Jot

How many children? :|

I am not understanding this sentiment...of settling down for less...it feels so sado-masochistical to me... If I was in that situation settling down for me would never cross my mind...I'd rather die alone and go to hookers.

"You have to initiate force to put somebody to death. Or is that not obvious?" What is obvious is that this statement is false. One single example is enough to prove this wrong. Someone has a knife and tries to stab me...he misses but I also have a knife and I stab him instead. He dies. Self-defence. No initiation of force on my part. "It it simply a moral position." Under which moral framework? "However, if you allow a person to die that you can keep from dying with a fairly minimum amount of effort, but decide to let them die, you are partially responsible for their death." No, you are not. Here you are advocating a moral system that is different from UPB and as far as I know UPB is the only valid one. "You have to decide personally, from a moral standpoint if purposefully letting people die is a positive/neutral/negative thing." So you are a moral relativist then? Hold on a second...before that you were talking about "responsible"and "It it simply a moral position." "You must initiate force to imprison a person. On virtually all scenarios, you must continue to initiate force to keep a person imprisoned. Imprisoning people for a reason other than an immediately required defensive measure (handcuffs) or rehabilitation is a continued use of force for what I can only determine is an entirely arbitrary period of time. That leads me to two conclusions. Either arbitrary prison times are potential of any crime, or you require a contract for imprisonment with the prisoner. Suppose a thief is caught and refuses all forms of restitution. Rehabilitation can potentially be forced upon them. A contract for time served with the prisoner can sometimes be acceptable, but it has to be entirely voluntary. What courts so now with plea deals makes it not voluntary." See dsayers argument above and tell me what you think about it.

-2...I would also like to know from those who downvoted the reason they did this...getting downvoted doesn't tell me a lot about what is false/wrong with what I said. What do you mean?

Your requirements struck me as low...from 1-10 where would you rate your self-esteem?

Yes it does. Thank you.

It is indeed something personal, but I don't feel comfortable talking about on the public forum.

"Death as a punishment is not okay" Make the argument. Why it is your duty to keep them alive if you can? How do you know rehabilitation is possible for all people? Why is this the only moral form of punishment? "Otherwise imprisonment is also wrong as a use of force" Please expand on this.

"If I complain that my girlfriend has cheated on me, it really makes it sound like what happened is about me." Invalid. "This puts me both in the role of the victim, and in that of the main character." How come? "What is happening between my partner and his or her other lover has only got to do with the two of them. It is not about me." How does the author know? "They would do it if I didn’t exist" How does the author know? Also, "makes it sound", "It is not about me" are too obscure in order to consider them any kind of argument, they could mean multiple different things...when you are making the case for a truth about reality you need to use precise terms with clear meanings and definitions so they cannot be equivocated. Does it seem completely logical to you? Why?

1.Where did I make "provocative attacks upon others"? (quote) 2.Where I did not "respect the opinions and contributions of others"? (quote) "I posted this news item because it is directly pertinent to two of the main threads of discussion within our community" I am not sure I agree with this...the part I have difficulty with is "the reason I", I know that this is indeed pertinent to two of the main threads of discussion within our community, however the reason you posted it can only be a personal motivation outside of it being a main concern on this forum...suppose you asked me this..."why didn't you make a thread like this?" Would it be accurate for me to say..."Because it is a main concern in this community"...so I feel that this doesn't make any sense...that's why I believe it can only stem from a personal motivation. "Only you can answer your question about why you do not care about the long-term effects that current events will have upon Europe but" Did I ever say something like this? (quote me) Why do you believe that me saying I don't understand people's personal motivations for bringing this up is equivalent with what you said? "as a European with family and friends living in Europe, I do care" I am exactly in the same situation with you. If the reason you care is because of yourself, your family and friends...by this logic I should care too...but I don't, is there not a flaw in your thinking here? "The gravity of the situation is such that it is almost comical for you to question the "personal motivation" of anyone who dares to discuss the situation." What is so comical about it? I don't see why you used the word "dare" there...did I threaten anyone not to talk about it...or tried to discourage them from doing it? "It is also hypocritical to criticize those who "delve into these threads" when you, yourself, have not only delved but, also, posted five times in this thread." This is an unjust accusation on your part...when did I ever criticize those who "delve into these threads"? (quote me) Even though I did not criticize anyone, I'll assume for a second that I did...why would it be hypocritical for me in this case? Since what I meant there was to discuss this subject...not to question the reason people do it...it would have been hypocritical of me in the case I discussed the topic of refugees and then "attacked" people for doing the same.

