SamuelS

I don't see how it could be immoral, it could get a bit iffy if you're depicting rape and such but you've said you're not so I think you're in the clear...that said, I would expect eventually that any and all content you put on the internet will be tied to your actual name -- could be wrong, but it's a possibility that one should probably consider...there's a line I heard Judge Judy say once that could be adapted to pretty much anything online "say it forget it, write it regret it", I don't mean to say you'll regret it, just that the possibility is there that it'll be tied to your actual identity so it might be a good idea to explore your feelings about that and take them into consideration.Just curious, do you draw other things?

this sounds like an extremely ambitious project...I'm no expert on crypto-currency but I think I've got a pretty solid understanding of the basics of what it is and why it works (at least with regard to bitcoin specifically). below are some potential problems I see, if you can overcome these, it may well be a viable idea. I hope this critical analysis is helpful to you :)decentralized != distributed. with bitcoin the ledger is distributed, and -- so long as no one entity/group has a majority of processing power -- false entries will not be validated...a primary source of value is this ledger and it's integrity...in your proposal, the value is the physical assets, so what's to stop somebody from absconding with the physical assets?if the "vaults" are anonymously held, the assets will be stolen. if they aren't anonymous, governments may steal them...the potential for anonymity, I think, would tip the scales in favor of "traditional" crypto-currency (bitcoin.)if there is paper being used in transactions, what's to stop people from stealing those "certificates"? and what's to stop, say, the US government, from banning and confiscating them? with bitcoin I can keep an offline paper wallet buried under a rock in the woods, and even if you find it you'll need my password. the physical nature of these certificates adds additional overhead, another point for bitcoin.another source of value in bitcoin is the lack of overhead for storage and transfer of "funds"...I don't know how any physical asset-based currency could compete with that. doesn't mean it couldn't be done, I'm just drawing a blank.I'm also confused as to how economies of scale would apply to decentralized vaults...I would think it's exactly the opposite -- 100 small vaults would cost more to setup/maintain than 1 large vault with the same capacity, and would require a lot of overlap in security measures...an oversimplified example of this -- 1 vault, 1 guard, 100 vaults, 100 guards...assuming you can solve the storage problems -- I would think semi-centralized storage could overcome much of that, relying on the reputation of the storage companies to "keep 'em honest" -- what incentive is there for people to maintain the ledger? with bitcoin, you're paid in bitcoin for that job...if there are transaction fees distributed to the "miners", that could give them the incentive, but would also be another point in favor of bitcoin. surely maintaining the ledger doesn't produce gold."the inevitable rise in the value of this new currency" is also counter intuitive to me, if it's backed by gold I would think it's either a value fixed to gold OR it's value is: value of gold - overhead / units of crypto, in which case the value would be going *down* all the time...

I'm not certain what source was used for the video, but you can always go straight to the source, of course I wouldn't call government statistics credible, but they are available. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/index-page

I'm curious if you have evidence for this -- you've discussed it with them and they agreed w/ that conclusion -- or if you're just (possibly correctly) assuming? Many people haven't ever seen the arguments, so just because somebody is a flag-waving patriot that votes every chance (s)he gets doesn't mean they think about it like that...any time I hear somebody say "there ought to be a law..." I hear "people ought to be shot...", but I wasn't always like that.

