Matthew Ed Moran

To discover truth you need to hold truth as a value. Moral relativism is invalid. It's like saying math is dependent on cultural upbringing. No, math is universally valid. "Moral relativism lives" is not an argument. It's equivalent to saying "invalid math lives" If all you're trying to say is "we don't need to be consistent when we don't want to" then you're probably speaking out of childhood trauma when you feel the need to keep pointing this out when no one said otherwise... You're saying "I don't need to be moral to you guys, I'm only doing it because it benefits me at this moment" It sounds like a parental alter ego who would be a serious narcissist, sadist, and abuser who used their capacity to be immoral to others as a threat.

The parent's moral obligation it is to never abuse the child in any way. The moral obligation is derived from the fact that the parent chooses to have the child, and knows the child will be born in a helpless state compared to the parent. Therefore it would be impossible to treat the child as an adult, and why some things are abusive towards children which we don't consider abusive towards adults (I don't have to feed a bum, but I have to feed my child). If someone is in contempt as a parent the they remain in contempt unless there is proportional restitution provided. If a person violates a moral obligation, they remain guilty of that moral offense and are responsible for restitution until the day they die. Abusive parents are liable for restitution proportional the their offence, and are morally contemptible until they provide the restitution necessary (which might include paying for an apartment and therapy for the child). And they cannot ever abuse the child again else they rescind their restitution completely. I guess that wasn't exactly your question but it was something that came up for me reading this thread. If I have defined the moral obligation of the parent correctly, it is no wonder why so few are capable of fulfilling it since it is a hefty burden to lift, but it is one they have created. I don't have much sympathy for parents who have't acknowledged their culpability for abuse 20 years into the life of their child. In fact I think they deserve to be ostracized.

No argument is provided. Just bigotry...

Podcast 1813, "izzy achieves UPB" is relevant here. I just had a listen recently and it was really insightful

My blink impression was that it was kind of spooky and esoteric. The first word I associated with was paranormal.

Sorry, I wrote farmer but I didn't mean to associate you with slave owning, even though that seemed like the obvious implication of my statement. Sorry about that. What I meant was that you are putting emphasis on a false problem. Stopping the initiation of force is not a problem. The garbage is picked up now. Like I said, you could hold all things equal but what determines if the transaction should take place is whether the individual choice is being allowed in the situation free of aggression. Sure, you can use examples just to show people what consent is, but that'd be the only point. B0b, you're defining false problems which don't exist and redefining them as problems simply because the initiation of force is not being committed. That is a non sequitor and I think you should bring this argument up to anyone who will not accept the moral argument against the state. What is worth arguing about if not about the moral case? You have no idea how it will be in true free market. Point out what is wrong now to them is more important than what could be wrong in a hypothetical future without force. That is what I mean by abstract and not practical. There is nothing wrong with being overly abstract sometimes, but we need to focus on the moral case in my opinion, if we're going to have traction convincing people in our personal lives. Once they agree with the basic premise then we can work towards the hypotheticals, but not until then.

You're not an abstract person, so why are you asking about things that are nowhere near on the horizon when I have brought up the much more practical, moral problem of the existence of the state today? To do so is to close your eyes to the big giant elephant of a problem in the present, which is that the state exists, and invent abstract non-problems that we here won't ever have to deal with in our life times most likely. Sorry, I just have a hard time imagining that you can't fathom how garbage will be picked up or how roads will be built without the state, and that you're so practical that you would rather talk about lesser problems which don't exist compared to far greater problems which do exist and which are wreaking havoc everyday. You are a bit like the stereotypical farmer who won't talk about the immorality of slavery until you tell him exactly how the cotton is going to be picked, who says he's only not acknowledging the moral argument because he's just so god damn practical. Hundreds of millions dead in a century, capital wasted by the droves in wars which kills even more millions of people, people on chain and leash to curtail their innovation and wealth creation, the near death of western society with political immigration... And you're worried about how trash will be picked up and think your request for exactly how the trash will be picked up is a more practical concern than what I am bringing up about the state? We'll have freaking robots with lasers on their heads which will incinerate your trash and blast the ash out of the galaxy, how is that for practical? I'm not trying to be hostile, but I want my rhetoric to match what I perceive in your message as a flee from the glaring moral problem in front of us in favor of abstract non-problems we won't have to deal with for 100 years. Who really cares how they build the roads once governments stop initiating the use of force against billions of people? I hope that is useful for considering what is the important and practical consideration here, i.e., that the state is immoral and therefore must be ended. Whatever takes its place will obviously be better for everyone who is not currently a victim of state aggression.

