apples and grapes

Dude, clam down 0.o

I don't know about you but I face that "I don't think I know enough, I'm just some random" procrastinating over books problem =/

Yes you said something dumb, and I responded facetiously, and what was that? My third response to you? After I did an initial critique of your article. Your desperate desire to apply polemic to people rather then address the issues they have is becoming clear to me. So now you have issue with me saying you were "running around the FDR boards"? Can you possibly be more pedantic in your attempt to ignore what my 6 criticisms were?! Your accusation of inconsistency is still sloppy thinking whether it's "running" or "waltzing" or "moving" Please stop bringing up emotional attachment, it is dumb. My 6 criticisms are, and I repeat them again in part because you ignore them and in part because I'm sure it triggers you at this point. 1. Consent is a decent test for ethics, but is not the measure 2. The term "implied consent", where consent can never be implied, is confusing 3. Coercion is the flipside of consent, not a caveat 4. Your article takes too long to deliver the title promised logical proof 5. No logical proof was provided, only an attempted refutation of a single argument 6. This refutation consists of calling the arguement insufficient Which one of these am I emotionally attached to to such a strong degree? Cause I'm telling ya, the topic really doesn't effect me all that much, sorry. You writing poor articles just doesn't pull at my heartstrings as much as you accuse me of. Then again, you only bring up emotional attachment as a way attack my person so you don't have to address my argument. But let's say I am super-duper emotionally attached to my criticisms. Does that make it any less accurate? Nopity Look. It's clear that you don't want to address criticism. I understand that now. You present long winded pseudo-arguments for the sake of posturing, then when people disagree with you, you begin psychologising. Not to convince that person, but with the purpose of having them disassociate and no longer engage with you. You are not an honest person when it comes to discussing this issue. This is all speculation, of course, but the fact we don't know each other hasn't stopped you from playing pretend-therapist in all your responses, so I'll allow myself this opportunity

Yep, he's practically Prometheus meets Jesus bearing the cross. Wouldn't want to actually have to explain yourself further then "Convince people of self-ownership", cos ya might find out you don't actually have much of a plan! xD It is interesting though, he says the alternative we should adopt is to convince people of stuff, but he is hostile to, and refuses to engage with people who don't already agree with him

I would say that treason can be analysed in two categories, assault/murder and fraud Judas told the Romans where Jesus was, knowing that they would aggress against him in some way. Judas was causally linked with the aggression taking place, and the aggression would not have taken place if he hadn't betrayed Jesus. Therefore, he holds a lot of responsibility for the immoral actions that took place afterwards. It is this action where he initiates force against Jesus On top of that, there would have been a reasonable assumption on the part of Jesus that his disciples would not betray him. If this was a written contract, it would be a clearer case of fraud on the part of Judas (selling information he had promised not to sell). In not a direct violation of UPB, it would at least be a violation of APB in that he sold information that Jesus only allowed him privy to under the reasonable assumption that he wouldn't do so So I think treason is immoral. However, if Jesus was actually a murderer (dun dun duuun), then I don't know if I'd call Judas treasonous. So if, say, the entire US army 100% from accountant to grenadier was doing horrible, evil things, and one of the soldiers released information, that would not be treason. So take someone like Snowden, whether he is a traitor largely depends on what information he leaked. Say he leaked a document that proved Pvt. Douchebag murdered some innocent disabled children, that wouldn't be traitorous. If he leaked the location of some innocent spy undercover trying to idk save innocent disabled children from ISIS, I think that would be treasonous Thoughts? =)

Have you found this to be an effective process? I mean, let's say for the past year we all tried convincing people of freedom rather then trying to get Trump in (I'll accept for now your false dichotomy). If Hillary had won, there is good reason to assume her war posturing with Russia was legitimate and 100 thousands-10s of million relatively low IQ immigrants would be given citizenship (I just picked 2 things Trump won't do purely by inaction). I don't see how your method would help things. Let's say 100 of us FDRers managed to convert 10 americans to philosophical Ancapism in that one year (practically impossible from my experience). We now have 1000 Ancaps. So we have a couple choices in this hypothetical, 1. We ignore scummy politicking and get an extra 900 Ancaps in a nation of 318.9 million, but go to war with Russia, and have the population swell with relatively low IQ immigrants who have a proven tendency towards statism. 2. We engage in scummy politicking, do not get any extra Ancaps this year, but do not go to war with Russia and keep our current demographics Why should we have preferred 1 to 2? Because even if the hypothetical is wrong, it is the choice many people expected they had. Are the expectations provably wrong? Cos is Hilly and Trump would do the same thing, I would definitely see your point much clearer Also, I remember asking a while ago if you had considered calling into the show and you might not have seen it, or perhaps I didn't see your reply. Would you? Cos I think that would be a very interesting call, especially since you are so sure of your position. I love those criticism shows, and it would be interesting to hear Steffy-poo maybe have to backtrack his pro-Trump position =)

