labmath2

The argument is that sex creates obligation on the man's body (in the form of his labor), but creates no obligation on the woman's body. How is this obligation created and why is it only created for men? Does a woman incur an obligation from having a child so that the obligation is retained even if she relinquishes her rights to the child (adoption)?

The problem with facts that do not show causation is that you cannot tell exactly what they mean. Even events like the Trump manager grabbing a reporter is so muddled with conflicting data and the only conclusive evidence is a discontinuous video that makes it hard to tell (for me) if the reporter actually grabbed Trump. Now think of the data about race and crime. How much crime do each race actually commit? How do they commit the crime? Then there is what counts as crime and how it is investigated and prosecuted (this changes by location). Who is more likely to be prosecuted? This includes all other mitigating circumstances that go with those like false conviction or false accusation (some think false conviction rarely happens, but given that overturning a conviction seems to be harder than getting one, i'll let you be the judge). Based on the current facts, it does appear blacks commit more violent crime.

Could it just produce economic pressures that weeds out less intelligent people from the group? If diaspora jews can get such gains in 700 years, then imagine 1000 years of free market selection for blacks. The opposite is happening in the current welfare state.

Is guerilla tactics really effective if your enemies goal is only strategic locations and they do not mind killing civilian en masse to retain control of those locations. One thing i found interesting in a documentary about the sierra leone civil war was how the diamond mine was still operating in the middle of the conflict over diamonds that most fighters never saw.

What is that based on? If we had 100 people informed on a topic, and each individual had a 60% chance of coming up with the correct answer (assuming no one individuals answer affects another) then that maybe true. However, there is no reason to assume this. If their answer is more like a bell curve with most people falling somewhere in the middle, then you are likely to get the same answer by selecting a random person in the group. The more people you have, the chances that they are all equally informed also diminishes. Wouldn't you be better off simple finding one person who is an expert on the subject? Isn't that why specialization works?

I do not know that the call will not be a waste of time. I realize not everyone is as obsessed with precision in language use as i am, and that is perhaps the greatest difficulty in engaging in any meaningful discussion about morality (or maybe i am the one using language incorrectly). If i run into the same problem with Stefan again, then i will move on and that will be the end of it.

If you do not see the problem with the red part, then all my effort was wasted and i should move on to avoid wasting any more time.

So you are not going to use standard form of words, and completely ignore arguments which i put forward. At this point either i cannot understand most of your content (when i read them i get very different meanings from what you mean) or you cannot understand most of my content. Either way we will not get anywhere.

I read all the arguments about immigration and it still only produces one conclusion, the welfare state is the initiation of force and its morally and practically bad. The confusion stems from those who are drawing conclusions like lets close the border. Let me be the first to ask (though i think others jave asked), how exactly do you intend to accomplish that? Lets assume your plan did work, how long will we keep the borders closed? Would we stop interfering in other people's (outside our borders) affairs (this includes walking away from the middle east)? Doez his really bring us closer to freedom (feeling free inside a safe house is not reassuring)?

There are three things that govern a persons actions. The first is their biology, which includes things like IQ and psychological disorders. There are a few ways to correct it, but they tend to revo k ve around msmanaging it moreso than changing it. The second is experience and our relation to our experience. While our experience (past) is fixed, our relation to it is not. The problem is that you need to be very invested in self improvement (self knowledge) to improve your relation to your experience. The third and easiest to change is situation. The problem is that if it is not combined with either biologucal improvement or self knowledge, you will likely find yourself back in that situation. I think this is true regardles of race, but race xurrently has a big impact on all three. Someone born into a black ghetto is screwed on all three fronts (on average). Success cases are those who won the biology lottery (high IQ). The same is probably true for the middle east. The fastest way to solve the problem is to let evolution run its course. As long as one group of people are subdidized at the expense of another (welfare state) the problem will persist and expand.

Preference: a greater liking for one alternative over another or others e.x. "a preference for long walks and tennis over jogging." Behavior: the way in which one acts or conduct oneself, especially toward others. Act: take action; do something. I realize now i have not been as vigilant against imprecise language as i hoped to be and as a result have engaged in it myself. I have been using behavior to mean act, when it is in fact slightly different. Now lets resolve the confusion around preference. Assume i give three options of activity, sleeping, eating or reading, what does it mean to say you prefer reading over the two others? Using standard definition, it simply means you like reading over sleeping or eating. This does not mean you chose reading. What if instead you did in fact choose to read? I can imply from that choice that you prefer reading (minus a few exceptions which we will leave for now). Extending the notion that action implies preference, but preference does not imply action, it would be more accurate to use action. You must accept that action implies preference if you are to derive preference from action. Going back to the examples, two guys in a room cannot murder each other, but two guys in a room can prefer murder (greater liking for murder over not murder). Preference only occurs in someone's mind. I will conclude this argument by ending on this note, "preference to do something is a more accurate description of doing something." I'll let you think on that. On the point of unlimited options, the constraints are biology, experience and situation. I do not need to impose it, it is a fact of reality. On the point of what we can all do all the time, thinking doesn't qualify since people sleep, get into coma. I admit i did not think about negative actions, i will give you all the negative actions (not doing x). Since all positive actions cannot be performed by everyone at all times, then i fail to see the value of UPB (as defined by you) then. On death and existence. Exist: 1. Have objective reality or being. 2. Alive, especially under adverse condition. If you are using definition 2, then you are right, dead people by definition do not exist, but that is not an argument for why they do not count. Unless you mean dead people are unpersons and should be treated like inanimate objects. When i get home on saturday i will respong to the rest of the post. I am too exausted and not a computer.