Hm, I don't really see how a process having a gradation means that there is no point in time, t, in which the circumstances of t-1 can be different from t...or I am not understanding your argument. But what about the factors? Let us say we have a person called "z", how can we test his ability to survive by himself? But if there is no day in which he is incapable and then he becomes capable...if this is true, doesn't this mean that he will never become capable?

Not a great psychologist...

What is the reason for which I did not respond?

And why wasn't it for me? Okay, still this won't stop me from commenting on your argument... First premise :"Consciousness is associated with processing information" I took your advice and looked up wiki's definition: "Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself." In this definition I don't see anything that requires processing information...maybe I am not seeing it...but do you?

I find the word associated very bogus and obscure there, I'll need a more clear definition. You are right about the word "need" as being at least inaccurate there. "Need" is a moral term, and morality does not enter the question of what I have said above. What it would have been correct for me to say is "must be able to"

If parents are under the moral obligation to provide for their children and they don't do it...it is abuse.

Knowledge is: justified true belief. If someone says to me that Scotland is north and the reason they give me after I ask them how do they know is: "someone I trust told me so" then I declare so in other words you don't know...then I continue my trip to Scotland heading north as they told me.

What if I murdered someone who only broke my legs? Would you judge me then? Initiation of force is by definition immoral. What happens in a boxing match is by definition not initiation of force. Nailed it. dsayers is slayin' on these forums.

What are your requirements for looks? How low would you go, and what are you from 1-10?

So if the kids got mistreated it would not by my business? I am sorry but it would, if I knew someone is abused and could do something about it, I'd do it, I would certainly not throw my hands in the air and scream "none of my businesses". My book is none other than reason and logic, personalizing it to me, the way you did there, is accusing me of not being reasonable. Why would you assume this?

Haha, I actually cannot think of one. So, is existence only possible within matter? Hmm, good question, I am having trouble with the distinction between proof and evidence...but I'd say that we only have evidence for gravitational pull is 9.8 m/s^2...not proof too, for me proof needs to be something that is formally demonstrated, for example Pythagorean theorem is a good example of something that is proved. Yes, as far as we know...does this bear anything on the conclusion that there is no such thing, though? This is certainly not something that I mean...what I mean is that every positive claim made by someone needs to be justified/proven/demonstrated/etc... otherwise we can all make our version of "reality" that in fact has nothing to do with reality.

Your premise (not mine): Dead people have no consciousness because there is no electrical activity in their brains. What intrigues me is that you agreed that this is just an assumption and didn't even try to back it up, instead you seem to believe that it is me who needs to prove you wrong...I am not understanding this... I never made the claim "there is no difference in consciousness between dead and live people"...so why do you ask me to account for something I never said? But let us assume for a second that I take that position and say...okay...I cannot prove this...so you urge me then to accept your argument?! Okay let us assume I do that too...but what happens if someone will come along who will give evidence for "there is no difference in consciousness between dead and live people"?! Does this mean that your proof magically transforms into non-proof? Why do you believe that you can assert something without giving evidence for it and then you ask me to offer counter evidence to it? Is this not an example of an argument from ignorance fallacy?

How do you know it necessarily has to be a mechanism? How do you know that nothing can exist without matter? Using this definition: exist - to be real, to have correspondence in reality;

I never moved the goal post...my OP is "How can we prove that without matter there can be no consciousness?" to which you replied with an argument that is built on the premise that consciousness can only arise as the result of a functioning brain. Then, I immediately asked you to back this up, you never did that... Without demonstrating this premise your argument is vacuous and it is certainly not a proof. I don't need to rebut an argument that is built on a premise that you didn't account for. It is you who need to provide an argument that dead people cannot be conscious since this is the premise of your argument, not mine. I didn't move the goalpost, you did.

Judge for himself doesn't imply that his judgement is also correct.