Jesus man, why do you even bother writing articles? I'm serious. I went to the effort to do a paragraph by paragraph critique of your article and you never address my concerns! I don't care about your pseudo-psychologising about why I need to believe x or y, why would I? We are strangers on the internet, not each others therapists! The critique of your article was self-contained. It stands regardless of my position on the matter (the fact you pretend to know my position is weird btw) You wrote an article. It was poorly structured, way too long, and didn't deliver on it's title promised logical proof. Learn to take criticism without jumping to accusing people of emotional manipulation, bias, and all that jazz. If you don't want feedback on your articles, just write them in a diary and don't bring them to the public forum 0.o The most glaring thing is that I never said I disagreed with you about voting, and haven't proposed any pro-voting arguments. My posts here have not been about me and what I believe. I offered a critique of your article, and you are desperately trying to change the subject to picking the brain of someone you've never had a conversation with before in your entire live Oh and it wouldn't be inconsistent of me to not go around accusing people of telling others it's okay to enslave their neighbours because I am not convinced they are. I am not convinced of your definition of voting, nor of the conclusions you have reached due to it. If I did accept your definition and conclusions, then you would be correct to accuse me of inconsistency. The communist isn't inconsistent when he accuses capitalism of being evil, while not accusing communism of being evil. He doesn't do the latter precisely because he is pro-communism. This is just sloppy thinking.

So for us slaves, fools and liars. What is the alternative?

Damn guys, he called what I said a strawman, guess I lose the debate -_- Let me rephrase then. "On the basis of this pathetic philosophical analysis (and I know you have other articles, I have read them), you take it upon yourself to run around the fdr boards calling peoples behaviour immoral". Better? I didn't read... Right... Cos out of the guy who did a paragraph by paragraph critique versus the guy who just took random quotes, it's the former who didn't read... xD I don't even know what you are saying with the coercion stuff. I never said it wasn't important, and if fact didn't even say much about coercion at all. The entirety of my point was that if you base ethics on consent, then the concept of coercion fits more as the mirror of that basis rather then being made a mere caveat. Like if you base a theory on internal consistency, then internal inconsistency would not be a caveat of that but a part of it. It is a fairly minor point, like with the "implied consent" thing. Yes, you are correct. You did address the assertion further in the next paragraph. And the address you made was just a one sentence re-assertion that you found the argument insufficient! "I do not think the fact that the candidate could decline is sufficient because a reasonable person would expect that they will". This "implied consent" thing is a non-issue. I have no issue with the principle, just the name. That's why I provided alternatives such as "reasonable assumption of consent". The man unconscious is implying nothing because he's busy being unconscious. You can, however, make a reasonable assumption that he would consent if he could. Hence, "Reasonable Assumption of Consent". Saying he "implied" something while in an unconscious state is not correct. Don't get so worked up about this buddy. Now this is the part I hope you read. I gave a 6 point, succinct, list of my concerns with your article. 1-3 are minor gripes. And it is 4-6 that are important. Your article is too long, with at least 4 paragraphs which could be deleted while doing zero harm to the content. You claim to provide a logical proof which you never deliver on. And what you do provide is a poor refutation of one argument pro-voting isn't immoral. All leading to my original ending point: The title of your article is misleading.

@dsayer On phone so can't quote sorry. The context of the following is your response to mine What impatience? My concern was with the name you gave the caveat, I know what the context was, what are you even talking about? How the hell does someone say "a term you used was confusing, maybe find another term such as x or y" translate to you as "defining terms is tedious?". Did you actually read my criticism? My criticism was self-contained to your article. I don't care what people on this thread say about taxation. You never mention taxation in your article, and I never mention it in my critique. Why are you responding to me about stuff others are talking about instead of responding to the stuff I said? Your responses seem almost like you didn't read my critique! Hardly "responsible and effective communication". I find it funny that you acuse others of not reading/processing things due to bias, while you don't seem to have read/processed what I've said (you definitely haven't addressed my core issue which is that the title of the article is misleading) "Isolating ideas in order to make your refutations seem accurate is disingenuous" Huh? Isn't that what you're doing in this article? Isolating a single pro-voting isn't immoral argument from all the rest to make your refutation seem more plausible? I was quoting you! You made an assertion with no follow up, I'm not isolating anything when you make a single sentence proclamation. And as for my criticisms which you claim have already been addressed, I don't think you know what they are. Succinctly thet are; 1. Consent is a decent test for ethics, but is not the measure 2. The term "implied consent", where consent can never be implied, is confusing 3. Coercion is the flipside of consent, not a caveat 4. Your article takes too long to deliver the title promised logical proof 5. No logical proof was provided, only an attempted refutation of a single argument 6. This refutation consists of calling the arguement insufficient Now, to add one last thing. Upon this absolutely pathetic philosophical analysis (and yes I know you have more articles, I have read them) you take it upon yourself to run around the fdr board calling other people immoral!

