dsayers

Pepin, I don't think your position is as precise as it needs to be. If somebody prefers to never have an ill word spoken of them, is this a standard binding upon others? I prefer to not lift heavy furniture, but I'll do it (consent) to help a friend out. I think consent is a more precise standard for determining if a behavior is the initiation of the use of force.

Were the dinner party invitations from former abusers? Or would they have put you in the company of former abusers? If not, I wouldn't have passed it up just because the motivation was religious, seasonal, or just because the calendar said to. For many years now, my stepmother, who loves to shop (for others) gets me stuff for my birthday and xmas even though I've asked her not to. I've been thinking more and more as time goes on about how this kind of makes me uncomfortable. She's basically telling me that her desires trump my own with regards to me. I haven't confronted her about it though because it's relatively harmless. I've actually been inspired this year by how low a percentage of people I interact with are bothering to say Merry Xmas.

@doody: A simpler way to put it is that deciding how other people should spend their money cannot be universalized. If I want somebody to spend their money in a certain way, I can make the case to them and try to encourage them to do so voluntarily. If I choose to instead force them to, I am accepting my own property rights while rejecting the property rights of others.

Is saying (regardless of medium) "it would be good for ____ to be murdered" the initiation of the use of force?

Stopped at a local music store. Their USB mic selection was limited. Got what I thought was going to be a nice "desktop" boom, but it's not quite long enough. Still mulling this over. I'm leaning heavily towards either the Samson C03U or the Rode Podcaster. The Audio Technica AT2020USB seems to be quite popular, but probably the lowest quality of the three. Anybody know if it's okay to use scissor booms sideways? Like mounting it to an upright instead of to a table top?

Thought I'd provide an update. The GTX970 is silent most of the time, even in Skyrim on the highest settings. The only time they come on is during video editing. It's made video editing that much smoother, so I'm really glad I went with the stronger card.

You are right to clarify that it is only an attempt to take somebody's time. You are wrong to suggest this alters a behavior's moral identity since consent is a requisite and an attempt comes after. As for your 2nd point, I offer an example of the kind of thing I mean. Once upon a time, I was poor to the point of being unable to afford car insurance despite living in a state where I'm threatened with aggression if I do not possess car insurance. A cop pulled me over not long after my prior valid car insurance had expired. When I was asked for insurance and provided an outdated proof, it was pointed out to me that it was outdated. At which point I claimed that I had renewed and must've left the new version on my desk at home. I did not owe this person the truth, especially given the coercive nature of our interaction. Yes, somebody else could publish this information and it would not be theft. That does not change the fact that my honesty is mine to give/withhold however I see fit.

Not exactly. For moral consideration, a behavior has to be binding upon another. Lying to somebody is not binding upon them. Suppose you tell me it's warm outside when it is in fact cold. If I choose to leave the house without a coat, and I feel that a coat is necessary when it's cold, then it's MY responsibility to determine whether or not it's cold. Lying has no moral consideration. Though it is widely considered to be an undesirable behavior just the same. Off the top of my head, if you committed to verbally helping a blind man across the street and fail to do so, this is the only scenario I can think of where dishonesty is the initiation of the use of force since your words directly put him in harm's way.

Thanks for the input, guys. @PatrickC: I looked into that and it looked like it would be acceptable. However, the only shock mount that seems to be available for it costs three times what others do. Might steer clear of that for that reason alone. There is a local shop that has the Yeti though, so I'm going to give them a call and see what a total outfit would run. @HordoftheFlies: I too am not interested in having something covering my ears. I should've specified that I'm looking for USB. I know enough people that if I asked around, I could probably get a used setup to convert XLR for cheap, but I'd rather just cut out the middle man since so many are available in USB. I did see the name Rode. In fact, I seem to remember a couple vids of Stef's that had a shotgun-looking mic with that name on the foam. I could be mistaken. Their price tag doesn't scare me too much since it seems like with them, I'd most certainly get what I paid for. @shirgall: That's cool. I noticed it said it has an internal pop filter. Do you think that would be adequate? I was already of the mind to have one, but it seems as if the ones that are integrated into the shock mount are rather obtrusive. It would be really cool to have one that was internal.

