SamuelS

so...maybe I'm arguing with these people because my "inner mom" has a sock stuffed in her mouth because I was sick of hearing her craziness...but for some reason I want to battle the crazy?something that I think is reversed in your example is the projector -- maybe I'm projecting too, but I'm definitely the target of other people projecting *their* crazy in these arguments, I'm literally quoted out-of-context in such a way as to reverse the meaning (like "don't think X" becomes "think X")...so, I'm not following how it's me trying to resolve the irrational viewpoint...maybe you're right, but I'm not seeing it.or...maybe mom needs a voice, so I argue w/ other crazies so as to act that out? it's actually been pretty easy for the last couple months to ignore the discussions entirely, it's when I do enter the fray that I find myself wanting to walk away but knowing if I do my opponent will continue to burn strawmen with my likeness...which is dumb, I know, if I made a good case I don't have to keep restating it when it's misrepresented...but I do...

that's for sure... oh, about the same way it's handled w/ these other morons...if I didn't shut up after the initial "you're wrong" and made a strong case I was attacked as being crazy...I remember one time in particular, I was talking to my mother, trying to explain why socialized healthcare would be a problem...this was during the Clinton administration...when I pointed out the logical outcome of the system she said "that's what Hitler did, you can't say that!", when I retorted with something like "exactly! and you support it!?" I was told I'm crazy, we can't talk about these things, and I shouldn't talk about these things with other people either.

I found myself drawn into an absolutely insane argument tonight...there was no winning, and I knew it before I even typed the first word...I've argued w/ the same people before and could predict their sophistic tricks...but that didn't do me any good, it was the same thing as the last argument with these people...the main person I was arguing with is a really intelligent guy that has the intellectual honesty of a horseradish, well, that's probably insulting to a horseradish...I think y'all know what I mean.Anyhow, I got into this argument that I can't win...and I kept it up, and it made me quite uncomfortable, and I don't know why I didn't just "walk away" sooner...I had the argument all wrapped up, the counters weren't even legitimate, but of course I just had to point out why they weren't, and keep pushing my point home... I read (listened to the audio of) RTR, and I wonder if this is some sort of Simon the Boxer -- managing anxiety -- thing, but that doesn't seem to add up since it only seems to increase the anxiety...I find myself grinding my teeth when I talk w/ this group of statists...Intellectually, what I tell myself, what's keeping me in the conversation is a desire to be understood and to point out contradictions in the arguments of the other person, the desire to pin them down to a principle, and of course, that never works...the more I clarify, the more I'm misunderstood, I'm asked to defend misquotes or out-of-context quotes, etc....and, of course -- this is a statist I'm arguing with, after all -- the goalposts never seem to sit still...I've met a few really awesome anarchists in the group I'm having these arguments in...I don't know if that's the "carrot", or what...it sure doesn't seem to be doing much for anxiety management in the moment, but maybe it's bringing it to the surface to deal with now so I can move on?To be clear, I joined this group with the specific intention of arguing w/ statists as a way to introduce them to the ideas while improving on my argumentation/debate skills. I do not, intellectually, believe that either of these goals is best achieved within that group...but I went back tonight, and I'm quite perplexed as to why.Any thoughts?

I don't answer unknown numbers, if it's important I'm sure they'll leave a voicemail.

Nobody has to prefer the action, it only needs to be possible to universalize the action. Again, I may totally be misinterpreting it, but UPB is self defining. Universally preferable behavior, in other words behavior that can be preferred universally -- rape, by its very definition is not preferred by one of the parties, thus cannot be universally preferable. Perhaps I'm looking at it too simplistically but I don't think so. Regarding the proposition that man should act however he wants, that isn't even a testable proposal, only the distinct actions would be.

possibly related -- the "Volume 6" feed at http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadioVolume6 seems to have lost the first couple hundred entries since yesterday...starts at 2395, "Volume 5" ends at 2119

Stef has talked about this referring to it as the "intergenerational war" to come...I agree wholeheartedly -- the wealthiest generation in the history of the planet, born on third base, think they hit a triple, wonder why we're so lazy yet they need our money. Fuck them. FDR1609 & 2531 touch on the topic.

back to the original question, if you want a one sentence definition, perhaps something like this: UPB (Universally Preferable Behavior) is that behavior which could theoretically be preferred and engaged in by everybody simultaneously without infringing upon one another. this does not mean the behavior is or has to be preferred by anybody, only that it is possible. when you say "should", that seems like you're getting into the realm of ethics and remember UPB is not always about ethics, everybody can prefer blue pillows but that doesn't mean everybody should prefer blue pillows...in ethics I think you'd have things like violating self-ownership is not UPB and is also immoral because you're forcing your preferences on another. I could be getting all this wrong, but that's my take on it

