Eva

Is that right? Are you free to choose a relationship where you rape a woman every day and be morally exempt? Do you not think there are women who would voluntarily agree to that? The do all the time when they marry abusive husbands in full knowledge... No it isn't. You said children "are bound". Rocks "are bound" by gravity is not the same as rocks are held. Just like you cannot rationally justify restricting someone's sexual freedom you cannot justify the ownership of children within a monogamous family, which is an immorality, and exactly the root of the problem you have.

No. The enslaving part is wanting to have a "relationship" as a concept before the fact and, as I said, introducing the biological/sexual fidelity requirement—which is largely an unjustified restriction of someone's freedom to do whatever they want with their male or female bodies. You mistake this fidelity for commitment; I can commit in all sorts of ways to someone, not just sexually. To me, the fact that this element is given this much importance just comes to show how far the marriage/girlfriend concept is from a rational definition of love. Choosing your own enslavement does not make it moral, especially when there are children involved. I am sure there are many statists and religious people engaged in understanding empathy and virtue, and that does not excuse them either. This is not true. Parents enslave their children. It is not a strawman; she is right. And Kevin strawmans himself: He does not seek a romantic relationship with his guy friends.. I just wanted to add that I am very sorry for you guys feeling this way towards women. There is a certain amount of hatred (toward your parents) still in wanting to own a partner; and she or he is not to be blamed for your self attacking about their actual or potential choices—which is what the "commitment" around sexuality is basically protecting. I really hope you get over this fear of the other sex by pursuing relationships that are truly free; though I completely understand it is not easy.

No. And how does that compare to how many children are kidnapped by parents—which is what makes anyone a statist, or a freak?

They imply human ownership and, with their emphasis on sexual fidelity, they reproduce the original parent-child biological attachment relationship—which is not good. "Wife" and "girlfriend"—and their masculines—are 'a priori' concepts that are imposed over the reality of people because they have a dysfunctional need to own others and feel owned, which comes from their having been owned by their parents... They are anti-philosophical concepts.

Is it you? Be my friend!

Hi Casey. I like what you say about how disgusting that female behaviour is, but then you go on to say men and women cannot be just friends, which is not what I was expecting at all, if you think it is somehow morally wrong to take advantage of the other sex. I know I can be friends with men, as I am, and that is a result of morality and truth being more important to us than sex--and obviously the universality of morality and virtue transcends gender or age... This is also the reason I do not look for sex in a "boyfriend" or "husband" anymore, as I realise how those concepts are linked to these exploitative needs. So, summing up, what you say seems contradictory, and might be because you are still doing that which you condemn. Don't you think?

All this false dichotomy and conversations show is how devoid of meaning and philosophy the concept of friendship is for most people, and how deeply ingrained certain false morals around monogamy are... I think it is very sad. For those who understand friendship requires intimacy--and of course that mind and body are not separate--sexuality is just another side of friendship.

I (a woman) attack feminism like I attack any "ism": because they are arbitrary or a priori values. Although, to be more precise, I don't really attack them—it's only those who operate from "isms" and any sort of bigotry that do attack and feel attacked.

Hi Kevin, thanks for the info! I have read a bit of RTR, yes... Well, I am not sure RTR can add much more to UPB, really, as surely any propositions being made in the context of a relationship have to be UPB compliant to be "healthy". I guess I saw that when having a look at RTR, and decided it wasn't so important..

Wow, thank you so much for your responses! Quite a few of you speak about your own personal experience, while I was asking for an objective opinion, or from Stefan's perspective. I suppose it is hard not to view this from the personal anyway. I still get the feeling UPB is the most important, although my favourite keeps being 'On Truth'.

Hello everyone! I have covered quite a lot of material already, mainly about self knowledge. Currently having a look at UPB... I get the impression that this might be Stefan's most important book, perhaps? At least it seems more methodical and solemn I would appreciate if those who are most familiar with his work could share their opinion; or maybe Stefan has mentioned this already somewhere? Cheers!

About my "irrelevant" argument, you first say: The questions were supposed to illustrate a point you were seemingly interested in—to the point you argue it is desired to feel obligated—but then "suddenly" you are not interested in it: Try this theory: you are defensive (because you don't want to accept the major point that you cannot create arbitrary positive obligations), which is why you don't reply to my other points, you bring up irrelevant appeals to emotions, and project in me the same dismissal ("slap") you actually initiated.

Look, you say this: I proceed to provide examples illustrating how this is not to be desired, and you give me that paragraph above?? Sorry, dsayers. I have left enough arguments around the central issue of obligation and I have no time to read your lengthy paragraphs about how I am assuming false premises. Do you care to show me how it is I have done that?

