labmath2

I am a staunch socialist who believes in the theory of use. One can only use violence to defend that which one is immediately using. The only thing every living person is always using is their bodies (because its what is keeping them alive). I walk into your yard and set up tent. When you come home to find me on your lawn you demand i remove myself, i refuse. I am willing to universalize my propositions and be judged on them, but i refuse to be judged by yours. Would my position be valid? As long as you universalize your theory of property should others have to take you up on your version of property? If you are under no obligation to indulge them, then are others obligated to indulge your notion of property? Is there only one valid theory of property?

None of these address the main problem. How many bullets is used per injury/kill? Given what we know about the weather, the way he was dressed, the weight of the guns and bullets (how did he carry so many) and the human response to high stress situation, is it likely that the story could go down as reported? How long before he gets physically exausted?

Birth is precisely the problem. The proposition is simple, if you accept the rights, then you also accept the responsibility. This is true if you live with parents, work for someone or live in a country. I inagine no one here will argue that parents have to accomodate you indefinitely, until you are ready to leave. If they demand certain things of you while you live with them, we don't think about the fact that you did not choose to live with them. We think about the fact that you have a choice of leaving if you don't like their rules. Yet when it comes to living in a geographic space, a country, you think its immoral to demand anything for your continued right to live in that space. I accept that this line of reasoning presupposes that countries are valid. I understand that not everyone accept that proposition. The problem is that that ownership and property are institutional facts (not empirical facts).

My concern with these kinds of videos is that it does a lot of pointing out problems, but it doesn't really offer potential solutions. Islam is a problem and we can talk about it till we are blue in the face, but how is that helpful in solving the problem? If we ban all muslims tomorrow from entering the country, would it solve the problem? Should we deport all muslims? Should we prosecute close relatives for failure to act to help prevent attacks? Should we be vigilant of everyone who is a little unhinged? The most vexing part of this is that no side will accept the other sides solutions because it has no benefit. If they are wrong, they don't get punished. If they are right they get all the credit (i wonder why politicians keep bailing out corrupt bankers).

I have thought about this topic extensively and i continue to find it difficult to resolve. The problem with governments is that they are a form of geographic contracts, very much like land ownership. Its not so much a contract, but a set of conditions that trigger an event. Can a contract exist such that consenting to one thing creates the condition that you consented to a bunch of other things? I think such contracts do exist and a very common form is employment. Are geographic contracts valid? The arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants is analogous to apprehension and eviction of trespassers from private property. Citizens cannot be deported, but they are saddled with a bunch of responsibilities. The assumption is citizenship is the consent. The main problem with this approach is the creation of the geographic contract in the first place.

There are two solutions to the determinism problem. The first is even if your proposition were true, there is no free will, what effect does that produce. A man walks into a restaurant, the waiter hands him the menu and returns in a few minutes to take his order, the man responds "i am a determinist, so i am waiting to see what i will order." (Sam Harris joke). This clearly doesn't make much sense. He will have to choose what he is having to see what he chose. We can only live through the minute by minute choices we make which has no appearnce of determinism even if it were determinism. The second solution which is my theory, is that consciousness arises from the brain and we have some influence over our brains. Our psychology and immediate environment seems to have some effect on our brain development. There are things you can do to influence your psychology like therapy, drugs, sleep, exercise, meditation, etc. You can also remove yourself from a toxic situation to find a better match for you. Many famous academics had to move because they needed to go to a place more compatible with their interest (higher institutions of learning). The degree to which you can change these things is the degree to which you are free.

Proposition 4 is wrong. Correction does not require universal preferences. Correction requires minds have the capacity for change. Proposition 6 is ambiguous. What does "better" mean? Proposition 7 is not debatable. What does "best" mean? Proposition 8 is ambiguous unless responsible is a descriptive claim, which makes it self evident. Another way of expressing it would be "you did your actions."

There is a second problem. Not all concepts are derived from empirical reality. Take law of identity as an example, it is not derived from empirical data. As an aside. Law of identity is really interesting when thinking about philosophy of language. Many people use identity as reference, but they are different. If X is A, then all instances of A can be replaced with X without changing the proposition. But there is a unique case where reference changes idenity. Russels paradox asks if you create a set of all sets that do not contain themselves, would that set contain istelf. That is a case where reference affects identity. This problem reveals that identity was not defined. If i asked what is a pig, it would not be sufficient to say a pig is itself or a pig is a pig or if you really want to be clever say a pig is a swine. Those would all conform to law of identity, but wouldn't really be useful.

Does the content of the lie matter and why?

How far are you willing to go for your cause? Can I work for the government or take government assistance while speaking out against the goverment? Are you willing to participate in the political process while criticizing its inherent immorality? I realize the discomfort I am willing to suffer or any cause is not that high. I have never given to any cause and i still go to great lenghts to avoid discomfort in my personal relationships. I work for people i dislike, i interact with family i tolerate and i struggle to live life based on what i know rather than my immediate emotions. I recognize that changing these things is not as simple as recognizing these facts (especially after recently reading The Drama Of The Gifted Child by Alice Miller), which is why i am doing self work. To put it another way, recognizing the rat is more afraid of you and can't do you much harm does not mean you wont jump on a chair the next time you see a rat in the room. I bring up all that because i want you to understand i am not any better in that respect than anyone else. I am curious to know if others recognize this in themselves. I don't mean to point fingers at anyone, but the most recent example of this on the forums i can think of is jpahmad's commitment on voting. He doesn't strike me as ignorant about the influence his vote will have on the outcome or the likelyhood of any politician delivering on their promise. Yet, he comes up with comments advocating voting. Does he know something i don't know or is it hope? To rephrase, is he acting on information or emotion?

