dsayers

Deflection and manipulation. If Hitler said 2+2=4, it would still be true.

Pick one. These claims are mutually exclusive. Survey's measure people's subjective experiences and cannot determine that which is objectively true.

This position has the luxury of having no null hypothesis and when followed to its logical conclusion, says there's no such thing as immorality. Because it doesn't matter if I'm enslaved, at least they haven't bound my mouth yet. Or it doesn't matter that they've bound your mouth as they continue to allow your heart to pump. Or it doesn't matter that they've caused your heart to stop beating, because they didn't do it to your neighbor also. You don't own me. You don't get to decide what is of value to me or why. You don't get to decide what is helpful to me. I do not consent! Only a slave talks as if their ability to speak is given to them from without. And only a fool refers to the ways in which people are aggressed against every day as free speech. And only a liar pretends to be able to predict the future and on alternate timelines.

Really? The fact that he wanted to rule over 300 million people wasn't sufficient? That's true. A person can be both a tyrant and formerly a philanthropist. But to turn your standard on its head, "decades of philanthropy" does not negate a willingness to rule over 300 million people.

Choosing any master to be inflicted upon others is immoral. Doing it for the express purpose of avoiding a specific other potential master just means they've found the carrot that will get you to override your values and play along for one more song.

Yeah, the other hand here is along the better path for sure. With regards to the first part, if you're waiting for that change, you will perpetually be disappointed. BE the change. In the context of this conversation, that would include not wasting your time or outwardly dignifying institutionalized violence by trying to figure out the best way to implement it. This only serves to conceal the violence. Is that deliberate? What do you mean by "have to use force"? If you're referring to things like the ways in which people file their taxes, this is done under credible threat of violence. Failure to pay your taxes in the way they've commanded they think you should will result in further theft. Which pays their salaries, and so on. There is no such thing as a violence-free politician. Because if people were free to decline, they wouldn't have the perceived power their position lends them and if they have the perceived power their position lends them, people are not free to decline under credible threat of violence.

As a follow up to my last post, I've written a more formal "proof" here. If you're not sure what I mean, why not look it up? Poisoning the well is a well (no pun intended) documented logical fallacy. Worry not, as you've engaged in more of the same right here. Your use of the words "allow," "degredation," and "Western values" are poisoning the well. Here, "allow" holds people who are not responsible accountable by implying an unchosen positive obligation, which on the meta level, you are expressing pride for shaming the act of not fulfilling that obligation in others. "Degredation" is meant to invoke an unsavory emotional response as if something existing is somehow proof that it ought to exist and never evolve or be replaced. "Western civilization" is vague and meant to solicit an emotional response as if these words are automatically benevolent or righteous. Yes, I realize that you went on to elucidate some of that vagueness. However, even there, you are poisoning the well by using words like respect and freedom. It is sophistry. A moment's rational consideration quickly reveals that participating in the continuation of the enslavement of human beings is neither respectful nor freedom. The fact that your language is manipulative reveals that this is not a conversation AND they you understand that your position lacks merit. Otherwise, you would be precise and welcome challenges to those ideas because they would only serve to galvanize your ideas if they were accurate. That you have to initiate the use of force against others to further ideas shows that maybe the ideas aren't such hot shit after all. *I* respect women by giving them responsibility, holding them accountable, and not trying to inflict my will upon them. Care to join me?

