mshidden

It's interesting how you are looking at this... I was not thinking about objectivity or subjectivity at all. I am looking at it from the perspective of harms and I am suggesting you can not measure the harm out of context. So harms I would argue are measurable and objective.

Let me clarify, my original point, and sorry I did not come back to this issue sooner. Kevin Beal "Surely, we shouldn't validate people in making mistakes or doing things which are immoral, right?" I actually find that the most interesting issue to address, and it has to do with effecting change, we validate people to give them power, so they can make the change. So I am not suggesting we validate their action, but validate them as people, and empower them to make the change we are asking of them. We do not want to take power away from people we want to try to keep a power positive position. "Yeah it's a lot of work but I know you can do it." That is a power positive statement. If you say "Spanking is wrong, it only hurts your child." That is a power negative statement, truth has nothing to do with it in this case, it is about effecting change. ​I say this, because I see people saying things that I agree are technically true, but they are saying them in a power negative manner which decreases the possibility of buy in from the person their talking with. Some times a power negative statement can work, but we should be aware we are doing it. Truth is not the cure for being nice.

Thanks, I thought he was a little to dismissive, when I ran a-crossed him the first time but getting past the face in hand, I realized he did go point by point.

It's always a danger, their is no substitute for critical thinking, and skepticism. You have to do the work, and when you are wrong, you need to celebrate the fact you found this big mistake. We can not be error intolerant. Mistakes are wonderful things because it means we have learned something new, the only real mistake is not learning from are mistakes. "My best friends point out my mistakes, my enemies let me wallow in my Illusions, and delusions" Mark Hidden.

Wow, They don't waste any time, within the first 2 minutes their playing victim, and clamming discrimination from the scientific community, and making unsubstantiated claims by supposed authorities, that consciousness is separate from the brain. Do more research it is classic modern bunk. Nice production value those, and a very friendly voice. Baylor how much of this did you watch... I know I have seen some good stuff about this but here is a simple overview. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Science If their is something you don't understand, let me know, their are some interesting facts that are true, but taken way out of context, and then are used to support complete fiction. It kinda reminds me of Men in Black. K: "Elvis isn't dead he just went home"

Something I feel strongly about, and I put it in my introduction post, is the idea the Ethics is context sensitive. To lie is a bad idea, but if you lie to protect someone it maybe the best idea. Actions are not moral, reasons are. The question of morality and ethics is why? We can ask who did what, we can ask where it happened, but if we don’t ask why, then we are not asking the moral question. “So in a chat Yesterday someone asked does it matter why your wife was raped? She want be unraped. “ Yes it matters, and, yes she maybe unraped” The difference between rape, and making love is context: A) A 30 year old woman have intercourse with a 13 year old boy is Rape by definition. What if they were in love? B) A 30 year old man is having intercourse with a 13 year old girl, is Rape by definition. But what if they were in love? If you are being honest with yourself most people feel differently about those to situations. Should we? Well that is a question of Harm. Rape is ultimately a question of harm, we can be harmed stepping off the sidewalk. Now we can sue the engineer for following specifications of how sidewalks should be constructed, or we can take responsibility for talking on are cell phone and not paying attention. “A wife that is having an affair and then claimed she was raped, when she ends up pregnant, is not a wife raped.” The rape of a woman is some culture is seen as a harm to a Husband or a Father, and the woman is held accountable for getting into the situation. Your first instinct maybe as is mine is that this is crazy, as crazy as it is, to ignore the context of culture could result in more harm. But saying you were raped and being raped can be a matter of semantics, it is also a matter of legal definition in the above cases. A person that is raped, may have no physical damaged to them, yet they may also be extremely emotionally traumatized. The worse thing we can do with rape is make it worse then it is. We make matters far worse when we assume that a 13 year old girl will be traumatized by her experience with an old man and vise a versa. Harm should never be assumed, and not doing more harm should be the response of a free society. If we value marriage their maybe harm in having too many premarital partners. However, if you don’t value the concept of monogamous marriage then it’s a different question. There is harm in allowing adults to have sex with children. However, Harm is contextual to values, and perceptions, and too often we try to project our values and perceptions onto children, causing them more harm. Projecting are emotions on children only causes emotional confusion. It is not a question of how you think they should feel it is only a question of how they feel.

Real philosopher play portal chess. Download Portal Chess Rules of Portal Chess

Ivan, I have to say I like what you explaind here nice example of self realization...

Hi My Name is Mark Hidden, I am not sure what is in a name, but I have been rethinking philosophy and thinking from the ground up, applying information theory to everything. Currently I call myself and functional informationnalist. My grand theory is basically this. There are two types of information, that which confines us, and that which defines us, the physical world confines us, and our values define us. I suspect you have no problems with we should act in accordance to our values, but we are forced by confining variables to act with regards to the limits whatever they maybe. Now this alone get’s us nowhere fast, However, Alex Wissner-Gross an AI researcher came up with an interesting formula suggesting that intelligence seeks to maximise future freedom. Freedom maybe a fundamental characteristic of intelligence. So we don’t have to justify our desire for future freedom, we can understand that it is an intelligent behavior. But this says nothing about how we should treat others, but we would assume how we treat others should be related to benefiting us in terms of our future freedom. To understand my functional nature I sum it up like this. There are Good answers, there are the best answers, and then their are the answers that will work. My working values: 1) I want to be held accountable, but I also want the right to change my mind. 2) Tell me I am wrong, and I will be angry, prove to me I am wrong and I will be in your debt. 3) I take ownership of all my ideas, even if I stole them from some dead guy. In other words no one is to blame accept me, and my interpretation. 4) I believe Ethics is the workible shared arrangement of values. 5) I believe absolute values, are poisonous. 6) I believe values are context sensitive and should be understood hierarchically 7) I believe punishment for punishment sake is ethical junk food. 8) I like the idea of money. 9) I believe their are compatible and incompatible value systems, and isolation maybe necessary. 10) I do not believe any economic theory is any good unless it deals with the future. 11) I believe diversity is a fundamental good, and any economic theory should highly value it.

Yeah but maybe you could loosen her up this way. “I know spanking seems like a good, idea, but it just a bad idea and it does real harm. You feel bad for hitting them, and they feel horrible for getting hit. Lets put the idea in a different context...” Maybe I am wrong, but I think that argument can sound snotty or snobby. Remember to validate people, and remember to give people a way out. Your gift of knowledge is not a club, truly offer it to her, and help her understand the usefulness of your understanding.. Good luck