Thats a nice idea, but it is not evidence for any conclusion.

Is this yours and fo i have your permission to use it if i ever decide to write an article or book?

I am curious, do you care how the other person recieves your comments? When i first joined this community, you were one of the three people that consistently responded to my questions about morality that i could not understand their content. For one mentioning the type of fallacy a person is commiting does not actually explain the problem to them. It would be much easier to show the failure of their arguments (or lack thereof). It would also help to not conclude lack of integrity based on a few back and forth. Even if you dont say it, it comes across to the person which makes them more guarded and less receptive. In general adjust the way you use language to the person. Not everyone has deducated the same amount of time to conversations as you have and not everyone is as smart. Most of the time your listener is interpreting your arguments before they become familiar with your communication style and information (hence the challenge to communicate it to a five year old with little experience in conversation and knowledge of your content).

It doesn't matter for determining violations of NAP, but it matters for determining restitution and punishment. The driver initiated force on colossus and then colossus initiated force on the driver if it was clear the driver was no longer in a position to attack him (no longer driving nor getting out of his vehicle to assault him).

I really sympathize with your conundrum. Have you been to therapy or done any self work? In the absence of self knowledge any rocky path will make us doubt ourselves. Reflecting on an event for insight is also very difficult without self knowledge (you can end up assigning things to yourself which are not your fault and assigning things to others which are your fault). If you need quick insight, you can call into the show.

The simple answer to all the questions us that they are unanswerable. Situations dont exist in a vacuum. Just using the first case as model. Are we all aware that mutants exist. Do we know their powers? Do we have systems to deal with altercations between mutants and non mutants? What is the rule about drunk driving? What is the rule about damaging someone's property? Was the drunk driver aware he was hitting a mutant that would not die? Things happen within a network and background of information and practices.

What makes a christisn a christian? The fact that they believe christ is the son of god and came to die for our sins and set an example. The christ model is very pacifist and has led to compatibility between christianity and contemporay western culture. My question is this, what is a muslim? If being a muslim means following the Islamic scriptures, then beheading apostates, marrying nine year olds, and treating non muslims as second class citizens are muslim acts, yet we see muslims reject other muslims who do just that as not being muslims. So what exactly is a muslim?

Good questions. I wish i had the answers. I have engaged others extensively on this very topic only to be met with a priori self ownership or fluid meaning of ownership. If a priori self ownership is true, then i have always owned myself, even before i was conceived. If ownership is a property of the thing, then you need a way to observe/measure it. The most common property used to qualify ownership is control, but as someone stated earlier you can "own" property without controlling it. Not to mention forced organ transplant becomes legitimate the minute its completed (to figure out who owns a body part, we need to see who exercises the greatest control over it in the moment. Any moment before the transplant the original owner exercises the greatest control, any moment after the new owner exercises the greatest control). Control is not really a good property with which to decide ownership. Which is why it is imperative to determine when that switch happens to deermine the property that makes a thing a self owner.

Every time a situation of sorites paradox comes up, i am always entertained. If you can solve this problem, without assigning abritrary limits, then you have created a template to solving the identity problem, which is the supersete of the abortion problem and this problem. For those who are not familiar with it, sorites paradox goes like this. I have a pile of sand. I remove obe grain of sand and i still have a pile of sand because i grain of sand does not make the difference between a pile and a non-pile. Repeat this process enough time and you end up with a pile of sand made of one sand. Remove this sand and you still have a pile because one sand is not enough to go from pile to non-pile. The minute removing one sand is enough to go from pile to non-pile, then you have found the essence of a pile. In the Aristotle video Stefan used a baby and changing attributes of the baby till you end up with a non-baby. The instance where changing one attribute is enough to go from baby to non-baby, then you have found the essence of a baby. In this case the istance where you go from non-self ownership to self ownership, that change is the essence of self ownership. Unless you are in the camp that says self ownership is on a spectrum which creates confusing ownership schemes to avoid this problem. Even then you will still need some way of assigning ownership in some distributed form so that parents own sone percentage of the child that diminishes over his/her lifetime.

A website posting real rape videos of adults would be comparable. Would a visitor of such site be immoral for doing so?

I am not criticizing others because they did not represent themselves as acting on moral principles.

It is not an argument from effect. If you actions have no impact on others then it would be morally neutral. Of you voted Trump and it only affected you, then there is no moral issue.

This is the easiest issue to resolve ever. Lets do point system. 1. You get to choose who you enter into relationship with and get pregnant with (1 point for both sexes). 2. You get to choose if you keep the fetus alive (1 point for the woman). 3. You get to determine if the child is put up for adoption and vet the adopters (1 point for woman, .5 p pop int for man). The sex more responsible for single parenthood is (drumroll) ... women.

If that is the case, did you go and vote in all previous elections for the lesser of two evils? Do you see no alternative other than electing the less immoral candidate? If your candidate wins do you bear any responsibility for his actions? Does it matter that your choice will impact others?

You are missing the two cases where humans are allowed to occupy different moral categories, children and mentally impaired.