I think the key is the "able" in preferable -- it's things that are possible to universalize, it's possible for everybody to do the behavior at the same time without any logical absurdities or making somebody immoral for not doing the thing...examples: it's not UPB to kill people -- -- if everybody has to kill somebody, then anybody not killing somebody at any given moment is immoral, the people being killed are immoral, and it'd be logically absurd to think everybody could be killing somebody at all times. it is UPB to breathe/eat/sleep/walk/talk, you don't even need to consider the "if you want to live" -- -- everybody can breathe at the same time, I don't need you to not breathe in order for me to breathe. I think these would fall into the "amoral" spectrum of subjective aesthetic preference, because some people might not want to live and thus wouldn't prefer to breathe, but that decision isn't forcing their choice on others. there's an audio of the book on youtube, it's only about 5hrs long and while a bit complex it's a great read, IMO.

While I don't think intellectual property is valid, and you've highlighted some of the reasons for that, I don't think this is a property issue so much as a privacy/morality/integrity issue. Regarding it's property status, I'd think of it less like a song and more like a trade secret. Using UPB I think it's clear that not keeping promises (secrets) which you've voluntarily made is immoral...if nobody kept their promises, there'd be no reason to banter about the concept in the first place. This isn't immoral because you've used force against somebody, it's immoral because you've breached an agreement, it's something like a fraud after the fact -- they may or may not have agreed to allow you to distribute this media if you'd given them the choice, but by making a promise that you wouldn't you've removed that choice from them. I wonder if you're mistaking NAP for the end-all-be-all of morality & social conduct where I'd say it's really just the beginning. Maybe this could be seen as a NAP breach as well, though...imagine, you tell your girlfriend you want to film her and share it on the internet, she says no, you tie her up and do it anyway...if she'd said yes, you wouldn't have had to tie her up...lying to her really just saves you the trouble of tying her up...it's a bit convoluted, but does that make any sense?

In the DRO model this could be part of a person's rating that could be made available to potential partners...and this could even be done now...it sounds a bit cold and sci-fi ala Cherry 2000, but there's no reason we couldn't build a system w/ certain criteria and thresholds and determine at least some level of compatibility w somebody as easily as we'd share an MP3 file -- I imagine having a red-light-green-light app on your phone, you wouldn't even have to share any details w/ the person, it's all done behind the scenes, if you get a green light you just strike up a conversation and learn about one another the old fashioned way.In a DRO system, you could even choose to obligate yourself contractually to a higher standard of partners (or even associations in general) in exchange for lower premium rates. Perhaps criminals would only have sub-par DRO options, perhaps having those DROs will limit your options with regard to associating with members of some premium DROs -- just like right now if you get into a bunch of auto accidents, certain insurers simply will not sell you a policy. To me, the question of "how would a free society ____" is an odd one -- by it's very nature, a free society does not dictate or limit the choices available to it's constituents. Perhaps a better question is "in a free society, how might you ____?"

combine that w/ Stef's definition (Love is our involuntary response to virtue.) and you may get -- "love is our involuntary response to perceived virtue." which is pretty much the same, just taking perception into account. the problem you're going to run into is that the word "love" has been diminished by culture to the point of being nearly nonsensical gibberish...you'd almost be better off making up a new word. I love my dog/friends/lover/parents/car/pie. Remember, people say all those things, the word love has nuanced meanings in each sentence, but how would you explain that to an alien? comparing the two definitions again... "Love is a word that we use to describe the feeling generated by the human body when two sapient beings, at least one of them being human, have reached a very high level of perceived understanding." could be reduced to "Love is our response to perceived understanding." and this simply does not fit, IMO. To borrow the Hitler example, it's not unreasonable to think one could understand the man's motives, but to love the man is another matter. I think we're back to Stef's definition being spot-on...I don't understand the motivations of Mother Theresa any better than Hitler's, but I know which one I would rank higher on the virtue scale.

I access the internet through a cell plan, thus have limited data on my end as well, I use a web service that converts youtube to mp3 files...not so great for graphically intense presentations, but for lectures and shows like FDR, it's perfect.

it seems like you're trying to come up with a "catch all" definition for "love" that encompasses many/all of the various uses...this, I think, is anti-helpful -- - communication, to be effective, must be clear - clarity requires precision - creating a blunt definition can only serve to make clarity more difficult - if the goal is communication, the tool (definition) must be precise I think you may have inadvertently solved this, however, with the word "affection". Affection is a term with a wide focus, we can narrow it down with more precise language to modify the meaning. The word "love" may, in a practical sense, be nearly useless at this point for communicating anything clearly. The definition has been extended and manipulated to the point of being nearly unrecognizable on it's own -- we can say we love our friends, dog, parents, pie, cars, and nobody bats an eye, but if one were to say "I feel romantic love for my (dog/parents/pie/car)" we might raise some eyebrows.