I think there is a big overlap between porn usage, and some serious childhood issues of being poorly modeled sexuality. I think there might be healthy porn usage, but I think what a lot of males refer to when they talk of quitting porn is something different. I think they have in mind something more severe. It's horrifying to think about for me, but my first exposure to sexuality was inflicted from essentially strangers who were my peers. People who I barely remember and who themselves were not modeled healthy sexuality. The horror I face thinking about it was how contemptuously I was neglected about a subject which would be essential for me to learn about. My mother never talked with me about sex, and therefore I was handed to the underground scum of society to learn. An 8 year old boy thrown into a shameless pit of sexual dysfunction because his mother chose to be a coward. That is reprehensible and damaging, and I know I must not be the only one who was neglected in this way. Then besides the neglect (which is inherently shaming), there were the experiences where I was taught my sexuality was shameful. I won't go into the details, but at a certain age masturbation was a terror for me since I was so afraid of others knowing what I was doing. I even admitted when I started to a friend, and this friend was so cruel as to torture me with threats of telling the teachers for weeks. So I was taught my sexuality was something I should isolate from others. Fundamentally, having a single mother meant that my most important model for sexuality had essentially used sexual appeal against my father to have a gun pointed at his head for her state benefits. That's a stark reality and a grave introduction to sexuality to say the least. I don't know about others, but I have a disdain for porn stars who would take advantage of my bad childhood and reinforce damaging sexuality to me. There are men under 18 who watch porn, who essentially are as innocent as any child, and they are being preyed upon by society and a hollow porn industry which profits from their isolation and misfortune. I think that's pretty damn reprehensible in the grand scheme of things, so I would find it highly suspect to focus on females victims as if there are not males victims of even greater magnitude and in even greater number, which there definitely are. I do expect to reinforce more healthy sexual habits over time as I unravel the shame society stuck in my gut, but I think there is also a forgiveness I owe myself, to recognize it was not my shame to take on in the first place. If I am inflicting myself with sexual beliefs I do not enjoy fully, then I don't want to punish myself for what my parents and society did to me. Instead I want to stick them with shame they deserve and have chosen with conscious will at my expense. I think anger could be a powerful tool here to place the shame where it belongs, which is not with the victims of piss poor models of sexuality that pass for females these days, but with the adult females themselves. It should be entirely predictable that men would be blamed for the shortcomings of women in this area, so I think it's important not to condone their blaming and shaming.

As others have foreshadowed, what the NAP (non aggression principle) tries to solve for is the contradiction between the State and the individual. Morality must be universal, meaning it must apply to all people all the time. Sure, there are life boat scenarios when the NAP might be difficult to apply, but the NAP is a consistent set of rules for all humanity to be subjected to for the all the practical scenarios we face day to day, and that is what is primary to consider. If it's true that the State is a contradiction, then it does not even make sense to say the state exists. The State would be no different from saying "people who initiate force," and we know that initiating force does two things in every situation it is present. 1) It benefits the person initiating force 2) It comes at the expense of the person who is a victim of the initiation of force These statements are praxeologically true, which it a very strong form of proof, since they cannot be denied without contradicting the premises. You can disagree with the premises, but I think you would need to make quite the case because this has been hashed out over a century now and the conclusions have been unable to be avoided. So when you say that "roads" are an issue, I think you are thinking about morality in the wrong way, severely. And if you excuse me to say so, I think it indicates that you are still emotionally defending the idea of a state. Because it could never be the case that the initiation of force would provide more equitable roads as desires by drivers, compared to a situation in which there was no initiation of force. The physics and economics of road building do not change - whether there is a state or not, they stay constant. It is simply that roads cannot be created for the benefit of others, if these others have force initiated against them. The initiation of force provides good things for bad people, and bad things for good people. That is the equation we here cannot avoid and why we chose to be stateless. I hope that makes things slightly more clear.

