dsayers

Who could possibly know? Also, I think we're approaching the idea differently. You're talking about voluntarily separating from the tribe and I was referring to one person subjugating another for domination's sake. I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner. For whatever reason, it had escaped me why I had come to the conclusion that it's probable we once lacked the capacity for reason. Which I will share now that I've remembered. Present day, we understand that aggression is the result of childhood trauma. That child is traumatized because their parents were traumatized. Their parents were traumatized because THEIR parents... It becomes an infinite regression. There had to be an origin. I doubt it was one dude got bonked on the head, tried to dominate another person, and everybody abandoned peaceful life to compete in domination. I think it's a simpler explanation (assuming Darwinism is valid enough) that we were once sub-capacity for reason and as we developed reason, we were already amid a cycle of violence that we've perpetuated to this day out of culture/habit. What do you think about that? This isn't something I'm certain of, but these are my thoughts on it.

This is not only begging the question, but begging a question that has already been answered. There's only one thing in the world that you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence: violence. For clarity's sake, my use of the word violence is meant to indicate the initiation of the use of force / violation of property rights. So your claim of necessary evil was not established, cannot be derived from what preceded until it is established, and has now been refuted. Additionally, I think you're intentionally not including your bias as revealed in this thread. It's rather important because just as with your claim of necessary evil, your attempt at addressing the subject matter seems to be from the origin of already presuming it's outcome. The very definition of begging the question.

I remember the first time I even entertained the POSSIBILITY that there is no deity, I became terrified of being banished to hell and full of guilt for daring to defy "Him." I was in my teens, but still. Nobody has the right to inflict that sort of thing on a young person. @Jamesican: I am very happy for you that you were able to overcome the indoctrination at such a young age. As for advice, could you provide more info like Pepin asked? And if you don't mind typing more, could you share how you came to overcome the indoctrination? How did you find FDR? Thanks for sharing

How do you know? According to you, violence is integral and considering humans in a separate category from beasts is arbitrary. How do you arrive at rape is immoral without giving the victim personhood? You also mentioned "our nature." Near as I can tell, there's only two things that can truthfully be said about human nature: we adapt and we seek out the most resources for the least amount of risk/effort. Since co-operating with others is a way of adapting to a world where others exist and not incurring the ire of others allows for the gathering of resources with reduced risk/effort, the elements that are true of "human nature" could be motivators for peaceful interaction. It's superfluous to say that if you're right, your might is right. To say that rape is immoral is to say that the use of force to arrest rape is moral.

Your honesty is like your property in that you don't owe it to anybody. You can give it out as you see fit. Withholding honesty can promote self-preservation in a number of scenarios and its important for people to break free from the indoctrination that honesty is a virtue and owed to everybody at all times. I used to be concerned that dishonesty during the commission of acquiring a job set me up for being fired later on. A friend I was discussing this with pointed out that if I impress whomever I'm working for, they won't be looking for a reason to fire me and that if they want to fire me, they'll find a reason even if they don't see a typo on your resume. I would try to keep it as honest as possible without sabotaging yourself. Sometimes the people they have conducting interviews are trained to spot dishonesty. Fortunately, the good ones understand that identifying WHY somebody lied about something is more important than the fact that they lied about it. I try to avoid platitudes, but just wanted to end with: Never gamble something you cannot afford to lose.

It reveals that the standard they hold isn't dogmatic, but for the sake of social acceptance. Which is fine (I think, at least for as long as they're not initiating the use of force) up to the point where their position is challenged and they respond by assuming the challenger is automatically in the wrong.

What does rude (subjective) have to do with anything? Psychopathy is seeing other people as not people at all. His position that violence is good, necessary, that people are people is arbitrary fits. When something looks like an apple, tastes like an apple, and smells like an apple, it is not rude to consider the possibility that it is an apple. Nor is it rude to share my honest thought process with others. If I emulated a psychopath, for others to consider that I might be a psychopath would follow. No imagination necessary. Instead of pointing a finger at me, have you made an effort to identify why my honesty has that particular emotional response in you? Because trying to shame somebody for something unshameful is manipulative, which I don't think is a healthy way to manage one's anxiety.