I can see that, and it makes sense...I really don't have much respect for the intelligence of many in that group, which of course leads to the question "why am I arguing with idiots?"...and I sure try not to, I'm pretty quick to block people when I don't think anything productive can come from it...this creates another "problem" -- if somebody I've blocked is reading it, they're only seeing the misrepresentation of my perspective, this was definitely the case in this instance and something I considered, consciously, as I continued to engage... I think you're right...and the troller really knows how to set the hook w/ me, I was actually about to disengage fairly early in, when the guy said something like "oh, that's right, run away when you've clearly lost the argument, just like all the other ayncraps" along with some other controversial statement...and I freakin' knew I was being manipulated, right then and there it was crystal clear, and I still swallowed that bullsh*t -- hook, line, and sinker. It's a debate group...well, it's supposed to be...I can't speak for others, I think there's similar motivations amoung a bunch of us, but I joined the group to introduce people to the ideas, to show them the gun in the room...the fact that all of them have serious issues with the current system seemed like an opening, but has proven to be a mirage or perhaps more accurately a projection of my own interest in exploring ideas logically despite any discomfort it may cause.Of course, all this leads me to "why didn't I block the guy sooner?"...well, he's really quite intelligent, and I know he could understand the arguments if he wanted to, and I want him to want to...I want to be right, and I want others to be right, not like "agree with me, dammit", more "is this the truth? I think so, but lets explore it." -- while it's a bitter pill, it seems you've hit the bullseye in calling it manipulative...aww crap.Thanks for taking the time and sharing your analysis, Robert, this is quite helpful!I am left pondering...I want more people to understand this stuff, I want people to want to know the truth...that's not ignoble, is it? I know before I joined that group I'd gotten great pleasure in helping people 1-on-1 that actually wanted to learn and expressed that desire, I think next time I've got the burning desire to discuss these things I should seek out more interested parties.

this image comes to mind: Well, in the case of somebody misrepresenting my arguments "Sam says X" when I clearly said "not X" (or not so clearly, perhaps, in the case of more complex ideas), I think that if I don't stick around and clear it up, people will believe I said the opposite of what I said, or whatever the misrepresentation is... And I just had a "light-bulb moment" that seems to fit my original "why?"...in the case of this particular group, I joined with the specific intent of becoming a better communicator (in order to spread ideas more effectively), and when an interaction goes like that, it may as well be a giant flashing neon sign saying "people don't understand you, you suck at communicating!" If I didn't engage at all, there'd be no appreciable difference "in the world" at large, but I wouldn't be misunderstood and I'd probably be happier.

Thanks for taking the time, Robert...I'm not sure if you're asking "what actually happens (including internally)" or "what crazy story are you making up that you're trying to avoid by staying engaged"...I think it's probably the first, so I'll go w/ that one, if that's not it I can try again.At first I run through the arguments in my head, sometimes I'll even re-read the whole thing if it's an online thing...I suppose I self-attack, I wonder if I could've done better at pleading my case or just disengaged sooner...but I usually move on and find something else to do in fairly short order, if I'm having a particularly hard time getting it out of my head I'll often watch some stand-up comedy.

that makes sense...I'm still pondering, but I'll be sure to share what I come up with...the "being seen and heard" is resonating for sure, since that's exactly what I felt like wasn't happening...I know I'm not the best communicator, but to think I said the opposite of what I said is pretty nutty. I got a kick out of that, I'm still chuckling a couple minutes later...you've got a good point, sometimes it's best to just kick back and watch.

Thanks, Tony...I'd say #1 fits more what I'm looking for, though I'm not specifically looking for it to get "heated" (not that there's anything wrong w/ that, long as people are honest)....I'm perfectly alright with an argument doing nothing more than illuminating the views of those involved -- I'd rather understand somebody is a Nazi than not, that way I can avoid them in the future -- the thing I got drawn into though, was certainly heated on my end, but not because I was being disagreed with, but because my views were being totally misinterpreted, casting me into what I feel was a rather unjust light.

in what way does it NOT? Whether or not an act initiates force is immoral, in context of NAP UPB, depends on the preference of the individuals involved...if you punch me in the face *out of the blue*, violation, if we agree to engage in boxing, then you punch me in the face, no violation.

Whether or not an act initiates force, in context of NAP, depends on the preference of the individuals involved...if you punch me in the face *out of the blue*, violation, if we agree to engage in boxing, then you punch me in the face, no violation.

I'm with you there, I thought maybe I'd missed it -- I listened to the audio rather than reading, sometimes this can lead me to running off w/ my own thoughts without pausing the recording, whereas with a book I'd just put it down until I can focus again. Perhaps universality is derived from an analysis of rape. I don't have the exact quote but early on in the book he says something like "Aristotle said any system of morality that justifies rape is wrong" or something like that, right? Ignoring the appeal to authority, majority, etc....a quick analysis of rape reveals that what makes it immoral (different from consensual sex) is the preference for one party not to be engaged.It still doesn't explain why there seems to be a near-universal acceptance of "rape is immoral/wrong", but it does show derivation from a noncontroversial starting point, yes?

