Donnadogsoth

I'm interested in principles, whether artistic or scientific, as the fruit of creative mentation, which is the basis for morality. Being able to properly reference the creators of those principles is important in debate. Scientists, engineers, and artists are some of the names we can usefully give to those creators. Are there more sources of principles?

That's worth knowing, thank you. Would you also consider Beethoven to be an engineer, by virtue of his artistic discoveries which contribute to the change of social practice?

I don't accept your vox populi, for reasons already given.

Was Kepler an engineer?

Creative reason as the ability to make revolutionary changes in technological and social practice through the discovery, transmission, and assimilation of universal physical principles. For example, the principle of universal gravitation, Fermat's least-time principle of light, and so on. These things allow us to increase our technological practice and thereby increase our power over Nature (e.g. by using our knowledge of gravity to mount a successful Lunar exploration mission, with massive economic returns). It's this principle, the principle of creative reason, that is the basis for all morality, as all morals revolve around the good of creative reason, of the entities possessed of such reasoning power. This is the basis for education, for social interaction, for art, for religion, for everything. Anything outside of its purview is morally irrelevant.

Wrong. Creative reason determines what is right or wrong. It's the basis for all such determinations. It is the crowd, unprincipled except for the NAP, which is capable of peer pressuring a woman into submitting to gang sexual intercourse, and it is yourself who will have no principled objection to it, since it is occurring in accordance with the sacrosanct NAP.

Some people are vulnerable enough that a single person telling them to suicide would lead them to do it. There are some here that would think that that's "righteous".

The people who are inclined to treat their children with love and empathy don't, I think, generally need encouragement to do so. Those not inclined don't, I think, generally respond favourably to exhortations to do so.

As long as homosexuals are allowed in straight washrooms I say let anyone use anywhere they wish. The only concern women have about letting men use their washrooms is being eyed up. It's a discrimination against men that just because they are readily identifiable that they are barred from women's washrooms. As long as homosexuals can eye people up in the washroom it's only fair to let women get eyed up by straights as well as lesbians.

1. Or, women can't handle the idea of type and playing against it. 2. Or, the male instinct to be protective of women should be erased (along with men). 3. Or, men's preferences in women, such as women who aren't more likely to have a disease or be unfaithful, are unmentionable. 4. Or, the word "dick" is used to show that being masculine is pushy and irritating. 5. Or, women can use some of that self-assertion and positivity training and speak up for themselves when they're interrupted by dicks. 6. Or, let's all talk about taking a dump. 7. Or, let's let hysterical people be hysterical. 8. Or, shaming men is now "misogynistic".

I don't buy narcissistic populism, which is what you're selling: "vox populi est vox Dei". There are higher moral concerns than the individual's autonomy. If these higher concerns are articulated and constitutionalised then we have a defense against the mere crowd's will, which you hold is the highest good.

Since you don't see what I'm talking about with economics, how about sociology: A woman is nine months pregnant. Everyone around her tells her to kill the child, to the point of starving her by cutting off her access to trade, and she starves. How is that starvation not force? Of course it's force. It's an act of omission. They're killing her! And you here are all telling me that's not force, that that's righteousness (as Will Torbald put it), that that's perfectly okay so long as no one uses a gun. So we have a dead woman, a dead unborn child, and a society full of "righteousness." Fortunately, we live in a society based on a social contract that is refreshed and altered periodically by an electorate, and which is implicitly operating in terms of the good of the species, specifically in terms of the fostering and development of the human individual as the indivisible, sovereign unit of creativity capable of acting for the benefit of the species as a whole. The NAP makes no reference to this concept, instead presuming that "the crowd" will swing this way and that like an out-of-control washing machine, crushing whomever it pleases for any moral or immoral reason whatsoever and having its pleasure labelled legitimate so long as it doesn't use force by commission. This is a kind of populism that will lead to economic and moral disaster, with the kinds of scenarios I've given.

What if they don't want to be equal? What if, after 400 years of the American experience, they want to be superior?

In the real world most people already agree to the social contract just referenced, not doing anything to oppose it. On the NAWAPA example: How is cutting someone's utilities and access to food off and causing them severe psychic pain through ostracisation better than simply bodily picking them up and moving them off their land to make way for a canal? Both involve irresistible forces, unless the man is Superman and doesn't need to eat.