?! The exception you're referring to would be the result of genetic deformity or head trauma. If it's an anomaly, then why do you suppose that those who were party to that anomaly's immoral behaviors would seek irrational "solutions" to something that's so not a problem it's understood to be an anomaly? I don't know what you're talking about here. Where did waiting come from? You painted this improbable scenario as if it's worthy of consideration and I pointed out why it's improbable. The waiting you're describing would come AFTER the scenario. I think you missed the point of what I was saying. The idea that somebody could be so self-sufficient that they could get away with heinous immoral acts while immune to ostracism is so far-fetched, it cannot possibly serve as proof that violence is necessary. This is like saying that people have a saving's account so they can live forever. The saving account (like the preparations you're referring to) are a temporary buffer until such a time as a new, stable influx of resources can be established. I don't see the connection you're making between private property and the dark stuff you're talking about. It appears you've conflated the non-INITIATION of force with pacifism, which is the non-USE of force. Do you understand the difference?

Can you identify anybody in the history of man that has made such a claim? Joining just to post this raises suspicions.

Great feedback here. When I first received the PM, I took issue with the phrase "throw around" and the word "accusations." If I observe an apple fall to the ground, to say that the apple fell to the ground is not an accusation. To call it an accusation is to redefine the neutral act of observation as a fault of the person doing the observing. The phrase throw around takes something non-physical and gives it a physical overtone. Whether the intent is to portray it as violent or reckless, it too redefines the neutral act of observation as dangerous. I didn't feel I could answer the question because through this manipulative language, it was clear no question was being asked. The conclusion was already made and was issued as the very accusation it pretended to frown upon. There was no curiosity. There was no room for discussion. Which is also why I knew it would not be fruitful to try and point out the manipulative language it contained. I was hoping that others being able to point it out would help the person to understand that it wasn't just me. I know that if I was using manipulative language UNINTENTIONALLY, that it being pointed out would be a valuable opportunity for self-knowledge. If however I was using it intentionally, then I would definitely want to appeal to the insecurities of somebody that could see through it and double down in the face of any attempt to rationally shrug it off. Anyways, thanks for the feedback. It helped me to see aspects of it that I wasn't able to on my own.

Politicians avoid repercussions by threatening violence against anybody that doesn't accept them as being in a different moral category. That amount of effort is evidence of my claim, not proof that it is false. Maybe you missed my use of the inclusive "and". Exercise in theory leads to reduced risk, not increased. People have free will. The fact that people eat candy bars does not invalidate the claim that a salad has more nutritional value than a candy bar. I even mentioned rejecting reality in favor of fantasy in my last post.

I've been trying to figure out if he's a troll or a psychopath.

I agree that present day, peaceful interaction is the default since the initiation of the use of force is antithetical to self-preservation. The State is not a rational conclusion, but present due to momentum. I assume there was a point where it all began. I've wondered if at this point, humans lacked the capacity for reason and therefore had no reason to NOT aggress against others. Meaning that we've evolved without revising the way in which we solve problems. Which wouldn't be a surprise since aggression dramatically impairs innovation. We are social creatures and we imitate the behaviors that are modeled for us in an attempt to coalesce with our environment for survival's sake. I think this is why it's crucial that we teach and model peaceful interactions so that the day will come where all of this will be a bad fairy tale.

I have sensitive hearing. I always play everything as quietly as I can. If I'm mowing the lawn or using power tools, I use hearing protection. I often have my hand on the volume controls if I'm watching a movie or something since Hollywood seems to think that we don't need to hear plot-driving dialogue, but they'll be damned if they don't shove every single shard of a glass break down our ears. If potential hearing loss is a concern, you should do the same. When you're playing whatever it is you're playing, bump the volume down a notch. If you can still understand everything, bump it down another notch. Go slowly so your ears have a chance to adjust. The quieter the ambient, the lower volume you will need. This is part of the reason why I've stopped listening to an MP3 player while mowing the lawn.