I feel with this you try to pass me the ball and rationalise your not addressing the questions and the valid threads that are there on my previous post. I cannot trust you will not do the same if I address this meta-conversational claim, so I won't. You might as well say that you are responsible for any accident that happens to you just because of "choosing the risks" involved in living. Using a prophylactic or looking both ways before crossing the road are precisely ways to diminish risk; which is the complete opposite of taking it (if I choose to use a prophylactic, I am not taking the risk involved in not using a prophylactic...) and which are both intentions. Yes, intention is the measure, and you know that because you are the one saying that parents are obliged to take care of children based on the fact they have chosen to do something (or what would otherwise mean to choose something you did not have an intention towards?). Morality is about human will. If I am "responsible" for the chain of events that resulted in your window being broken, when it wasn't my intention to do so, then so is the wind, the rock, my mother and all my ancestors... If the man that gets run over is "responsible" for it—as he "chose the risks"—then what you are saying is that the driver/s that did it were not responsible—or that the sperm was not responsible for reaching the egg... I am not saying there cannot be some amount of negotiable or reasonable responsibility, but this is not what you are saying when you almost elevate this contract toward children to the category of moral absolute.

Choosing to have sex results in sex; just like choosing to cross the road results in you crossing the road, as was your intention. The fact that crossing the road bears the risk of getting run over doesn't mean you intend to get run over. Knowing there is a risk—or possible consequence—in an action is quite different from intending that risk, especially when it comes to assigning moral responsibility—you would have a hard time proving that someone who had a child had that intention. This is very clear. You might as well say a man who gets run over is responsible for it. A man who gets run over is as responsible for the traffic and the accident as a mother is responsible for the baby growing in her belly, or having an indigestion because she ate... Do you feel "obligated" to not drink sewage? Do you get up in the morning and first thing you feel glad that some logic keeps you from sabotaging a nuclear plant? Do you think the best acrobats are those who feel obligated to stay on the high wire? ... How does a shopkeeper behave with you if he feels obligated to serve you? How about feeling obligated towards a child? How would that make your parenting? If being a biological parent means someone feels obligated towards a child, then I don't want this person around the child. Yes. Reasoning is logical, or propositions derived logically; not propositions in and of themselves. Not even the fact that you derive a proposition logically makes it true. You simply cannot make an "ought" from an "is" (Hume) because it is "logical". You can say parents who choose to have kids and neglect them are murdering, but you cannot say they have an obligation not to do that, just like nobody has an obligation not to murder. They are just moral propositions.

I don't suppose you think children are the inevitable result of choosing to have sex, or that choosing to have children inevitably results in children. Many things outside your control... The idea of "creating a person" is as wrong and abhorrent as that metaphor, which is perhaps why it's hard to come up with a metaphor that isn't immoral. Man is not life. I understand that—if the people who conceive a child have all the purpose to do so—but there is absolutely no "logic" in that, just like there is no logic in saying you should not detonate bombs. It's just a moral proposition. Let's put it this way. I would not want a man around my child—biological father or not—who felt obligated towards him, just like I wouldn't want to be around a man who does not detonate bombs just because he feels obligated not to—let alone "logically obligated". Can you see why?

Think about it. Why would anyone use lesser arguments? The intention of "winning" would clearly not be to establish the truth, but to keep it at bay—even if your arguments point in the same direction. Why would an anarco-capitalist get involved in endless debates about the effects of state power, and so on? Because he has not really accepted the principle that the state is immoral or has a certain anxiety to introduce that principle into that debating relationship. I don't see or have never seen the "logic" in this making it compulsory—if only because there are a million factors in babies being born outside a person's control. What I see is just a moral proposition for a positive obligation. There is an infinity of possible moral propositions for positive obligations that pass the logic of UPB and we don't go about inflicting them; that's what the "coma test" is for, isn't it? No. Having a child is not like entering in to a contract with somebody. Besides, as I have been commenting on a recent thread about marriage, positive obligations expressed in contracts are not above reason. Me too. I'm enjoying the chat.

