Donnadogsoth

I think neeeel is talking about implied consent. I may not have permission to kiss my girlfriend (i.e., "steal a kiss"), but I'll do it anyway on the presumption that she won't mind.

Is this video saying that black womandom is a boiling ocean of hypergamy?

It would be a strange creator who existed inside his creation.

This subculture is like playing a card game. Whenever any problem or confusion or fear arises, a random Ancapper plays the FREE SOCIETY! card and answers everything. It's brilliant!

The point is, the badness of theft is that someone cares about losing things, and so there is a punishment, even if that punishment is the implicit awareness of the disgruntlement of the victim. If you are talking about the punishment of negative feelings brought upon by empathy; it would be important for you to acknowledge that a small percentage of people severely lack empathy so would not experience this "punishment" having stolen from someone. If you are suggesting that theft is only bad if the thief feels empathy then that means that it's not bad for psychopaths to steal. The reason theft is wrong is because of the injury to the losing party who is somebody of merit. If there were no injury, or if the injury were to someone of no merit, there could be no theft. We should feel this as punishment, feel our outrage against a meritous person, even if we don't. That we might not feel it makes no difference. The existence of the problem the theft has created makes it wrong. All moral statements are IF/THEN, IF we want to avoid the deserved punishment for theft, including an awareness that we have wronged another, THEN we should not steal. Without that foundation there is no meaning to theft. UPB does not rely on punishment in order to establish a moral principle. Also: you've dropped the word "deserved" in there. How are you establishing that someone deserves punishment for theft. Obviously you can't refer to your own argument (quoted above) to establish that, as that would be the logical fallacy of: circular reasoning A thief deserves punishment if he willingly committed theft. We are punishing the intention-cum-action. If he goes around intending to steal but never steals we can't touch him. Is that circular? PS. When you reply please do not reply quote by quote breaking up the letter. I don't know how to respond that way, so I just boldface your relevant text.

Now, come, RoseCodex, the Internet is made for extreme discussions. I think it was a good starting point asking when a free society will take away my children. Now to your questions: Do you allow them to question or disagree? They can question all they want, their understanding of principle will come in time and then they won't need my authority. Do you tell them they are bad for disbelieving. Their theological education will be based primarily on the classical arts and sciences, so they will internalise a feeling of badness whenever they violate reason or good taste. Do you also tell them that many other people in the world have many different beliefs? Such knowledge will eventually filter to them whether from their parents or from outsiders. Do you tell them they are born with Original Sin? Yes, in the sense that humans are all born with a lust for wickedness coming from their ego and mother image complexes, and that this can be overcome through principle. That is, humans possess the divine spark which makes them worth saving. Do you tell them about Hell? Yes, a hell both in this world of giving in the bestiality of the senses, and in the world to come, as having sacrificed one's potential for immortal efficiency in helping the human race. These are the main things a peaceful society would be concerned about. Are you concerned about my given answers above? ...why not start from a place of calm exploration, rather than this hysterical ultimatum? A more productive conversation might go something like, "what aspects of a Christian upbringing are abusive, and what aspects might be tolerated in a free society?". Given that hundreds of millions of children are being raised to varying degrees and with varying flavours Christian, I think this concern is one that Christian parents will have when their beliefs are admonished as being irrational, evil, initiating force against their children, and the like. All the moreso in a proposed anarchic environment wherein the authority to divest children from their “abusive” parents will be decentralised and therefore seemingly less predictable (“anarchic”). So, I have given you my answers to your questions and a point-by-point summary of the religious beliefs I would seek to teach my child, not including the Nicene Creed which would be a companion to it, so let's consider your more productive conversation initiated, yes?

Or stealing a kiss.

You didn't bother to understand what I wrote, so why not answer your questions with a more pertinent one? The point is, the badness of theft is that someone cares about losing things, and so there is a punishment, even if that punishment is the implicit awareness of the disgruntlement of the victim. All moral statements are IF/THEN, IF we want to avoid the deserved punishment for theft, including an awareness that we have wronged another, THEN we should not steal. Without that foundation there is no meaning to theft.