https://steemit.com/anarchism/@dsayers/logical-proof-that-political-voting-is-immoral When I first started learning to think rationally, accepting my own capacity for error, and recognizing the ways in which those who "taught" me were inflicting conclusions upon me, I went back to question all of the conclusions I carried to determine if my understanding of them were accurate. This can be an important endeavor for us all so that we can survive with greater efficiency by way of having a more accurate understanding of the world we live in. For if we think we have the answer, we stop looking for answers that might be (more) accurate. For millenia, religions and governments have used the word "moral(ity)" to describe their whims in attempt to have their desires viewed as factual, methodical, and above scrutiny. As a result, many people misunderstand or undervalue morality, seeing it as merely an opinion. While I appreciate the ability to reject dogma, it's important that we not throw out the baby with the bath water. Morality is still a very powerful tool. We just need to keep in mind that only a description of morality that is objective would fit the bill of what many people think morality is supposed to do. Namely, to prescribe what people ought to do. Trying to prescribe what people ought to do, in the absence of clarity, can be a challenging endeavor. It is essentially an unchosen obligation, 99.9% of which are unethical in proposition. Therefore, we would have to identify a prescription for behavior that is in fact voluntarily chosen. How, in a vacuum, are we able to determine what people would choose in every situation at all times? They would have to be behaviors that are performative contradictions. That is, behaviors that the very act of engaging in them would be the communication that such behaviors are wrong. Thankfully, the list of these behaviors is very short: Theft, assault, rape, and murder. When somebody steals, they are using their labor to deprive another of the effects of their labor. Assault and rape are the use of one's body to deprive another the use of their body. Finally, murder is using one's life to deprive another of their life. Each of these behaviors are performative contradictions by virtue of the very definition of what these behaviors entail. Namely that in each behavior, the recipient has not consented to their participation in that behavior. Consent therefore is the measure by which a behavior can be determined to be (im)moral. There are a couple of caveats worth mentioning. The first is implied consent. While consent cannot be implied, there are situations were a person cannot consent. Such as a person who is unconscious in the middle of a road designated for automobile travel. It is reasonable to expect that the person would consent to be withdrawn from harm's way if they were able to consent. It would not be immoral in this scenario to exercise ownership over that person's body by moving them without having first secured their consent. The other important caveat is coercion. If a person was to threaten you with harm if you did not engage in a particular behavior, they are taking from you the voluntary choice that would make your behavior eligible for moral consideration. If for example an attacker were to point a gun at you and tell you to empty a cash register, you would not be guilty of theft. Here, the debt created by the theft would accrue to the person using the gun to force somebody else to do something. Keep in mind that this is only true when the threat is credible. If somebody were to make an outlandish claim--a threat that they could not reasonably carry out--the threat would not override the free will of the intended "victim." Along my journey of re-evaluating the conclusions I held, I had at one point been told that political voting was immoral. The explanation given was philosophically sound, so I accepted this unpopular conclusion. At a later time, I was exposed to what I felt was a very convincing argument as to why political voting is in fact not immoral. The argument being that the person elected is free to decline and therefore any initiation of the use of force was originating from the elected official and not the people telling the person such immorality was okay by way of condoning it with their vote. Upon further consideration, I've come to realize that this argument is insufficient. The fact is that we know that a State-enforced policy or politician will initiate the use of force against all within a given geographical area. This would make voting for them a credible threat to bind others without their consent. I do not think the fact that the candidate could decline is sufficient because a reasonable person would expect that they will. Which they do even by accepting a paycheck, which comes from money stolen from people in the name of taxation. My apologies to those whom I may have mislead by previously claiming that voting is not immoral. As I stated in the beginning, it is very valuable to question your conclusions and the conclusions of others. Be vigilant in protecting your mind from bad ideas and be willing to accept when you were wrong. Make the necessary correction as I have here. Thank you for reading, my brothers and sisters. Please help your friends, family, and neighbors to understand the ways in which the State is violence and encourage them to do the right thing. Set an example, encourage them to follow your example, and do not reward them with the pleasure of your company if they would use that violence to harm you or others.

Nature. Well "punishment" is a statist (fantasy) question. If phrased accurately--"Does the criminal consent to the restitution they pay?"--the answer is yes! If I were to assault you, I would be voluntarily creating a debt to you. Restitution is the settling of that debt (which can include counter-force). But this question does nothing to identify whether morality is arrived upon by popular vote or by way of a lack of consent. I answered it anyways because the answer serves to demonstrate the ways in which you can KNOW that you can discard any espoused version of morality that is subjective. As everybody who wields the terms means to prescribe what people OUGHT to do. In this context, any idea of morality which was subjective could not be universalized and would be mere opinion. Meanwhile, as described above, a person engaging in theft, assault, rape, and murder is telling you by their very actions that their behavior is wrong. Because they're using their labor/body/life to deprive you of yours. Taking it back to your original challenge of voting, those who understand objective morality understand that a credible threat is equivalent to what is being threatened in terms of identifying the behavior as coercive. A vote is a threat to inflict a specific policy/ruler onto others and the fact that there is a mechanism in place to realize that coercion, the threat is credible. Since those having it inflicted upon them did not consent, the act is immoral. Thank you for following up here. The effort I put into explaining this helped me to reconcile my instinct with rationality in a way that allows me to communicate how political voting IS in fact immoral.

