labmath2

Matthew, low IQ is also correlated with crime. It was easier to speak to others before the IQ data. I could simply hold them accountable, even with bad parenting. Given what i know about IQ and bad parenting, i now get the sense i was wasting my time. They simply cannot understand me. I once asked a coworker why he feels the need to be hyper aggressive. After the discussion, he agreed that hyper agression was objectively negative but made no commitment to changing. If their problems are partially biological, then moralizing the problem may not be very effective. I do agree that they have nothing to do with me. I am myself, independent of race and ethnicity, but that is easier understood mentally than practiced emotionally. I cannot pretend the i do not feel shame and anger everytime i see a black person doing something ridiculous (like fighting over something trivial). I suppose i just need to do more self work.

Yes, on some level it will affect how people percieve me at a distance. On another level it says there is little hope for black communitues (where i happen t be living at the moment). If regression to the mean is a thing does that mean my progeny will regress to IQ of 85? These are just the few things that come to mind at the moment.

that is glorious.

Around the 47 minute mark in the video with Stefan and Linda Gottfredson, i think i felt the underlying discomfort in my unwillingness to accept the genetic basis. To use the Yao Ming example, imagine basketball was a big sport in China, but just due to genetic differences, the Chinese will always be at a disadvantage. It would be crushing. Where there is a clash between personal responsibility and genetics, i want to believe in personal responsibility. Maybe it has more to do with my history, but the notion that people have so little control over their lives really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Edit: I think about the women who are born at the upper end of beauty. They still have to exercise, eat healthy, learn other social aspects that really enhance their beauty (like flirting). Is it not their hard work that lands them the successful guy? They could have been born beautiful and squandered their talents. When i think this way for beauty, it feels weird. However, If you have an IQ north of 145, went to school, worked hard and studied to get a good position, the talent is downplayed because it's inconspicuous. Maybe i am just too emotional about this at the moment to see straight.

My concern has nothing to do with group identity. I have very little relation with race (I am Nigerian American). Its not that i should feel bad about it, but that i do. I don't think its ever possible to completely dissociate from one's cultural heritage. Especially in a society where the racial difference is ever present (i live in NYC). I cannot help but notice the overabundance of blacks in certain places and their absence in others. Engaging with other black people leaves me disheartened by what it means to be black. Those moments when i get those feelings, it matters.

I am Black myself, so i am biased to potential redemption stories of IQ when it comes to blacks. The notion that blacks are just so far behind is very damning and so i quickly embrace alternative narratives (wherever they may come). Here is the link to the article i would appreciate unbiased feedback or opposing publications. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/17/none-of-the-above

Here again you substitute the fact that one exclusively controls his body for the moral right to do so and use control as the basis of ownership. As i pointed out earlier its problematic. If someone takes an organ in my body (kidney) without my permision, does he become its owner the minute its in his body. He would have satisfied the condition of having greater control of the organ than anyone else, thereby granting him the moral right to control said organ, hence he is the owner.

The problem neel is having is that you keep claiming self ownership is an attribute of humans like magnetic fields are attributes of magnets (which by the way is not very meaningful, since the magnets do mot have magnetic fields, they produce them). When asked to describe (define) this attribute, your answer is either vague or confusing. [quote name="Will Torbald" post="422092" timestamp=" I did define it. I said "being the -sole owner/person in charge/responsible agent- for your body, mind" Since you are making the statement that it isn't true, you need to provide evidence of the contrary. Who is your co-owner? Or you whole owner? Who are you asking permission to breathe? This answer you gave is poor at best since you define self ownership as being the sole owner of yourself, which is just a tautology. To reiterate my earlier response, you are not the responsible agent (did not produce) for your body, your parents are. If you mean you should take responsibility for your actions (in some moral sense), that is begging the question since you are only responsible because you are the owner. You are in charge of your body only in the sense that you control it. The two problems with the control claim (morally speaking, since its factually true) is that you seem to substitute controlling your body for moral right to control your body. You are also reducing ownership to control. Both positions are detonated by the car example, as any driver of a car must have the moral right to drive it, and must be its owner.

There two problems with those comparison. The first is that you are claiming self ownership is a physical property without showing it (i made the counter arguments to control as ownership earlier, you can look at those). The second is that even if self owneship is a physical property, it would not confer any moral obligation without breaching the is ought bridge. Also i have shown how your definition of self ownership is lacking, so you need a better one.

I am sorry i did not make myself clear. I do not understand your answer. Consent determines what exactly? Consent to what are you referring? What does consent have to do with Bill either throwing or not throwing the apple?

I will ignore all uses of ownership in your deginition sine you cannot define a word with itself. So self ownership is being the person in charge or responsible agent for your body and mind. You are not responsible for your body and by extension your mind, your parents are. If being in charge, which translates to controlling your body, is what you mean by ownership, then there is the problem of how it applies everywhere else. The car example clearly falsifies this claim. The controller of a car must be its owner. Another problem with the control case is that you assume something ought to be the case just because it is. Just because you control your body, does not allow you to bypass the argument for why it is moral for you to control your body.