If no one minded when you stole, why not steal?

Children are property?

"You shall not steal" is not necessary or logically certain. It is a statement premised on stealing=punishment. If there were no punishment for stealing, even if that punishment is merely the incurred displeasure of the victim, why not steal?

Thanks for the answer, RoseCodex. The integrity of the family is a very important issue, as is the protection of the welfare of children. I find it unsettling that the sentiment here suggests teaching children the tenets of traditional Christianity could be considered child abuse, but, at the same time, I sympathise with the suggestion that an anti-rational education is also child abuse. I am interested in a rational education for any children I might have, and as a Christian humanist that education would have to be religion couched in rationalist terms. Points of a Christian education: 1.“Heaven” means “principle” and “Earth” means “sense impressions.” This is the most important thing to teach children as soon as they can understand it. 2.In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth. 3.God made man in His own image, so man is the creative species, capable of finding jewels of Heaven and using them to alter his practice on Earth. 4.The basis for all morality is increasing the survival-power of man on Earth, by the discovery of principles in Heaven. 5.Any man who actually does, or desires to, operate according to principles of Heaven is blessed by God, any man who does not is cursed. 6.Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Who knew every principle in Heaven, and Who came to Earth to teach mankind the proper way to act towards man and God. 7.The first commandment of Jesus is this: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, with all your strength and with all your soul.” 8.“Heart” means emotions, “mind” means thoughts, “strength” means willpower, and “soul” mean intellect or your knowledge of principle. 9.The second commandment of Jesus is this: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” 10.In preaching these good things, Jesus incurred the wrath of the wicked, who murdered Him. 11.No one rose up to help stop Jesus's murder. And neither would we. Thus, we all killed Him. 12.Because Jesus was God's Son, God revived Him and brought Him to live forever in Heaven. 13.Any man who knows and loves Jesus has a seat in Heaven, even if that man has never heard of the name Jesus Christ. 14.God will repay good for good and evil for evil to all, and he who does not know and love Jesus, even by the unspeakable Name of Christ within his heart, earns a place in Hell. 15.Hell is separation from God and Heaven, which is a terrible thing. 16.God is a God of good taste, who created mankind to be beautiful and loving, and to understand Heaven and multiply and have dominion over the Earth. 17.To please God, we should act by His commandments, and we should talk to Him when we are in private, called prayer, thanking Him for the good things we have received in Heaven and Earth, praising Him for His creation, and asking for His help in our lives. 18.No one knows how prayer works, but prayers are good things that win favour with God. Even if God doesn't provide the help you seek, the prayer itself has value. God does not always give you what you want, because God has His own plan, His ways are not our ways. Take strength from prayer, which helps organise the mind. 19.We who believe in the name of Jesus Christ are called Christians. Christians are called to teach about Jesus to any who will listen, so as to better direct their attention to Heaven and increase the survival-power of mankind.

A better question is this: when the glorious Ancap revolution comes, who will gain control of America's nukes?

Good questions Thomasio. I'm interested in hearing straight answers to them, too. Good luck!

Thanks for the reply. Almost a straight answer! (1) Are you asserting there are American children being taken from their parents on religious grounds? (2) By "mound of cut off heads" you refer to Child Welfare services or the like separating children from abusive homes? (3) Are you proposing a child should be separated from their household any time they express a desire to leave and an outside expresses a desire to adopt them?

Right. So, when will you be taking my child away, and by what means will you do so? I think you are capable of a straight answer to a question that would be on every Christian parent's mind should Ancap loom.