Yea, I struggle with that, too, which is probably part of the reason I was even drawn to respond in this thread. I think a lot of it has to do with fear of abandonment which produces a lot of self attack, and even when I see it from someone else I will want to help because I hate that spiral and feeling or even witnessing it. It could even be unconscious on my part to want to write so much to try and put an end to those feelings, when you have a point that I think others have also expressed, which is that it might be best to try and sit calmly in the seat of reality and figure if our expectations are realistic about a situation, and if they're not, why not? I don't have a problem with your post, I think it was the wording that triggered me but not the content because what you are saying here seems reasonable to me. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts

It is sad that child abuse has increased in 2014 according to government data, and that more than a few states saw a significant increase. They only account for about 700,000 instances of abuse, I wonder how it breaks down by race. It's true there is also the possibility they are biased to get funding, but that is unclear to me. I heard this on the radio and do not know if there is more current or relevant data, if so please share it. Source: http://www.columbian.com/news/2016/jan/25/child-abuse-rose-by-3-in-2014-data-show/ With the news as it is, it seems with government child abuse is not only not being solved, it is getting worse. How unsurprising that is...

Because society needs it. And because you can be sure you won't be corrupted. I think a huge motivation to be moral is also not to have disasters of conscience. People who are limited from acknowledging moral truths about their own life lack free will in a certain fundamental sense. It would be like disbelieving in science, as impossibly as that would be with all the effects of science right in front of you. So how can you deny all the immorality right in front of you if it is in fact a true thing? It would be just as chaotic of a life. I don't want that, personally, so that is why I try to be moral. Also, it is defense from evil. If you are not able to acknowledge moral truths, then you will effectively force yourself not to be able to recognize true acts of evil, since you will be treating them all the same. And lastly, there is the classical argument that being moral increases your chances of being happy, and gives you the best shot at attaining the greatest type of happiness as could be imagined. Edit: Let's move this to the new thread you created For others: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46328-why-be-moral/#entry424179

I agree, teach them to learn. Don't just tell them conclusions, as that is inherently authoritative and boring. In the early years it seems children will learn most of what they need to simply by witnessing you model the value of learning in your time with them. One on one conversations are always great and you can gently introduce math, science, writing or anything else in your daily activities. Have them make a grocery list and estimate the costs is just a simple idea. I think the most important thing is to model the value of learning to them. Adults don't learn for the sake of learning; they learn because it will improve their lives. Either it will teach them a useful skill, or it is inherently enjoyable and worth investing in. I am skeptical of the word "school" for children, since school of any kind seems so antithetical to learning. School seems to be this made up term where learning is separated from living, because in school you're learning for the state, not for yourself. If you do lessons from the book, do not even bring the text into the mix. You should get a grip on the material beforehand, and then plan a day at a walking trail or something fun and interesting. Give them a list of things to be aware of, and then you could test them the next day or at the end of the week about the maths or science that were present in their very experience. I imagine taking my kids on a walk, explaining the biology, the ecosystem, and easily making a math problem out of the accounts of animals or plants you witness. Simple fun and carefree things when they are young, and as much individual attention as possible, will model the value of learning, which they will then adopt and be more curious to explore independently (but still with your involvement since you should be the expert with more experience they can rely on) learning on their own with increasingly advanced topics. I have a 125 or 130 IQ and school was miserable for me because I felt tremendous pressure and criticism. I have a deep seated hatred for the lie I was told and which caused me endless anxiety and depression, which was that school had a fucking thing to do with anything other than pleasing my masters. When high school ended and I realized there was no oncoming train that would hit me because I failed practically every class I'd taken beforehand years in a row (and dropped out to get a GED), I was stunned. I was stunned to realize the possibilities were endless for me to be successful, and that I had 18 years stripped from me, and was put through an emotional holocaust, only to find out none of it was necessary, and that it was the opposite of necessary. I feel very strongly and hateful of what I was put through, given my talents and standardized test scores, which indicated I was in the top 2% of all students by the time I was in kindergarten or first grade. All that meant for me was that I was told I was lazy and defiant on the report cards when I couldn't bare the boredom of the "schooling" they tried to force on me. Hopefully sharing how damaging that institutional pressure was for me will encourage you to think about making it less like school and more like productive living (in the sense that the child feels personal accomplishment and enjoyment but is also challenged). Oh, also make sure to negotiate and offer them extra goodies (like more choice over their lessons or just a nice time with Dad) if there is something specific you want them to learn. But individual attention and as much choice as possible are key. I think you'll do great and I really admire the consideration you're giving to your children. The true heroes are the peaceful parents as Stefan said.

