dsayers

This sounds like you're trying to correct a problem before identifying it as being a problem. With 7 billion people on the planet, you're bound to be dressed like some of them no matter how you dress. It doesn't mean you're like those people, or that people can be categorized by their manner of dress. I only bring this up because some people change their manner of dress because they're motivated to change SOMETHING. Not saying this is true of you, nor do I think it is. But I don't think it's as important to distance yourself from toxic people by way of your clothes as it is by way of your thoughts and actions. That's said, there's nothing wrong with such a large change or such a sudden one as long as you're aware of WHY you're doing it. People for better or worse will judge other people first by their appearance since that is usually the first information they get about them. So there's nothing wrong with presenting yourself a certain way if it's not meant to manipulate others.

We don't walk around with our arms up in front of our face despite the fact that we don't want to get hit in the face. This is because almost all of the time, we're not under a credible threat of being hit in the face. Our privacy on the other hand is constantly being invaded by ill-meaning, very aggressive people. Making us more defensive of such things in general. That's my external theory. My internal theory is that we live in a world where people have things they don't want to come to light. Whether its chemical dependency, being abusive in relationships... Features of their dysfunctional coping of trauma that was inflicted upon them that they do not understand enough to know that it's not their fault and they're not alone. They find solace in having a persona that they put forth for others and privacy is a way to conceal this. I agree that in a free society, privacy isn't going to be of much importance simply because we'd have less to hide and way fewer people to hide it from.

How does this help you going forward?

I see the onus as being the other way around. If we were married and WE chose to celebrate that fact at specified intervals in specified ways, that's where aesthetics comes in. If instead we chose to do that same thing because that's what everybody else does, that is not a rational conclusion. It's pretty harmless, so I'm not suggesting that not engaging in arbitrary celebrations is binding upon others. I just think there's better ways of enjoying one another than perpetuating superstitions of the past. For what it's worth, I used to be very rituatlistic with regards to my birthday. Never worked on my birthday, vegged to the max. It was a me day because growing up, there was almost nothing ME about my life. Once I began to study philosophy and pursue self-knowledge, the desire to celebrate my birthday disappeared almost completely even though I think there's never been a better time to celebrate who I am and have become despite the barriers I had to overcome to do so.

So first it was that I wasn't responding and when I pointed out that I did respond, now it's something else. Thank you for being consistent in your demonstration of lack of interest in accuracy. My time is for people pursuing the truth.

How do you know? What if such things incentivized a young person to do things for the encouragements of others instead of for the increase in their own ability to survive and more efficiently? What happens when they grow up and those encouragements become fewer and farther apart? I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I do think that it's in opposition of teaching rational thought. I also think it's something that IS overdone today and for the nonsensical reason of tradition.

Why should something so wonderful only be celebrated periodically? Why is that period 365 days? I would argue that celebrating that you love your wife because the Earth is in the same position relative to the sun as it was when you got married is the definition of arbitrary Not trying to pee on anybody's parade. Even before philosophy and self-knowledge revealed the absurdity of traditions such as culture, nationalism, religion, tribalism, etc I thought that holidays sort of defeated their own purpose. Like the cancer patient you mentioned. I'd wager they view every single day as worth celebrating for being alive, not just the anniversary of when their mother's uterus contracted.

I don't know you. I was classifying the behavior I observed from you. Saying that "self-ownership is a preference" is an assertion, not an argument. It was challenged and the case was made that self-ownership is not a choice and therefore ineligible for the qualification as preference. That WAS my response to your "argument." Which you have avoided outright, simply re-asserting the same conclusion with no explanation, which is bigotry; You believe what you believe because you want to believe it. Again, this is incompatible with the pursuit of accuracy. Accuracy is predicated on there being truth and truth being preferable to falsehood. You demonstrate acceptance of these ideas when you put forth the objective claim that self-ownership is a preference. I've explained how I know it to be not true. So now in order to ante up, you'll not only have to provide how you know your position to be true, but point out in what way my position is not true.

Are you saying that value or well-being are not subjective? It is unclear what purpose is served by your use of the qualifier "your view." They either are or are not. Making it personal only serves to avoid the discussion. Assault, rape, and murder are forms of theft. Where they differ from theft is that they are irreversible. Therefore, in order for bodily harm/death to be a rational response, bodily harm/death must be what it is in response to. The taking of a candy bar is not comparable to killing somebody even though what people value a candy bar to be is subjective. Beyond that, I suspect you are being disingenuous. If I steal your candy bar and you steal my car in response, was that the settling of the debt I voluntarily created or voluntarily creating a new, much larger one? Do you think anybody would have difficulty answering that question? Even if you were somebody that was asked that question and had never driven before, you can look up what people generally pay for a candy bar vs a car and see that they're not comparable.

So basically, you've started with a conclusion, cannot explain how you've arrived at that conclusion, and buck anything that contradicts that conclusion, up to and including baseless claims (when was "fair" or "my thoughts" ever part of our discourse?). This is called bigotry or bias confirmation and is not a characteristic of accuracy.

It's not a belief. X and NOT X cannot simultaneously be true. Whether that's an argument or not, it does refute the claim of validity, as was its purpose. Additionally, your claim of preference, followed by avoiding it's refutation suggests that you are not interested in accuracy. Why then would you originally post under the guise of correction if accuracy was not your purpose?

I would say no, but only because it being tied to the anniversary of being born is arbitrary. If they were peacefully parented, treated as equals, and win-win negotiation was modeled for them, then they were on the next level with regards to everything other than sexuality long before they turn 12.

You've provided no frame of reference. I have no idea what you're talking about.

You made a wild accusation, I sought clarity, you changed the subject. Sorry, but I only spend my time on people interested in the truth.