All "ought" statements are IF/THEN statements. IF you want result X, THEN you do action X1. IF you want result Y, THEN you do action Y1. It doesn't matter how relativistic you get, the question always comes down to whether or not you want to do something, and what the consequences of doing that thing are. All "is" statements do presume the person is logically sane, but logical sanity doesn't equal moral sanity. An evil person can be thoroughly evil and yet still maintain the logic needed to agree with any given "is" statement. Without the appeal to immortality, in some form, there is no reason you can give for an evil person who knows how to get away with it, to mend their ways. Granted, an evil person who believed in immortality could still defy it, but in that case we are trusting in the Powers that Be to take care of the mess that person has made of their soul.

Suppose I'm an all-around good parent, EXCEPT--I am a Christian and am indoctrinating my children into the Christian religion. Now, given my reputation around here which sources to a general hatred of Christianity, and the equation of Christianity and other religious forms as irrational, evil, etc., and therefore tantamount to child abuse, WHEN will my children be taken away from me by well-meaning, "activist" freedom lovers in our glorious Ancap society?

Worth reading, edwinhere. Thoughts: (1) A "post-industrial society" was planned. Depopulation was and is planned. The derailing of the economy, switch to floating exchange rate, removal of the Glass-Steagal protections for the physical economy, neglecting the soft and hard infrastructure needed as a platform for wealth, and the utter corruption of the education system from an intention to create humans into an intention to create workers, all of this was planned for by the elites. We are reaping what they have sown. (2) The reduction of increases in life-expectancy aren't a problem. The low fertility rate is, but could be nudged back above 2.1 given sufficient education, consumerist de-programming, religious revival, a shutdown of immigration, a shutdown of the Environmentalist movement, and economic incentive. (3) Population growth is associated with renaissances. We are clearly entering a dark age. (4) The solution is to raise more individuals as culturally optimistic humans, so that they will rationally decide to bring more children into the world, exchanging small-scale economic benefits for large ones.

Undoubtedly, but (1) they are rare, and (2) taking "religious classes" has nothing to do with being disinclined towards science, as I have already shown abundantly.

Now you're just being silly. I've lived my entire life not being exposed to nor hearing any clear instance of there being a "faith school" to which I or any other Christian child have or might be sent. Jewish higher IQ is due to them running a breeding program that selects for high IQ.

Or, they would be better scientists if they spent their time in the company of the artistic giants who themselves were influenced in the highest degree by the highest that Christianity has to offer, e.g., Bach &c.. Perhaps scientists have fallen away from that level of appreciation, that level of rigor, so that their "best discoveries" are second-rate compared to what rigorous thinkers like Riemann were working out 150 years ago. What I mean to say is, where did the quality of passion towards truthfulness, in artistic and in particular scientific truthfulness, come from, if not the most influential cultural force of the past 2,000 years in Europe and globally extended European civilisation? Asia, Africa, South America didn't go to the Moon, but globally extended European civilisation did. Don't tell me it was because we looted the world, we enslaved the world, because we were a second rate power in that regard in history. Islam looted and enslaved to its heart's content and they went nowhere. Why did Christendom achieve the Moon Shot and no other civilisation did? EDIT: Jewish success in science might also have something to do with their +15 IQ point average, and a culture that prods them in the direction of the professions and other high-scale jobs.

(1) They die anyway, Thomasin. What stake do you have in it, if you don't care about immortality or the invisible Origin? Why worry about it? (2) Shouldn't we all become Jews if we want to promote science? But even if we don't, it wasn't atheists who got the scientific ball rolling, it was dyed-in-the-wool theists. (3) Are Jews closer to being atheists than Christians are?

You are aware that there is a lengthy, broad, profound, and in certain respect unique, tradition of Christians involved in science? http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists

I sympathise with your demoralisation. I've been close to it myself. It's hard to care if no one around you cares too. The amount of inbuilt passion required rises logarithmically. Ever occurred to you you're studying the wrong philosophy, and the philosophy you are studying was in part intended by the elites to be solution-less and demoralise you and drive you back into the arms of the bestial peasantry?