Will you or will you not say that using peer pressure (denial of trade, ostracisation) to cause someone to conform to the group is immoral? Peer pressure is an enormous force. It can cause you to marry someone you don't want to marry, it can cause you to donate all your wealth to a given group. What control is there on its effects, in principle? Suppose everyone minus one chose to enter into a binding, irreversible agreement call "the state". Would you agree peer pressure is righteous in causing that one holdout to enter into the contract?

I'm not arguing for force, I'm arguing that peer pressure would have the same effect as force, and would morally be no different. If that one person is in the way, he's going to be cut off from essential services and benign social interaction by those who want to pressure him to sell his land. To presuppose that one man could stand against the needs of the many, is presuming we are angels. I have a measured judgement in favour of humanity. I wish you would recognise that peer pressure would have the same effect as "violence". Including your attempt at blackballing me in these forums because I have pointed out an uncomfortable truth.

Or that one house is by a fluke of the market sitting on 400,000 acres of crucial real estate that can't be built around because it contains a river that will be diverted.

It could be peer pressure will take the place of "violence". If 99,999,999 people want NAWAPA, and 1 person occupying a key piece of real estate doesn't, how much "non-violent" peer pressure will be brought to bear on that 1 person to get them to sell?

I'm asking if megaprojects are psychologically possible without a nation-state as a rallying point. It could be that without that leadership, people will mill about like ants until they dehydrate in the sun.

Thanks for sharing this damning article, brucethecollie.

Can we achieve NAWAPA without violence?

I skipped a grade, to my detriment. The social interaction is harder. I don't recommend it.

If this makes you give up on society, you were never much interested in society to begin with. God help you if you start reading what happened in history.

This isn't just a sex issue, it's an issue of general lowering of standards of crassness and grossness and violence. The immolation and general violence against men is not shocking but tends toward the amusing, as we see male power get inverted by slapstick, whether it's knees to the package, or exploding limbs. Furthermore, men are the evolutionary and historical bad guys. Not much chance, even at this late date, of fighting an army of chicks. Thus we're programmed to find satisfaction in the annihilation of our male enemies. The twist is that now chicks are getting off on revealing their fantasies not of slapping a man, but of torture-murdering him. Lighting someone on fire in a movie was unheard of and nigh unthinkable fifty years ago. Now it's a known thing, and that it has migrated to a girly-pop video is another notch down. But, it's also her fantasy, so it's okay, although male fantasies of immolating cheating girlfriends remain unthinkable. The cries of hypocrisy by the red pill community are always going to fall on deaf ears because everyone knows that women aren't the same as men. They're human, but they're also female. Men are the source of power and have voluntarily relinquished that power, letting women grow increasingly wilder as they seek to use the power they're given to disorientate men. I'll say it again: Men are the source of power, and what power women get they use against men. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it, we're dealing with two different Types of people. They're human, but insofar as they're acting female qua female, as opposed to human qua human, they'll tend to act like this, including at the ballot box. EDIT: I want to say here with more clarity if possible that I'm speaking about instincts. Humans are capable, if properly educated, of rising to the level of reason, transcending instinctual excess, and thus charges of hypocrisy are warranted against people who would treat the sexes differently. What level of residual instinct should be maintained (e.g. heterosexuality in the majority), and how that translates into policy, remains to be established.

Isn't this already happening? Our holidays are hollow-days now, residues garishly garnished. How long until either they are removed from the official holidays list, or renamed (Winter Holiday, Fall Holiday, etc.), or alien holidays elevated to official status? Religion itself is a rotting boat, as yet unable to move with the tides of modernity. Whites are already rapidly experiencing a cold genocide due to low birth rates. Is linguistic proficiency much to speak of these days of CUL8R-speak? How could, in the fact of the host white nations dying off at at average of 20% per generation not weaken their multicultural (read: multiracial) societies? And 20% is just an average (1.6 birth rate per woman), some countries have it much worse (Lithuania 1.29 or a 35.5% die off rate per generation)? And as the white populace shrinks, how will the envious, embittered, and ideologically fuelled minorities not vandalise white art, whether legally or illegally? The Louvre is a white stronghold, all that European art, all that century of film and decades of television, the modern advertising, what's to stop that from being "corrected" and "de-supremacised" by computer-editing in non-white characters superimposed on white ones? I wouldn't put it past them. One of the first things conquerors do is deface or destroy the symbols of the previous ruling class. And of course language will continue to decline. Ebonics for all. Don't talk "too white" or associate "too vanilla," or you'll face censure. And just wait for the Voight-Kampff tests to reveal your racist pupil-function...