I have to give it some more thought. I think r/K is important. Have you considered calling in to Stefan? It would be an awesome call, I think. So how have the gender ratios skewed towards there being more females? Is this because of war? I think Mello Mama has a point if the ratios are a product of some environmental change, then I think that would help with the r/K examination. My first thought is that war would select for R and also decrease the number of men in society. With the state and fiat money, there is the illusion of unlimited resources. This all seems to select for R, which would explain higher number of sexual partners, and maybe it would also explain length of foreplay, since R tends to have an elevated sex drive. Does that make things any more clear?

Through the r/K lens you could maybe see how less investment would be put into the actual enjoyment of sex. Variety would be the attractor, and getting the man in and out so you can concieve a child as quickly as possible would make sense from the woman's perspective if she tends towards R and can live off the state. Good op

So we've had ongoing wars since the '60s, recurring stagflation, booms and busts, more children born out of wedlock than before in the past century, a diminishing workforce, increasing taxes, increasing social dysfunction, increasing racism against whites, increasing sexism against males and boys, public school indoctrination camps with forced "medication"... I could list on and on, but my question is... In what was has the shit not hit the fan already? When I hear people say that I feel like they're waiting for some day when society will collapse, as if they define collapse as something other than what has been occuring right in front of us for the past 40 years... I'm not sure if that's exclusive to your post, and I know the economy might get even worse, but part of me feels like the collapse already happened and most people are just ignoring and pretending it didn't.

Why do they act as if you're not self aggrandizing, that you are in despair? It makes me pause about the self esteem of the writer, that she thinks if she is not always lying to herself about her abilities, that she will despair. "Depressive realism" is what they call objectivity? Sounded more like nihilism/determinism to me. 20% of people are definitely not philosophically consistent, so it seems like a very deceptive straw man to liken depression as the epitome of sanity and reality. But I didn't see one single mention of morality in this article. The real danger to a conscious and virtuous person of self deceiving would be to condone immorality. Isn't that kind of important to leave out? I felt annoyed reading this article, I think it was trying to pull a fast one on me. Lastly, obviously a positive outlook is superior to a negative outlook, and if a negative outlook were realistic for an endeavor, then any other action should be chosen so you can have a positive outlook. If people need to be positive to accomplish their goals, then it's not really a bias or a delusion, it's a condition by which great accomplishment is facilitated. It's empirical. If it were a delusion, it wouldn't effect reality and people would be frustrated when their "self bias" didn't alter their outcomes. Hope that makes sense.