LMAO! Superstition makes people do some pretty insane things. We were recently hired by a guy who wanted us to find a guy. The reason? He needed his signature in order to be able to exhume a family member's remains to cremate them and scatter the ash elsewhere. When I heard about this, I just laughed. I don't know what the end expense was for all of that, including hiring us.

Could you be forthcoming please? You went from asking if accepting the property rights of others is dogmatic to asking why we should bother if its not. Since your 2nd question preempts the 1st, it seems to be a more efficient approach to lead with that. Asking why we should accept the property rights of others is like asking why we should accept that apples are edible. Is the fact that it's an accurate description of the real world not sufficient? I frame it in this fashion because it's a mechanism of survival. The better you understand the world you live in, the more efficiently you can maneuver within it. If you initiate the use of force against others, you give them a reason to harm you. It takes more effort than NOT initiating the use of force and incurs greater risk. Also, when you choose to not accept the property rights of others, you're denying them that choice. It's self-contradictory to accept your property rights as you reject the property rights of others. To initiate the use of force, you're essentially rejecting reality in favor of a fantasy world, hence the impact to happiness.

In the world of voluntary exchange, this is an indication that you'd rather have your 50 than the vision of these things. Therefore, if those things were to go away, you might not like it, but you'd like it even less if your 50 went away. No problem.

Ironclad, have you examined why it is that you need for violence to be righteous? I ask because this is a philosophy forum. Saying that you CAN kill others and CAN be killed by others doesn't really help bring us closer to understanding what virtue and ethics are. If you initiate the use of force, you are impairing your ability to survive by invoking the ire of something that could kill you. We have the capacity for reason, which includes our ability to override our biological imperative to survive in order to seek solutions that involve less risk/effort.

Any updates?

People who choose not to eat meat don't have difficulty identifying meat as food. One could argue that claiming that they do is the inability to distinguish

This is another reason why I dislike the use of the acronym. If this confusion is in fact what we're seeing, then that's our (those who understand) fault for being imprecise when precision is not tedious. I mean, look at how many people see "initiation of the use of force" and interpret it as "the use of force" despite it potentially changing the moral identity of a behavior. Or how many people see non-aggression and mistake it for pacifism. Those things are not our fault, but I think we can help those who can be helped more by avoiding abbreviations that we see lead to confusion.

Manipulators and abusers who are sophisticated enough to try and not get caught prefer to use language rather than physical violence. The cycle of subjugation spans pretty much all of recorded history so it's no surprise that those who are inundated with it from birth might have difficulty identifying tell tale signs, even in their own behaviors. I've just received a PM that I wanted to share (anonymously) as a sort of test for these tell tale signs: Based on this text alone, is this person being manipulative? If so, how do you know? How many tell tale signs are present here? I am not an expert, but I can identify two signs of manipulation here.

@blackfish: Still don't know what you're saying, nor do I recognize any attempt to answer the questions I've asked. When people lose a sense, yes their other senses become heightened both because resources are freed up that would've been dedicated to interpreting the now missing sense and as a biological workaround to aide in survival amid a missing sense. Similarly, people who are abused can normalize, internalize, repress, etc as a workaround. However, unlike losing a sense, this strategy isn't permanent. Habit might make it difficult to overcome, but science has indicated it's not permanent. Since you won't be forthcoming with the details, I can't say for sure. But it seems to me like you're choosing to take the easy way out and rationalizing it. I'm not faulting you for that. I am encouraging you to be honest at least with yourself about it.

Animals do not have the capacity for reason. Their behaviors are a direct response to biological imperatives. They don't choose because they don't understand what choice is, what the consequences of their choices are, how to compare that to alternatives, etc.

I must be. I mean, you said so. Why would you make that up? I suppose I should think about what I did. Because you said so. Not because that's something you're willing to do. You know, putting forth a standard you exempt yourself form is the definition of manipulative.