You mustn't want to know all that much about him then xD I for one want to know more, like what economic and foreign policy will he follow. And him wanting to ded Snowden doesn't tell me that =)

Yep Again yep, with such a volatile title I'd suggest getting to the point much quicker but to each their own Trying to do much of anything without clarity tends to be challenging. Prescriptive ethical principles cannot pass the test of universality and so are wrong, sure, but depending on who you're talking to you'd either need to spend more time proving this or it would be taken as a given and wouldn't need to be said. We don't think in a vacuum anymore then the mathematician does, we construct thought experiments to isolate variables which we then test by deducing from a core axiom... Unless that question about vacuum thinking was rhetoric... What would have to be performative contradictions? The moral actions? That's what the paragraph structure implies. Or do you mean that would be how we could test moral principles in our vacuum? Anyway, three paragraphs in and I'm waiting for the stuff on voting to begin. Consent? Can't we just point out the performative contradiction? Because that seems to be a much more useful measure. "Is the action, applied as a universal principle, self contradictory?" Now it could be contradictory due to a lack of consent, such as the situation of theft, but could also be due to other factors (such as the lack of choice rendering a nonactor immoral in the "Coma Test", which is contradictory because the concept of morality doesn't work without choice). Consent can definitely be one test in our analysis, but it is not the measure we use to evaluate behaviour. It seems akin to building a theory of mathematics on the principle of addition. Sure addition can be a useful part, but it is not the part. But yeah, still waiting for the voting stuff. Well this is one way of dealing with entire tons of "life boat scenarios", and not entirely without merit. However calling something "implied consent" followed immediately with "consent cannot be implied" ought to be cause to take you back to the drawing board to name this caveat better. "Timeframe of ethics", or maybe "Reasonable assumption of consent" might serve better and be less confusing. But again, to each his own. I don't see how coercion could possibly be presented as a caveat of a moral theory measured by consent. Coercion, to this Consentionist theory would then be the entire flip side. "What would someone be non-consenting of if not coercion?". It's like saying "I'm gonna build a theory of mathematics based on addition, with an important caveat of subtraction". I apologise that so far I've basically just been reviewing paragraph and argument structure, I'm still waiting for the logical proof. Finally, SEVEN paragraphs in and we've finally mentioned voting. ... So you accepted voting as immoral... Then changed your mind... But you've changed your mind again... Riveting. The argument for the non-immorality of voting is interesting, but I'd agree it's insufficient to me. That's why good theories have more then one argument backing it. If you only had the one confirming the non-immorality of voting, then of course you would find this insufficient. That's a fault on your part, not on the part of the argument. Eight paragraphs in, where is the logic? "Voting is a credible threat to bind others" is an assertion, not a logical deduction. "I do not think the fact the candidate can decline is sufficient..." is an opinion, not a refutation. Okay, so nine paragraphs in total and you don't at all provide a logical proof that voting is immoral. You ramble on for SEVEN paragraphs until finally saying that you found ONE argument against the immorality of voting insufficient. Then wrap it up with the vaguely paternalistic "Remember guys, it's important to question your conclusions and make corrections" which isn't a new concept to people. You should change the title of article, because logical proof it most certainly is not!

How is voting consenting to the state? Is a prisoner voting for better conditions necessarily consenting to their imprisonment?

Australia is oookkkaaayyy. But it's almost impossible to get a gun, we have socialised medicine (so try not get sick), and we have all the multiculturalism is teh bestest claptrap. On the other hand, at least for now, we have decent immigration policy. We've just come off of a terrible bout of a Labor government (replete with a disastrous coalition with the Green party, and lots of backstabbing for the PM spot), and now have the Liberals in (Republican-esque). So maybe there's some hope to hold onto some non-Globalism. imo, you may be better off going to a more Republican state of the US. Australia doesn't have the history of Liberty that the US has, I think I've met exactly 0 people familiar with terms like Libertarian and I live in a fairly Liberal state! Most people are conducive to the idea, but culturally it's just not there. Hopefully when Trump gets in, it'll help push Aus towards a better path.

In your initial response to me you said you aren't interested in why someone would vote, but at the same time you repeatedly say the reason why someone votes is because they want to own you or transfer ownership etc. Which one is it? Are you just certain of the reason behind someone voting to such a degree that you don't even think it worth while considering different perspectives? That's not me asking a stupid rhetoric question as some piece of sophistry (like when you question welfare and someone says "do you want people to die in the streets?"), I really want to know And calling something "passive-aggressive" isn't an arguement. Besides calling you out for posting something which added no value to a thread, shitposting, seems more assertive then passive-aggressive to me. So what do we do instead? Especially if Hillary gets in, what do we do to end the enslavement? To be fair, I put some effort to my first post and hoped for constructive criticism. And Dsayer read less then a paragraph before telling me I was wrong and something to do with already having spent too much time with company that doesn't listen (the irony of complaining about people not listening to him, while not listening to more then 1/6 of my post isn't lost on me). I don't know about others in the thread, but I have neither intimidated, misrepresented, nor have a grasped for straws. I accused him of spamming because what he posted was spam. And for anyone who gets a bad taste from reading someone call someone else out for a shtipost, there's probably at least one other who appreciates it. =) Again can't speak for other peeps, but I think at least in my case this is better directed at Dsayer since he didn't even bother reading past one paragraph of mine because ordaining I was wrong. =/