I can give my two cents on why i cannot get on board the Trump train. If you want to solve a problem, solve it. Half measures at best just delay the problem and more likely just cause it to pop up in other places (like wack a mole). Trump is at best a half measure. It seems many libertarians think a half measure is better than nothing (any action is better than inaction). Maybe it is, but i am not convinved. I would rather we all close our eyes and grit our teeth and let the homeless man die than help him continue the cycle of helplessness (i know it sounds callous but you get rid of the problem once and for all).

Preferred behavior : to do one thing out of all possible options available. By definition what you do is out of all options available. No one has virtually unlimited options, you have options and then you do one (or two or three depending on how many verbs are applicable to you) of them. Its fine if you want to use preference to mean performance (since by your definition, preference and performance are sematically identical, you cannot perform actions that are unavailable). Then all subsequent use of preference should allow me to susbstitute perform (ex. I prefer eating = i perform eating). I prefer responding to you right now= i perform responding to you right now. Since you can simply use perform in its standard form to mean the same thing, then why use prefer by your definition? There is factually nothing that everyone can do all the time (to my knowledge). Everyone cannot eat all the time, at some point you will either regurgitate the excess or simply fall asleep. Then what about those who currently have no food? This is why using the appropriate word really matters (universally performable behavior). What do you mean dead people do not exist? The rest of your post is indecipherable. Here is what would really help this conversation, using words in their standard form. The only reason you should have to define things is if its a new word or i do not seem to know the definition of the word (standard definition). We really don't need to reinvent language.

If universally preferable behavior is what you should do if you want to be moral, and morality is what you should do to acquire virtue, and virtue is whatever transcends, and what transcends is truth, then universally preferable behavior is what you should do to acquire truth. I think i will let you figure out what is wrong with that definition of morality. Truth: that which is in accordance with fact or reality. Hint: Becoming a good scientist is not what stefan was referring to.

Let me start by conceding the first point. I have do have issues with meaning of words. Let me start with your definition of preferred behavior Preferred behavior - to do one thing out of all possible options available I find it bizzare to use preffered behavior when you could use the simpler version "to do". Istead of saying my preferred behavior is typing this message, it would be more clear and precise to say i am typing this message. Universally prefered behavior: everyone can and will choose to do this thing out of all possible options available all the time. By your definition there is no universally prefered behavior, if it existed, then everyone will be doing it all the time. If you staying alive, then dead people are not doing it. If you say eating, then i will simply point to people who aren't eating (at the moment). I expressed the first argument in my earlier post and stefan expressed the second in his book. I am getting the sense you are not paying close attention to the content, you are interpreting the content (which is not necessary). To end with my earlier point, to say sitting is universally preferred behavior will be semantically identical (using your meaning of universally preffered behavoir) to saying everyone is sitting all the time. If you are right and Stefan is using to be moral as the goal, then his definition is at best circular. If ethics is what is required to be moral, then you have to define morality. If you use standard definition, then what is moral is what is good and what is good is what is ethical. So ethics is what is required to be ethical (circular). On the second point, i cannot address it till i know what you mean by universally preferable. If i use standard definition, then murder is universally preferable means murder can be preferred by everyone at the same time, i've already addressed that point. If you are using stefans definition, then murder is universal means murder is required if you have unspecified goal in mind. I would have to know what the goal is. I would also have to know what you mean by evil.

i was referring to these These sets of questions.

Since i am not seeing any valid refutation of my arguments, i guess i should get ready to call in.

Was this comment directed at me? I don't believe my questions could be answered simply based on your video and they are not life boat situations (except for the rape one and it was only a work up to the last question, you can skip it if you want).

Based on your ealier objection to the hypothetical "homeowners association" enforcing rules, and your comment here, i think its safe to assume our disgreement lies in what obligations are transferable and under what conditions. In light of that, let me ask some questions. The questions will be based on a gated community created by a group of homeowners. They created a HA (homeowners association) that acts as democratic DRO. One of the conditions to joining that community (living there) is accepting the terms of the HA. 1. Are the children of the initial owners bound by the rules of the HA after they become adults? 1a. Can a child of an initial resident take legal(not a reference to government) action against the HA if they lock him out of the community because of trying to enter past curfew? 1b. Can the HA forcibly take the radio of a child of an initial resident for breaking the noise rule by the HA? 2. Is an inheritor of a house required (under threat of force) to follow the rules of the HA? 3. Is a buyer required to follow the rules of the HA? Instead of a gated community, what if it were an apartment complex with individuals owning their own apartments, and the complex is managed by a management company (I think these set ups are more common in large cities like New York).Here the threat of ostracism carries no value in dealing with transgressors, so that physical force (or legal action) backs the rules set by the management company. Would this be immoral and why? If none of the above example is a case of obligation transferring with rights, then in what case can obligation be tied to rights and why?