Not sure about price range. I've found some cardioid condenser USB mics, shock mount, pop filter, and scissor boom packages for less than $200 on Amazon. It's one of those things that I've wanted for various reasons over the years. So on the one hand, I'm not sure how much I'd use it once I had it (a lot at first, but would it last?) so I don't want to spend too much. On the other hand, I want it to be good quality so I'm not out having to re-buy it later on out of dissatisfaction/underperformance. From the quality standpoint, I don't think sub $200 is so bad. But I'm pretty new to the whole idea, so I don't know. I'd be using it for things like Skype, podcasting, streaming, voice overs etc. I don't think it would go to recording music/vocals.

Lying is not immoral. The truth about YOUR life is like any other property of yours: you can give it and withhold it however you see fit. When you plan a surprise party, you're taking somebody else's time without their consent. Obviously it's not a sinister thing, but if you're looking for moral clarity, there you go.

I was wondering if anybody had suggestions on a good microphone. I was thinking I would want a standalone mic, but I'm open to hearing arguments for headsets instead. I'm not one for getting overly excited or randomly screaming, but a mic that doesn't distort even under those circumstances would be a must. Also, ambient noise cancelation would be useful since I do have roommates and I'm set up near the laundry room.

Why not? He clearly has. When somebody says to you, "I believe what I believe because I want to believe it," then the claim that evidence may not be reliable isn't a mark of skepticism, but of bias confirmation. It also reveals that "real" isn't actually a standard he lives by, just one he's willing to cart out when it suits his bias. You can't have a mathematical discussion with somebody who, on a whim, will suddenly shift into a world where 2+2=5 is valid. Just as you wouldn't be able to have a conversation in English with somebody who doesn't speak English; It's just two people who communicate in incompatible fashions.

First start within yourself. Accepting your own capacity for error, calling things by their proper names, rational thought, self-knowledge, etc... These things go a long way for your own personal values. The you can influence your immediate surroundings by living your values. This means not initiating the use of force, identifying it in others, and not socializing or otherwise allowing those who support violence the benefit of your company. Finally, you can familiarize yourself with research regarding psychopathy and aggression in humans and their roots in child abuse. Help spread the word so we can cultivate a generation of people who don't speak the language of aggression. In a couple/few generations, things like the State will be surreal, not unlike class slavery is for us today.

Stuff that has brought you to a point where you feel "completely unable to trust [your]self." Wasn't that the problem that motivated you to create this thread to solicit thoughts and advice from others? How is doing "stuff" relevant if that stuff didn't lead you to a place where you feel able to trust yourself? For that matter, if you don't trust yourself, how can you be so sure that calling things by their proper names will be of no use to you? This is what I meant when I said you cannot address a problem you don't understand. Let me reiterate what we've said, but substitute a different problem in: You: I feel flawed because my appetite has not satiated. Me: When was the last time you ate? If you are hungry, it's your body's signal that you are in need of additional nourishment. You: Sure I haven't eaten in a while, but what does that matter? Everybody has gone a spell without eating. I've done other stuff since then. The ability to call things by their proper names will enhance your capabilities in every situation. Correctly identifying your environment is essential to survival after all. You're essentially owning the "flaw" when it's not your flaw. If you don't understand that it's not your flaw, any attempt you make under the premise that it is your flaw will not address the problem. A particularly strong tel tale sign is your minimizing what was done to you by saying it's done to everybody. "It's okay that I got raped because everybody else was too." Even if that were true, it's not okay! You're experiencing enough anxiety over this to reach out to others for help, which is a good thing. Doesn't it at all upset you that this helplessness was inflicted upon you by people you couldn't escape, whom you were dependent upon, who owed you their protection from such a thing? I don't think you'll be able to address this in a meaningful manner until you do. If I could not tell the difference between a tiger and a domesticated cat, I wouldn't trust my decision making skills either. There's real value in being able to call things by their proper names. It's also important to not be okay with being victimized. Your last post wholly excused those responsible for the very problem you're seeking help for.

I think this is a false premise. Sneaking into a 2nd movie isn't comparable to mass genocide. I think I could argue it both ways, though I feel my argumentation for sneaking into a 2nd movie is theft would be weaker. Arguments for it is theft: The fact that he's sneaking denotes that he believes it is wrong and trying to get away with it. A theater is private property and the owner only allows the public in certain areas without having bought a ticket. When you buy a ticket, it denotes admittance to one showing of one movie. Arguments for it is not theft: They restrict access to certain areas of this private property on the basis of whether or not you've purchased A ticket. They tend to not restrict access by way of purchasing a ticket for a specific theater at a specific time bracket. Even though they know that people might partake of more than one movie. Also, the 2nd movie would be running in that room whether anybody had bought a ticket or not, so his presence in that theater isn't binding upon anybody else (except for a sold out show). Lack of binding upon others is a strong case for not theft. The strongest case for theft is that a ticket indicates one movie one time. In terms of contractual agreements, this is implicit at best. My bias: The entertainment industry is way too willing to make use of the violence of the State to force people to subsidize their efforts. I wonder how effective it would be to have scanners at the entrance of each individual theater that scanned for the presence of A ticket, and magnetically scanned to verify it was for that movie and time slot.