If you accept that rape is immoral, what is the point in trying to figure out the best way to rape? This isn't aimed at you so much as it is at the idea of concerning ourselves with minutia/symptoms when we could instead be addressing the problem.

Popularity isn't the measure of morality. Consent is.

One of the benefits of following logic, reason, and evidence is that there's no need to be emotionally invested. I'm not sure why you'd want to piss people off. Seems kind of sadistic. The only people I can think of that deserve to be pissed off are those trying to rule over others. Which they're not going to be for as long as people continue to beg for a master to save them. I didn't watch the video because the title is disingenuous. Too many people use the word "support" when they mean agree with. It's a way of duping themselves into thinking they're actually doing something by agreeing.

Right, but what group? The question isn't meant to diminish the explanation you provided afterwards. Which was quite good and fair. I understand that I have the minority opinion with regards to women and makeup amid society at large. However, the point of contention is your claims that status can be objectively measured and that SK cannot. I think the former is false despite your solid explanation, and I think the two are comparable and therefore could not experience opposite identities here. For example, imagine two cars on the road. In the one, you have a playboy driving the 2017 Overcompensator, with 3 dimes in expensive clothing. In the car behind him, you have a homely couple, in second hand clothes, driving a car that is 20 years old and rusting out. In the back seat are two delightful children who are very friendly and intelligent because they are being raised in a loving home. Which of these cars is a greater indication of status? How do you know? If there is more than one answer, I think this would serve as proof that status cannot be objectively verified. For the purpose of defining terms, when I say objective, I mean exists/valid independent of individual consciousness.

Absolutely, and I really respect you experiencing that motivation! I was just talking with a friend last night about how it's one thing for us as men to recognize the ways in which society destroys and invalidates men. However, when a woman stands up, rejecting the "easy" path that narrative provides for her, rebuking her abusive sisters, calling out for education and actively working against that narrative, the message is just that much more potent. So while the message is definitely what matters, it will be that much better received because it's coming from somebody who would benefit from keeping it hidden. So thank you for your integrity. Please stay strong, my brother.

I've actually been thinking about that claim more. I was previously of the mind that voting was immoral. Then I was convinced it wasn't because the ruler could choose not to violate property rights. However, lately I've been reconsidering whether that is sufficient. By this I mean that a candidate vows to violate property rights and is grasping a tool by which such things are required and perceived as legitimate. So just as a reasonable person understands that unprotected sex will result in pregnancy, a reasonable person would also understand that giving somebody permission to violate property rights will lead to the violation of property rights. I've been waiting for the hysteria to die down here in hopes of having a rational discussion on the topic.

I understand the point you were trying to make, and agree that it is important for everybody that was putting stock into the election to realize that the election is over, and they could be doing things to improve their lives and the lives of those around them. That said, I just wanted to point out that both "the catastrophe" and "been averted" are not speaking the truth. I'm address the narrative, not you in particular. The catastrophe was not as the pro-Trump/voting FDR'ers made it out to be. The catastrophe is mass acceptance of institutionalized violence, which their prescription only fed. So not only was it feeding the real problem, but even by the "catastrophe" narrative, it has not been averted. Because no one man has such power and because the car was already going off the cliff. MAYBE we can postpone it, but we can't stop it.

I think you're flip-flopping and avoiding my challenge. First, you reference height, which we can whip out a tape measure and determine almost in an instant. Then you talking about studying aggregates over a long period of time, which still isn't units or a tool, but will not apply that same possibility to self-knowledge. It's not consistent, which seems dishonest. Then you mention makeup as a veneer for sex and red lips. However, I've communicated numerous times that makeup is a turn OFF for me and that part of the reason this is my experience now is because I LOVE the red lips when they occur naturally. Yet you continue to leapfrog over this feedback to re-assert your conclusion, which doesn't fit as long as somebody can hold the preference that I do, making it very clearly subjective despite your objective, absolute claim.