thanks for that, no worries...I used "opinion" because I'm not aware of your position on the "justifiable" angle but my initial reaction was that it'd lead to problems...one can always (try to) justify an immoral action in order to avoid a worse outcome. Yes! And that's why I'm confused as to how this proves morality. In other words, "it feels right, I like it", but I'm quite confused as to how anything has been proven.I've heard Stef say that UPB proves NAP, but I don't see it, the "two men in a room" is identical to the NAP test as I understand it.

taking a job that doesn't directly harm somebody frees other people up to harm people directly. every job in the military is either directly, or indirectly, responsible for murder. with regard to "financial assistance" ("free money" from the govt), I don't think there's anything immoral about taking back a small percentage of what has been stolen from you by force. You don't have to go to college to get ahead, my understanding is that it's far less important now than it was before and income disparities are no longer what they once were. If you're into tech, for example, school can be far less important than experience."should I let my personal needs trump my ethics"I would say, if you do, they aren't "your" ethics at all.

should I get the smelling salts? he's all for having you speak for him though, eh? I sense a lot of hostility / passive aggression, kinda makes me not want to continue but I'll give it a shot because I think you're pretty close to at least understanding my interpretation, whether or not that aligns w/ Stef's. maybe I'm just projecting, but I do feel annoyed when reading your response, "perhaps you are very fortunate" comes across real "cunty" to me, maybe that's just me though. preference with regard to the proposed instance of action, not with regard to all possible actions. In the case of rape, the preference of the victim with regard to sex, in that instance, is to NOT have sex. the victim would prefer not to have sex, their preferences are ignored and their body acted upon anyway and that's why it's not love-making. if you remove the instance of action, and expand preference to include all other possibilities you're going to end up lost, a rape victim preferred not to have sex in the rape instance, that doesn't mean the rape victim never wants to have sex ever.

you're welcome to share them here, but I'll jump into the chat if you're aiming for a more conversational flow/pace.

well, there were arguments made, but the majority of the interaction -- the part that caused me anxiety, the part I don't want to repeat -- was my defending against unjust attacks...only to be further attacked, with no acknowledgement of the prior "misunderstandings."

fwiw, I do have distinct "inner people", my brother, my dad, Stef's managed to start a show in there too (but I think he's still always in the car), close friends, etc...far as I can remember, other people didn't make much sense to me. nobody ever explained much to me growing up either, I always felt like I was lost and trying to play catch up with a bunch of people that somehow knew all the rules like I'd missed being-human orientation class or something...which was really confusing, because here I'm surrounded by people that can't reason there way out of a paper bag, but they conform to expectations that I never felt were conveyed to me. that was the goal, not the definition. the definition was "a statement with some supporting reasoning".I actually did state in the conversation that truth was my goal...I was too busy playing whack-a-mole with my strawmen to give much thought to seeking out an honest perspective...thing is, this wasn't some random encounter, it was a known/assumed no-win situation from the start, buried in bullshit I had little time to do anything but refuse ownership of strawmen...

I suppose we could call it "mom", but I associate the crazy guy in my head w/ a lot of people -- mom, most of my teachers, every thiest I ever debated growing up -- the all have a couple things in common: immunity to rational arguments, inconsistency, violent tendencies.to analogize a bit closer to the point: after realizing I'm surrounded by violent people, I got an aluminum baseball bat for protection (the internal part), and locked myself in my home (didn't engage.)RJ's keyboard warrior thing could have a lot to do with this...I learned quite a long time ago that engaging these people to this level in-person could provoke violence, and I stopped...engaging online removes this risk in reality, but I wonder if subconsciously I don't understand that, therefore it provokes anxiety...this brings me back to the original question, why would I be doing that...if somebody punched me in the face every time they saw me, I wouldn't hang around if I saw them first...