Somebody whose servitude is involuntary. How's that?

It's good to be skeptical. It's good to keep in mind that sometimes what's offered as evidence is made up. As long as it doesn't prevent somebody from accepting the value of evidence and agreeing that it's important all the same. I also think it's good that they're aware that they have that bias and that they're willing to share it with you. I can't really tell just by the text provided: Was this a hostile protest or a segue into a conversation about evidence? What was the topic of discussion? I find the leap to space as an example to be a curious one. Were you guys talking about something commonly intangible such as space?

I use Page Plus Cellular. VERY cheap prepaid if you don't use your phone much. They have minute cards in $10, 25, 50, and 80 (each one significantly more value than the last). Buying one of those cards makes you good with them for 120 days. If you don't use up all the minutes up in that time, just put SOMETHING onto the account to extend it another 120 days while keeping all the minutes you already had. I usually go for the high value ones and then if I find I'm stockpiling minutes, I'll use a $10 just to extend the time frame. They send you a text message if you're ever low on minutes or about to run out of time from that 120 day window. They make use of Verizon's network.

What are YOUR thoughts? You shared it without providing any reason as to why somebody should take a look at it. I started reading with high hopes since the author was being rather meticulous with his defining his terms. Then I got to this part: Followed by: He's essentially asking the wrong question. He's starting from the false assumption that people commanding others without their consent (the State) is righteous/valid/normal. He's trying to figure out how to better command others without their consent, which isn't empathetic at all. In as much of it as I read, he's talking about sympathy, not empathy. To that end, he's right that many people allow it to cloud their judgement. In the abstract, people talk about helping the poor, but they never talk about WHY they're poor. Or providing healthcare (by way of force) to people who only need so much of it due to their poor life choices under the assumption that the effects of those poor choices would be subsidized. But WHY do these people hold such buzzwords over rational thought?

Translation: I don't understand something, so I'm going to marginalize it to manage the anxiety I experience over others understanding it. Monogamy is a preference. It's like you're asking somebody to make an argument for flying as opposed to driving. All they can do is tell you the features of both. Which you would prefer is going to be based on your subjective values applied to the features of the options you're considering. If you prefer flying, somebody that prefers walking will only be able to get you to change your preference if they bring up a feature that you hadn't yet considered. That can't happen here. Your very emphatic taunt was a form of boasting that you cannot be swayed. Which is fine. Your preference for your life. But don't pretend that you're seeking counterpoint. Or that logic and reason are meaningless in a community whose definitive common feature is their pursuit of the truth.

When you have the ability to wish currency out of thin air, no two expenditures are mutually exclusive.

Wow, that was really entertaining! Thanks for sharing.

Fines are theft that go to a 3rd party's coffers, so most certainly unethical. I've found that looking at these matters from a property rights standpoint makes it easy to understand for the most part. Let us suppose that I steal your car. Worded in terms of property rights, I have voluntarily created a debt to you in the amount of your car and whatever you invest in recovering that debt. Sharing information is not creating a debt to anybody. There's no victim. Force used against somebody for sharing information would be the initiation of the use of force, which is unethical. Ostracism is a way of punishing somebody by denying them access to you, your honesty, your labor, etc. It is not the initiation of the use of force, so you can make use of it for any reason you choose. Meaning that even if sharing information victimizes nobody, if you find the particular information being shared unsavory, then by all means do not associate with that person. Nothing unethical about that.

I don't think evil means what you think it means. I don't think rejecting a claim means what you think it means. I don't think you understand that quoting somebody saying something doesn't mean it's accurate. Which is an odd thing to miss considering you were using it in an attempt to refute my position, but anybody could then just quote my position and "prove" it to be accurate (by your standards) since it would occur in quote form. I also think your willingness to subjugate others has led you to misunderstanding what a "boss" does. He sees to it that the business is run smoothly. This does not mean he owns his employees. This does not mean that he can render his employees' experiences invalid for the sake of his own comfort. Fake humility is fake.