A fair statement. Thank you for defining your terms. However I don't think this substantiates your claim that status can be objectively measured or addresses my claim that they cannot be. Using your own standard (which is also fair), what is the unit of status? What tool measures it? It seems like a form of begging the question. I stand here telling you barring all other variables, that I would hold an identical twin without makeup to be of higher status than the one choosing to wear makeup, yet you are claiming that makeup is objectively an indication of higher status. How do you reconcile this empirical evidence to the contrary of your position? As for the rest of your post, you're right. "Self-knowledge" is such a broad term, encompassing any number of topics, that there would be no way to quantify it or compare it in others. However, I still think my examples are fair. If one person accepts the truth while another responds with emotional bias, that is one indication of a self-knowledge disparity. And so on.

I stopped reading here. You're trying to sneak in the claim that "Natural Law" (an unnecessary obfuscation in and of itself) is seen in supernatural and... This is a self-detonating claim. @DaVinci: I don't know if what you're doing is describing the same thing in a different way, but I do think that simple vs complex (Occam's Razor) is a useful guide for categorizing the essence of order vs chaos. Does that make sense? Referring to the picture, the example of chaos looks VERY orderly. But look at the amount of labor invested to achieve it. It's not simple by any means. Sure, the tree put a lot of effort into producing the order, but that was natural. I once argued that our interdependence is proof of peace as the default. Perhaps a way of explaining the phenomenon referred to as spontaneous order. Which the State actively invests in disrupting for the sake of control. Like the picture, it is the illusion of order while being the opposite of order. Which refutes Donna's implication that we need a State in order to achieve freedom.

I appreciate what you're doing here. I admire your willingness to do what's right when what's right isn't what's easy. Thanks for speaking up. Just so you know, Stef had done a Truth About Slavery (maybe not that exact title; don't recall) and he points this out. I also wanted to point out that I don't think black vs white has been about slavery for a while now. It's been about race baiting. It's a way of breeding dissent from within by telling one group that the other group thinks down on them. This is why I've never experienced racism: Because my mind's too strong to fall for that shit.

Well played! I respect that. Imagine you entered into a cell phone contract and one stipulation of that contract was that you could not make use of any of their competitors for 4 years. Then you go to make a phone call and find you have no connectivity anywhere, ever. You can draw attention to any of this and you'd be right. Would that be holding them accountable? I suppose in the literal sense, but the market couldn't correct for it until 4 years later. They would thrive as if they're meeting customers' needs for 4 years. I don't think this qualifies for holding them accountable. Holding them accountable would look like they provide a shitty (no) service, so they get replaced by somebody who could serve their customers needs better. Side note: Ready for the punchline? NOBODY would enter into such a contract voluntarily. But when it comes to running a nation--something that lots of people here argued is so vital we have to turn to State violence to preserve--no cognitive dissonance. People who are smart enough to see this. People who were TRAINED to see exactly this RIGHT HERE. Boggles the mind really.

The only impregnable wall I see is closed minds who say things like this. I'm free and the only impregnable walls I run into are the people who refuse to be free even when they all the components right in front of them as well as numerous models. Define order. I think you're poisoning the well here, but want to double check before proceeding. A lot of people get this one confused in the context of the State. Here's an illustration of what I mean:

Higher status can't be measured objectively because preferences are subjective. To me, a woman confident/pragmatic enough to not wear makeup in a world where that is the norm is of higher status. How do you know that self-knowledge and self-worth cannot be measured objectively? Seems like begging the question to me. An assertion. Is a person willing to call things by their proper name? Are they willing to acknowledge their bias? Are they willing to ask questions that (the answer) might be uncomfortable, but will lead towards the truth? Do they aspire to grow? Are they willing to challenge others to grow? All of this is observable. Even if I am wrong about that, I'm not sure what difference it makes. Saying something cannot be measured objectively doesn't mean it is of no value. If your point is that we meet people's likenesses before we meet them, then say that. Though that too would not be the end of the road, eh? Because those of us with self-knowledge would acknowledge that and adjust accordingly. For example, I make a concerted effort not to treat (attractive) women differently just for that reason. Good discussion by the way. This is a topic I wish I could talk more about but have found way too many females unwilling to broach the topic without taking it personally. Not suggesting you are a female, but addressing my feeling of constraint of opportunity to flesh these ideas out and gather the feedback/thoughts of others on the subject.

As with any election. This doesn't answer the question. I was curious as to what neeeel had in mind.

In reputation only though, eh? In what way would Trump supports be able to hold him accountable should he not live up to their expectations? One of my null hypotheses prior to the election is that there is no way of knowing what he will do and no apparatus in place to hold him to what he's said.