It doesn't necessarily mean that you are "showing off our intellect", or that you are simply trying to "convince people" who show signs that they are sufficiently open to reason... It all depends on how you feel, and you know better of course. What I am saying is that, if you use arguments from effect, you are likely operating from a place of certain anxiety to win the argument; which is very common—we can all get trolled. This is the place they operate from—also through arguments from effect—because they are being defensive and thus emotionally dependent on convincing or otherwise knocking you. It's always a good thing to expose information and arguments, but not so much if you do it at the expense of the truth. Getting into a debate with an irrational person equals to telling them that they are "right". "people who chose to bring the newborn into the world are required to provide for it..." is not logic, but a moral proposition. You cannot prove it, the same as you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". As I have said, the immorality of child abuse is not in violating a certain code, but in using codes to violate actual logic and evidence. This is the problem I see with yours and nathanm's position. But I suppose I could be convinced if you provided a rational demonstration of your code or positive obligation to provide for children.

dsayers, I am sorry you feel regret about this. In my experience you can't go wrong with the moral argument. I almost never talk about effects. Most people think they will be ostracised and antagonised for using the moral argument, but this is just their facade and the test that you face in society. In reality they have become attached to you in a big way because deep down they know what you are talking about is true... But isn't that an appeal to effects (if I hit I will get X or Y)? The hypocrisy that they (already) face is that they themselves use the moral argument when abusing children. Taking advantage of their superiority is not hypocrisy—it's just plain evil that their contradictory or false moral arguments come to "rescue" them from. If we use arguments from effect we remain on the moral and rational low-ground. Same as if we are emotionally dependent on the idea of convincing people. People—who are already using false morality and arguments from effect—can "smell" that in the words you use, and it gives them all the peace of mind they need. I found this interesting. It sounds like you see parenting as if there was a code somewhere? The only thing parents "cheat on" when abusing their children is logic and evidence.

dsayers: "I replied to one of the comments that provided the false dichotomy that we either have to spank or all hell breaks loose. I still don't understand where this viewpoint comes from because they do not hold this standard with ANYBODY ELSE in the world that can in fact communicate back or escape." It comes from the fact that the child is good and they are evil, and being rational with the child would reveal this. "I don't have high hopes. Most commenters I've dealt with on youtube are more interested in confirmation bias, social conformity, or just plain "winning." To that end, I wonder why the guy would start such a conversation. If he's truly interested in the implications, there's been plenty of research on the topic for several decades now, with very little variance in the results." Spanking is a moral issue, not scientific. It's about principles, not effects. Black slavery was not ended because it had this or that bad consequence... A lot of people want to start these conversations because, fundamentally, they have not accepted that this is a question of principle.

Hello dsayers. You're right, humility is one of those words... The problem is almost always that values are detached from reality—such philosophies or worldviews are false—and the reference is others, not the truth. The only humility I accept is that before the truth. If the truth is that you are "better than others", according to whatever standard, then only a dishonest, manipulative and narcissistic person would disregard it in order to adhere to a second-hand judgement like "I am not better than others"—they always secretly believe they are. It is precisely because false values are illogical and set with reference to others, that they place an emphasis on "how you think yourself". But reality is what decides what you are, not your judgement. Humility before reality is not a tool of control just like real authority—based on superior knowledge or skill—isn't.

Emanuel, I'm so sorry about your situation. You seem to have a very good understanding of what's going on, and your feelings attuned to reality. I really empathise with your fear of becoming independent, as it has happened to me. You will find that most of this fear is, in fact, about your parents or family, and not about the possibility to support yourself. This makes a lot of sense if you think of the main reason children stay with their abusive parents: that they are unable to survive by themselves; but this is kind of an evolutionarily motivated illusion. Today children could practically leave their parents and easily find shelter somewhere else, which they would do if they could see and accept the reality of their condition. Similarly, your brain is not free to work out solutions to your practical problems still, because it is too busy dealing with your inner parents and this basic biological dilemma rooted in childhood. Besides, do you feel any shame about the prospect of having to ask for help from strangers, for example?Strangers will probably be more benevolent towards you than your family, for the reasons you know... Do you have a certain ideal about how your independent life should be? Remember you are leaping into the unknown; you do not know what will happen, but you are well equipped for it, and it will be exciting. In the worse case scenario you know you can always go back and use your family in the same way as now; in the end of the day, they are the unconscious and broken ones, and you can learn to manage them. I hope this helps, good luck with everything!

Well said, elzoog: "I would consider an "eternal" clause in a contract as an "impossible act"." People get into unfair and irrational contracts all the time because they are not being rational themselves, or because they are coerced, like children... I guess contracts are very happy there are some people willing to defend them at all costs. Very good points tasmlab there too!

Ok, let's see... Would anyone keep a contract that contained "contradiction bombs"? Or do you mean that contracts are always objective and rational—and so my action to "bring contradiction bombs into here" makes your change of subject, from my statement to my actions "why you gotta bring contradiction bombs into here?" legitimate?

Hi Mr. Capitalism! Would you keep a contract that contained "contradiction bombs" too?