One can hold such a belief, but the belief would not be valid as it would be internally inconsistent. It's not even a choice. If you can conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences, then you cannot escape the fact that you are then responsible for how you make use of your body, time, and effort. It is a characteristic of the capacity for reason.

Generally speaking, I reject your premise. "Feeling wrong" is not a standard, nor is it objective. As for the questions of defensive force, a LOT of people surprisingly do not realize that the statement "Theft is immoral" DENOTES that the prevention of theft is righteous. If we own ourselves and therefore the effects of our actions, for somebody to steal from me is to voluntarily create a debt to me. Defensive force is the collection of that debt. Within reason; Killing somebody for taking a candy bar is so disparate, that it is not the collection of a debt, but the creation of a new, much larger one. Animals do not have the capacity for reason, which is why they do not own themselves. I thought it seemed odd that you started the thread speaking as if you were doing an analysis on the word "right," and came out of nowhere with an animal cruelty slant. Incompatibility aside, I think being forthcoming is a greater mark of integrity. Especially since in the context of politics, "rights" are indeed fictitious. Lastly, I just wanted to point out that "ancient saying" doesn't denote that it is accurate or principled.

I see the abuse of children as the root of all evil in the world. Alison Gopnik's research has determined that we are currently born naturally empathetic. Theft, assault, rape, and murder cannot take place without childhood trauma. What I said was that teasing RESEMBLES this, not that teasing is the root of all evil in the world.

The tragedy here is that those seeking bias confirmation will likely disregard this by entertaining the possibility that it was scripted and edited by not that child. Still, I think it's a beautiful thing to see an unabused child teeming with potential. It's an affirmation that we're on the right track.

Have you watched Stef's presentation called the Bomb in the Brain series? If you want to change somebody's mind, you have to first understand why they think the way they do. I'll give you an example. There are people in the world who cling to the State and other religions despite logic, reason, and evidence. How can this be? Well, they were abused as children and internalized or normalized being subjugated. If they're not prepared to accept the fact that their parents abused them, they NEED to be subjugated by a government/deity to validate the subjugation they received from their parents. In the situation you face, you friend is very clearly demonstrating that he NEEDS for property rights to be invalid. If you are unable to identify why this is, you will be powerless to overcome it. He might not be saying this, but one of the benefits of possessing self-knowledge is that you gain insight into others. Also, you can tell things about people based on what they don't say or how they say something. He doesn't have to use the words, "I NEED somebody to lord over me" to communicate that idea. If you don't mind me saying so, I think your time would be better spent figuring out how I'm able to see this while the very suggestion confused you. As opposed to trying to talk somebody out of a conclusion they didn't arrive at by way of logic, reason or evidence by using logic, reason, and evidence.

Mr. Rak, I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed reply. Which is why it pains me to say that I don't feel it refutes my position. I acknowledged that context matters with the qualifier of MECHANICALLY identical. I say again that I think it is better to enjoy somebody and/or express your intimacy with them in a way that doesn't resemble what is essentially the root of all evil in the world. Please understand that I'm not trying to be dramatic, but rather am pointing out why I think it's a valuable thing to avoid. If laughing together is win-win, what would it say about somebody if the only way they could achieve that is by re-enacting prior trauma? @marginalist: I accept that teasing between two people who possess self-knowledge and an understanding of one another can survive teasing. I still think it's a very important question to ask: If children were not abused, would humans know what teasing means or how to do it? If not, wouldn't one way that we can help the world of broken people heal right now be to not mimic what ails it to begin with?

Thank you for shedding light on their position. The flaw of course is in the validity of the other claimants and manner in which it is defended against. I can walk up and say I own your car. If I'm willing to inflict this conclusion, then it would be my claim that is the violence, not your defense of it. Also, the car in question is not part of the commons since cars are not naturally occurring. Meaning its very existence denotes it belongs to somebody. Finally, I don't think that "is currently of the commons" infers that it must always remain part of the commons.

This is like saying that gravity is descriptive and he needs to be convinced that it is also normative. In the case of gravity, it just IS. In the case of property rights, self-ownership is the only configuration of property rights that is logically possible, internally consistent, and universal. Again, I would ask him why he needs to be able to own other people or for other people to have a greater claim to him than he has. Until you understand where the breakdown in rational thought is occurring, you won't be able to overcome it.

Mr. Chapman is right. You/they have to define terms. I think you'll find that what they're responding to isn't what capitalism actually is. Trying to deny capitalism is like trying to deny gravity when you consider that the root of capitalism is self-ownership. Full disclosure: I may be biased here. I know that once self-ownership was explained to me, EVERYTHING seemed clearer and far more simple than most people make things out to be as a result of unprocessed trauma and their bias/need for certain things to be true even if they're not.

Exactly. If they didn't arrive at atheism by way of a principled adherence to reality, it's no surprise that they could also come to a conclusion in opposition of it.

Anybody except Stef is everybody except Stef. You're arguing semantics instead of answering: HOW DO YOU KNOW? Anger is a healthy emotion. It's a way of identifying a problem and being motivated to address that problem. The poison comes from a lack of self-knowledge or understanding of a problem leading us to respond to the anger in an inappropriate or ineffective manner. This inefficacy is precisely why I've made an effort to speak with you long after you've demonstrated that it is likely a fruitless endeavor. See, you remind me of myself from not that long ago. So eager to do SOMETHING that I didn't bother to let that something include things like understanding how people think, how things work, the fundamental nature of "the problem," and how to address it. I have the same opinion of Mr. Kokesh, which is why I'm not the least bit surprised that you identify with him so closely that you'd lash out at anybody/everybody who could criticize something he's done. Please do not respond to this if you're not going to bother answering how do you know that Stef is the only person who's done more to promote freedom than Mr. Kokesh. Frankly, I'm getting tired of asking it and tired of you letting that claim stand.