents of the abuser being held accountable, the abuser getting therapy for his own abuse, and all sorts of correction for the problems instead of all these people involved going on to suffer and inflict more suffering.

I grew up with a dad who would mistreat me for the sake of inanimate objects. So my bias when I see stories like this is to wonder how people can behave as if objects are more important than people. I thought about this a lot recently when a video sparked my interest in Machu Picchu. Pretty incredible stuff. If we can preserve it, great. But not at the expense of people. I look at the Mona Lisa and I'm not impressed. Apparently you're not allowed to engage in photography at all at the Sistine Chapel. The list goes on. This planet and our species is being run into the ground by people subjugating other people. I think we have more important things we could focus our efforts on than the preserving of a trinket, regardless of how important people who have been dead for centuries said it was.

I understand and I agree. I was confronting Aether on the lack of integrity in putting forth an objective claim with a certainty I don't see how he could possibly possess.

Not knowing the specifics of your discussions, this seems dishonest to me. Studying the effects of something is a utilitarian approach. It can be helpful to know for information's sake, but it has no bearing on determining right from wrong. In my mind, it's not even a question. Anybody who engages in theft, assault, rape, or murder is TELLING YOU that their actions are wrong by using their property (body, time effort) to deny their victim use of their property. Most people who reject this do so because they're afraid of the responsibility, they're afraid of what their friends and family might think, and/or they're afraid of things they'll have to use. All of which are utilitarian in approach, which is why I think it's important we stay focused on the moral argument. It is paramount after all. Skipping over the moral argument is like having a conversation with somebody on the premise that some humans can fly. It's simply not an accurate description of reality. Just like saying violence is a valid solution to a problem is not an accurate description of reality because it's internally inconsistent. Never forget that there is only one thing we can achieve with violence that we cannot achieve without violence: violence.

I reject the premise. Straight line is a concept. One that the real world doesn't prohibit. Putting forth a method that precludes a valid concept would therefore in some way have to NOT accurately describe the real world. Therefore, it would be inferior to a system that allows for such a concept to be valid. They didn't even spell theorem correctly in the title.

Before anti-biotics were known, not prescribing anti-biotics wasn't evil. During a seizure, somebody's flailing arm striking you is not assault. In these examples, the perpetrators of the behaviors aren't responsible because they didn't know or didn't have control. Humans have the capacity for reason. That is the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, calculate consequences, etc. Our capacity for reason means we own ourselves and therefore the effects of our actions because we're aware of and in control of them. Barring malities such as brain damage, humans are not fundamentally different in such a way that would preclude us from universalizing this. So generally speaking, everybody owns themselves. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are the four behaviors a human could engage in that simultaneously accept and reject property rights. There you have it. A simple proof for objective morality. Hopefully OP will share how this doesn't accurately describe the real world.

When the world became more dependent on computers and the internet, there was a big boon for IT. So it was less of an eradication of jobs as much as it was a shift in jobs. Also, email has been a thing for a couple decades now and people still send snail mail. So even if something becomes the standard, it won't necessarily fully displace that which it replaces. Plus as time goes on (particularly if peaceful parenting and the free market become the norm), IQ rises on average anyways. So I don't know what the world will look like, but I know that humans adapt

How do you know? They aren't paid for by way of voluntary means, so we don't actually know what they're worth. If you don't know what they're worth, how can you be certain their pay is inappropriate in either direction?

Did you just gloss over the fact that this took place amid extreme, so-called "gun control"? People who support gun control use that terminology to conceal the fact that they support forcibly controlling PEOPLE, not guns. And not people in general; Just the ones that don't exist in the magical moral category known as "authority" (politicians, soldiers, police).

I wasn't responding to the video. I was talking to YOU about things YOU said. You were offered challenges, didn't respond to those challenges, and have excused yourself from the conversation YOU started.

Pedophilia is a preference, not a behavior. Did you mean to say molester? Also, when you demonize a human being, you shut down the ability to discuss the problem. If children weren't traumatized, they wouldn't grow up to molest children, so making the case for peaceful parenting will help to address the problem. Saying monster just incites hatred and suggests extermination is the only solution. By fingering the pharmaceutical companies, you're covering for the State. I, as an individual, do not have the "power" or "authority" to shove drugs down a child's throat. If I owned my own pharmaceutical company, I would not have the power or authority to shove drugs down a child's throat. If however I worked for the State as a government school teacher or counselor, I would have the "power" and "authority" to precipitate a series of events that would lead to drugs being shoved down a kid's throat. If I worked for the State as a "lawmaker," I could spit out words and magically give other human beings the power and authority to shove drugs down a child's throat. If you address the symptom and not the cause, you are of no threat to the cancer. Those who operate in the name of the State are thankful to you for using your time and energy to try and draw people's attention to pharmaceutical companies instead of their false claim that people can exist in different, opposing moral categories.

But this is a lie. You don't turn a chainsaw on, do a lot of damage, and then say "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have done that." It's because of the potential damage you can do with a chainsaw that you need to figure out how to do that properly BEFORE engaging in it. Who we create a new life with and who we choose to spend the rest of our lives with are the most important choices we will make in our lives because they are the choices that can do the most damage. If I were in your shoes and got fed the "If I knew then what I know now" line, I would've asked "How could you not know? How could my fragile life mean so little to you that you wouldn't research how to handle it properly?" Does she have a cell phone? Has she spent any time reading about how it works or how to accomplish X, Y, and Z with it? Is a phone you're going to pitch in a few years more important than the raise release nature of creating another human life? This is just another way of ignoring the feedback that is uncomfortable. :/

Being ignorant of your child's experience is neglect, a form of abuse. Also, the only reason your dad was YOUR dad is because you mom chose him to be. Choosing to create you with a specific person is the exact opposite of protecting you from that person. The situation she was in was one that she chose. You didn't have a choice. It's not fair to you to make excuses for her abuse. I reject your claim that it is not possible to protect a child 24/7. Accepting that claim only provides for neglect to occur. Starting from birth, the child's entire world is the creation of their parents. As they get older, and they are better suited to be away from their parents, this will be at a time when the parents have already negotiated with and modeled for them a large array of behaviors that the child will be able to protect themselves. If not, then the parent left them exposed before such a time, and is again the responsibility of the parent. You mentioned your own children getting bullied at school. Well, why were they there? Because their parents put them there. Their parents (you) are responsible for this. In one of your posts, you asked about the next step in healing. The first step in anything is calling things by their proper name. If you think a Grizzly Bear is a stuffed animal, it really won't matter what the next steps you take are, because they won't be based in reality.