Not sure you read my respose above since you did not respond to it. I might as well just ask, why is it immoral to attach an obligation to ownership so that when ownership is transfered obligation is also transfered? This creates the condition that if you accept ownership (which you are free to reject) you also accept the obligation. Please show me why its immoral from first principles.

On preference: to desire something more than another (just reposting your definition). Preference is not a all or none. When you use the phrase prefered behavior it can be in 2 different ways. 1. I prefer eating a tomato over eating an apple. 2. I prefer eating a tomato over all other possible actions. 3. I prefer eating an apple to all else except eating a tomato. Can three be true and if so, what implication does that have on guessing my preference based on my behavior? On universality: there is a lot of problems with using this term. The simpest being it can only be applied by definition unless you select a category that can be empirically verified. If i say all cats are mammals, i would be right because that is true by definition. If i say all cats have one head (assuming a 2 headed cat is still a cat by definition), i would have to check across the entire universe across all time to say if that claim is factually accurate. Leaving that (probem with universality) aside as its not needed to show the probem with your final claim, lets get to the final claim of universally preferable universal behavior. What does universal behavior mean? Is there such a thing as universal sitting? I am guessing what yiu are trying to communicate is performace by all. I can't say everyone at the stadium is universal sitting, but i can say everyone at the stadium os sitting. What does universally preferable mean? The use of universal here is very difficult to discern. 1. It can be prefered at all times. 2. It can be prefered by all people, 3. It can be prefered by everyone at all times 4. It can be prefered by everyone at the same time. For 5, 6, 7, 8, sibstitute prefered with prefered above all else in 1, 2, 3, 4 respectively. I am guessing you are going for 8 (it can be preffered above all else by everyone at the same time). The thing Stefan seems to be trying to say is action that everyone can perform at the same time. Going back to murder. We can all prefer to murder at the same time. No person can prefer to be murdered (as it he would no longer be a victim of murder since he prefered it, its just assisted suicide). We cannot all murder (perform the behavior) at the same time. If ethics are things you must do (that which is necessary or required) if you have certain desired goals, then its not binding if you are not required to have specific desired goals. Cleaning up the response. If you simply define ethics as actions which can be performed by everyone at the same time, its not clear why it would be binding. His definition hinges on the fact that it is binding to eat if you want to live (which is just a conditional). The shift in meanings allow him to maintain that fact of conditional validity, without the condition itself (so that he can just say "it is necessary to eat/breathe or it is UPB to eat/breathe"). This creates the illusion of factual claim when in fact it stops being a factual claim the moment the condition is removed.

Since its obious you either did not read or did not understand my content, i will restate it once more. To prefer murder is to prefer killing someone without their consent. You insist on confusing that with prefering to be a victim of murder (to prefer to be killed without your consent) which is a contradiction.

I posted a few ideas i am nit sure you noticed, so i'll attempt to give the full objection here in what is going be a long post. 1. Where there is coercion, there is no moral culpability (the culpability lies with the initial actor). Is that true by definition or based on another principle plus logical deduction? In your example, you claim if A threatens to shoot C unless he assaults B, then C can't choose not to assault B. That claim is factually inacurate. 2. The Hitler example. Hitler (to my knowledge) never personally engaged in the thing you claim will make him morally culpable. Hitler never personally forced anyone to act at gunpoint. Hitler never personally brainwashed any child. Even if he did (personally brainwash a child), when does the child become responsible for his actions? So Hitler expresses interest in killing Jews (in form of political action) to military. Military carries out the murder. Is there a difference between those who wanted to kill Jews and those who did not (in the army)? Is Hitler still morally culpable and why? 3. The political mess of forced conformity (Military). We have ten people in a room. There is a rule that whatever order they recieve through the screen in the room must be followed. If one of you fails to follow the order, the rest of you are required to shoot him (they were all given gun and brought to the room separately). They send a girl into the room and order person one to rape her. He does not want to rape her, but should even one person follow the earlier rule, he will be shot. So he proceeds and rapes her. Suppose the girl has been told to go into the room and when she comes out she will get money (she was not coerced into going in). The guys in the room were also promised money for participating in an experiment (so no coercion on their part). Who is morally responsible for the rape? 4. For almost everyone who grew up in America, they were told democracy is good. Somem become politicians,cops, soldiers, teachers, parents and voters. When a police officer shows up at your house to arrest you for not paying taxes, who is morally responsible? When a soldier drone strikes a wedding, who is morally responsible?

What does it mean to leave it? The expression is "if you can't beat them, join them."

I get the sense you guys did not understand this segment. If you still do not think your point is addressed, then please restate it as clear as possible. Think about the way you are using your words (e.x. applied universally or what people don't want) and what they actually mean. Do the conclusion you are doing from them follow, if so how?