I don't think the order is terribly important. Could be wrong, but I don't think so. The winning/losing sentence would have the same meaning if restructured to "because you prefer to win, you would value winning higher than losing."I would think preference dictates, to some degree, value -- I prefer this to that, therefore I value this higher than that. So, perhaps value contains preference, but preference doesn't contain value since value is more precise where preference is just order...for example: I have an Apple, Orange, and Pear. I prefer them in that order, but that doesn't tell you anything about where I value them.I value the Apple @ $1, the Orange @ $0.75 and the Pear at $0.25 -- you can deduce my preference from my valuation but not my valuation from my preference.

I could be misunderstanding, I've only listened to about 80% of the audiobook (I keep falling asleep near the end!) but I don't think UPB claims any preference to be universal...you might say that breathing is a universal preference, but this wouldn't be the case for a suicidal person... Objectivity requires that preference be taken out of the equation..."that's a painting" objective, "that's a pretty painting (and I prefer it over another)" subjective.

google defines preference as "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others" and value as "the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something"so these are different concepts, though preference plays into value -- you would likely value winning higher than losing, because you prefer to win...unless you prefer to lose. one way to look at preference in valuation...I don't want to give my wallet to a mugger, but given the choice between being robbed and the alternative, I prefer to be robbed and keep my life, I value my life higher than my wallet. a voluntary example...I've got a pile of t-shirts, I value them <$10, you've got a $10 and value it lower than a t-shirt, so we trade. we each get the thing that we prefer and each got that which we subjectively valued higher. you might prefer to have paid $5 for the shirt, but you valued it >$10. both preference and value are subjective, and value includes the element of preference.

I would think the value of winning/losing in a competition is entirely subjective as with any other valuation. Cheating may be objectively bad, but I don't think there's any moral issue to playing games w other voluntary participants.

I think it's absolutely fair to expect people to hold up their end of voluntary agreements they've made, and I think you were correct in seeing this as an empathy issue...clearly person B doesn't care what he agreed to, he's going to do what he wants to do. I wouldn't want a person like that in my circle.

perhaps what we feel for our dogs, maybe children as well, is simply attachment?

another example along the same lines...ever remember the school bully cocking a fist back, then claiming the right to punch you because "you flinched"? it seems in that case the bully is implying that "a better man" would not react to the perception of impending violence...

I didn't mean to not answer the question, I guess I just didn't understand it very well and may not have made myself very clear...I think Lian's answer was right on the money, it resonates with me and seems to have struck a chord with you as well -- I'm sorry you were treated that way as a child. regarding the relationship thing -- perhaps one doesn't think one can do better. regarding fitness, discomfort seems necessary, pushing far past limits to the point of pain seems strange to me though I am aware people do that. I still think there must be a perceived benefit. regarding tattoos, yes, I'm serious, I feel "high" just from the smell of the soap they use. the pain is temporary, the ink is permanent. when I say economic calculation, I don't mean money, I just mean cost:benefit. and football always seemed crazy to me..."two hand touch" or "flag" football was always fun, but I don't even like to watch NFL type football because it's just awful watching those men hurt one another like they do.

in bad relationships we must be getting something we value out of it, it might be important to ask what that is and why we value it high enough to put up with the bad... in fitness it seems clear that the pain is just what you do to get the result -- so what we're gaining of value is pretty clear in this equation, one values fitness higher than the discomfort required to achieve it. with tattoos it's the same, and different, one values the tattoo enough to endure the pain to get it. there's also an endorphin aspect to it as well, I've got a few small tattoos and I get a "buzz" just from the smell of the green soap when I walk into a tattoo shop. other pain, such as a toothache or sprained ankle, we endure simply because the alternative is to cease existing, but I don't think many are glorifying such pain unless they're bragging about tolerance levels or something... for your examples it seems like a simple economic calculation to me

you could say that, though it does seem a bit odd to use the same word for so many different things...it's certainly not the same lusty drugged up "love" feeling caused by a neurochemical cocktail that I first discovered as a teenager...perhaps that's the difference, between love and lust.

by definition if it doesn't kill us, we endure it -- no "footprints"-style magic to it, we just aren't that easy to kill. I'm confused by the question. who is glorifying pain?