Can you elaborate on this? It seems you are affirming that Tom has greater control of Bill's arm, but i may be misunderstanding you. P.S. I actually take the same position on fraud you do, I just think it applies beyond just that.

I am not sure what your argument is, but i will respond to what i think it is. I think you are using "is' and "ought" in non conventional ways. "The is-ought problem, as articulated by Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume (1711–76), states that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. The is–ought problem is also known as Hume's law, orHume's guillotine." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem The statements i highlighted in red reminds me of the question "if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" The trick there is that its hard to tell if the question is observer dependent or independent. Facts about the world exist independent of an observer. Those facts do not conform to those statements. Even if everyone still believed the earth revolved around the earth, it would have no bearing of what actually is. Some facts are observer dependent, ;like color or sound. The thing that produces the effect of color and sound is itself observer independent, but our interpretation (and communication) of those phenomenon are observer dependent. So that certain objects reflect a specific wavelength of light is observer independent, but that that object is red is observer dependent. I went to the trouble of typing all that just to say, your believes about how the truth works has no bearing on the truth except in those cases where the truth is affected by observing it. So no, anything which is does not have to be empirically verifiable and does not have to be consistent with other instances which are empirically verifiable ." The best example i can think of is the fact that radio waves existed for thousands of years before humans knew it existed. However, it would be best to have empirical evidence when communicating this truth to others (though have succeeded in communicating falsehoods as truths for thousands of years, so what i know).

Ought the way its used is a generalization of the if then statement. Basically, it removes context. I can say you ought not murder (or paraphrased, if you do not want to be immoral, do not murder). The ought form assumes the goal.

Its not a question of consent, but one of control. Does Tom or Bill have greater control of Bills arm? Who is responsible for throwing the apple? Can Bill refuse to throw the apple? I know this is different from the fraud case but the similarity, which is the important element, is that the individuals still control their bodies and choices (no physical restrain). Unless you are of the opinion that Bill ceased to control his body and choice the minute he was threatened.

This is incorrect. People discovered facts about the world well before the scientific method or accepting law of idetity. This is not communicating the same thing.

I do not disagree with these statements, but i think the initial statement falls short of communicating this. Edit. Your use of values here is more about the indvidual than the facts themselves. A person has to believe there is value in the knowledge he is pursuing to pursue it. However, he could accidentaly stumble on it. Holding certain values help, but upon further reflection, it is not necessary. Though the statement " not all values are equal in obtaining facts about reality" is true, one can still obtain facts about reality in the absence of those values (maybe a lot slower or less consistently).

I think you are confusing intention and value (ought). It is in fact the case that I can choose to measure the speed of a car with tea leaves, but that has no impact on the nature of reality. In your earlier conditional statement, "if you want to measure the speed of a moving car, then you ought to use a speedometer," has to do with what we know about reality moreso than personal values. The ought speaks more to consistency and accuracy of results of the proposed method. I can say i want to measure the speed of moving cars and gather tea leaves, it would simply demostrate a different intention (i do not care if my measurements are consistently accurate) from that of someone who goes and grabs a speedometer.

I will have have to hear it context, but i can already see the problem with the statement. Facts about reality are independent of personal values.

You are not definiting ownership. You are assuming the thing you are trying to prove. Another way of stating the argument is this. There are two forms of ownership, the descriptive and the philosophical. I get the sense people are getting the two confused. The descriptive says you produced or control something, while the philosophical says whether you should have special authority over it. That i control my body has nothing to do with whether i should have the right to control my body or that others should not interfere with that act. It is an instance of trying to derive an ought from an is.

I have been thinking about this, and i think i found the weak link in this argument about responsibility. Imagine Tom has a gun and Bill has an apple. Tom points his gun at Bill and demands he throw his apple at Jill (an inattentive bystander). If Bill throws the apple at Jill, isn't Bill solely responsible for the assault od Jill, while Tom is solely responsible for the threat to Bill. Tom does not have greater control of Bills arm than Bill himself does. Bill needs to be complicit for the assault to happen. This argument hinges on the idea that someone else cannot be more responsible for your choices than you are (even if threat of force or misinformation preceded that choice).

If ownership changes meaning from one istance to the next, then it cannot act as the foundation for proving property rights. If any challenge is brought to your use of ownership, you can simply move from one definition to another without addressing the challenge. So it would be easier to define ownership in one way, then build your theory. I look forward to your definition of ownership.

My use of I is purely a descriptive use of language. It would be more accurate but take more time to describe the process, a freedomainradio member by the handle labmath used his fingers to type words into the thread that expresses ideas which for the sake of convenience will be ascribed to him for the duration of the thread. He has no special rights to the argumenr as anyone else is equally free to claim them, but it helps in conversatiob if we ascribe them to him, then instead of recreating the arguments, we can use the short form labmath's claim or labmath's argument.

Read In The Realm Of Hungry Ghosts by Gabor Mate. I am on chapter 21 and I already realize some things about myself and the way I percieve the world that put a lot of things in perspective.

That sounds very deep, but do you care to actually make the argument in a form i can understand?