I notice myself doing the same thing! Driving and showering are activities that seem to really bring it up "on its own", probably since it's a mindless task and there's not exactly a lot of mental distraction....when you say "convert...my parts", I'm thoroughly confused...if I remove the defining characteristic of the thing, it ceases to be the thing in any meaningful way...does that make any sense? I tried writing it a few ways and that was the best I could come up with. that's the million dollar question...I suppose in it's barest form an argument is just a statement with some supporting reasoning...what would I like to get from that? an understanding of the truth, perhaps I'd also like both another perspective to challenge my reasoning and validation of sound reasoning.

absurdum is not a fallacy, it doesn't mean that an argument is flawed...it's a way to illustrate the absurdities that would result from following an argument or course of action...not the best example, but saying that a moral subjectivist (law==morality people) would support slavery in 1850 united states is an example, and it's correct.preferable is the right term, justification only confuses the issue, IMO. it is the preference of the individual being acted upon that determines the difference between rape and love making, for example, not whether or not it can be justified. justification I think would invite examination of absurd lifeboat scenarios wherein choice is removed in the first place and thus morality isn't an issue.to me the only confusing things about UPB is that there's an entire book -- the phrase is self-explanatory, to me -- and that it equates to morality. It's clear that the test validates our "instincts" regarding rape/theft/murder/assault, that they're only immoral because the person being acted upon does not have a choice (otherwise we'd call it sex/giving/euthanasia/boxing), but it's not clear to me how this proves that UPB is morality, since there have obviously been many moral systems setup with conflicting ideas about what's moral for the master and what's moral for the slave (eye for an eye vs turn the other cheek.) actually, I'm also confused on the "other" categories and classifications...what I can say with a high level of confidence is "it is not immoral to engage in UPB", and "it is immoral to engage in behaviors which do not comply with UPB"...also, in relation to NAP, I don't see how UPB and NAP aren't exactly the same thing -- NAP says don't act on the property of another without their consent, except in self-defense...any proposed action that violates UPB, as far as I can figure, is a NAP violation, they share the same ground regarding the preference of the individual (or their property) that is being acted upon.

I lol'd

MFK -- thanks, that's all rather interesting...but, do you think those strategies would work on an irrational person? first thought is -- How would Socrates deal with somebody that wouldn't answer his simple questions? exactly...my conscious decision was to drop a truth bomb and exit, stage left...the reality is, "the bully" showed up and I found myself running the photocopier for the next couple of hours. this all rings true...but, how is this beneficial -- to externalize the irrational? I think some part of me must think it is beneficial...if that's an irrational part of me, and it seems to be, I shouldn't be letting it run the show... the post you linked is great, you're presenting ideas quite eloquently, IMO and this is all quite helpful...yes, I too can have an entire debate w/ a crazy person inside my head in about a nanosecond, I've always found that really interesting, but "nobody" talks about that stuff...it's actually a heck of a lot easier to deal with internally than externally too, or at least quicker....I'm left wondering though, what does a resolution look like? Also, if it's a coping mechanism, I'm confused, since it seems to create problems (anxiety) rather than solve them....after reading that post, I think RainbowJamz may have been more onto it than I wanted to admit w/ the keyboard warrior thing...it's not that I'm trying to be some "internet tough guy", rather that I know damn well I could be assaulted for arguing w/ similar people in-person, it wouldn't be the first time.

thanks RJ...I'd say it both does, and does not ring true to me...the "warrior" thing makes me feel "yucky", maybe it's just that specific word, I'd like to be a teacher, a guide, not a warrior..."...belief that we can become keyboard warriors in order to convince online strangers to share our views. Why? I don't know..."this idea, minus whatever connotations I'm putting on "keyboard warrior", is quite helpful, and, I think I have a possible answer -- I'm convinced by rational arguments, so I could be projecting that skill/ability/honesty/whatever onto others...in this particular case, I'm not projecting it onto my opponent so much as the audience.I just felt a wave of calm pass through me, I didn't realize I was still clenching my teeth, geez...I think we may be on to something here...

good point...it was a debate, in which I made several arguments, none of which were honestly countered or examined in any meaningful way by my opponent...truth was surely uncovered, if nothing else that my opponent is neither intellectually honest, nor consistent in the application of any proposed principles...a friend in the group was really curious about my positions and we discussed it a bit in a "side bar" conversation which went pretty well... the thing is...and I've since blocked this fellow...I already knew my opponent and his tactics from previous encounters, but I still engaged, and stayed engaged well past what seems prudent.