That's an interesting post, RJ. I've been watching a bit of Daniel Mackler lately (I really like him) and he uses the word dissociation a lot, and I think I'm grasping what it means perhaps in my own personal, amateur way. I would define dissociation as a form of managing our own internal states to meet the needs of others. The opposite of dissociation, is integration, which is when we allow our internal states to inform us of our own needs, irrespective of what others desire from us. (these are my definitions) As children, we learn to dissociate often, because directly expressing our internal states is punished. We learn to meet the needs of our parents, because we want to continue existing more than anything else. If we must manage our own needs to mirror theirs, we will, because we want to survive. It is the most healthy thing to do given the circumstances. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So it makes sense from this perspective what music is. Music is a form of dissociation. It is a contained and conveniently wrapped part of ourselves, which usually there is more to than the song lets on. And therefore it would be no coincidence that we connect with music when we are younger, because at that time dissociation is more necessary to stay healthy. We feel invigorated or satisfied to successfully meet the needs of our parents. It is a tragedy. At the same time, it is necessary and unavoidable given our parents' choices. If we can fit a part of ourselves to a song, that is more healthy than ignoring it altogether. Does that make sense? Everything we do is a form of communication, so it makes perfect sense to me when you say your music shows what you were feeling and thinking in your past. The details of a song, and what we particularly connect to in it, give us invaluable information about our past and how we were desperately trying to remain healthy, when we look back with self knowledge. And therefore it tells us what our parents were doing to us, and how we found it necessary to dissociate from our own emotions, to meet their needs. Dissociation is not a dirty word. It is not something we should necessarily scorn. And it is never healthy or unhealthy itself. I think it is the degree to which we dissociate which is important. Do we have an identity and are we working towards expressing it? Or are we pandering to those around us in everything we do? Dissociation is how we adapt to our family of origin, and our society, and to the egos they created in our minds. And if we pursue integration, if we pursue to find our true emotions that we were forced to dissociate from, there will still be places and times when we will need to dissociate from our emotions, because we live in a society where we are forced to meet the needs of others sometimes. But hopefully as adults we can find healthy ways to dissociate when it is necessary. ---------------------------------------------------- Therefore, I think there is a lot of truth about a person contained in a song... But never the whole truth..

"I have no idea [if they can change], I think in general most people have the capacity but choose not to." Are you seriously saying you think a 70 year old on 9 medications a day has the capacity to grow empathy? That is your father in law right? Your wife's father? I just want to make sure I didn't confuse that. Nothing is going to change these people as far as can possibly be ascertained from their actions. People, as far as I've ever seen or experienced, don't grow real empathy in their 60s and 70s. Every bit of evidence you have presented in this thread says that are not going to grow real empathy. I would think it incapable for them to. It is not a choice anymore for them. Once you raise a daughter who is prostituting herself out, and you've enabled her for 24 years of her life (besides abusing her to the point where she would be so unhealthy), there is no conscience left to reconcile the wounds they have opened. If there were, they would have done something a long time ago. They are in the last quarter of their life now. The smoker doesn't decide to quit smoking at year 70, when he had 40 years prior to and never did. Significant change comes in the first half of life. The brain gets more plastic as time goes on and the costs to change increase every single day they resist it. That's 70 years of a trend. It's not going to switch now because they want to see your daughter; empathy will cause them suffering, so short term gains will not motivate them. You were actually enabling them (I've enabled abuse before too so I don't mean to finger point) and their treatment of their daughter. You were making it easier for them to be evil since you were subsidizing the bad consequences of their evil (like forfeiting their chance to have grand children). Evil people do not deserve to be around children. They have already injected their virus into one child successfully, what more proof do you want that they do not deserve to be around children? You said your daughter likes being around them... Well she is 18 months old, right? So the idea that her parents are putting her in care of people who have completely ruined children before would be so terrifying to her that she would not be able to express her true feelings even if she were aware of their true character. I'm not saying it's easy (I don't have them in my life yet), but there have to be better people you can have your children around and if you and your wife are both psychologically healthy then maybe it is time to branch out more towards building healthy relationships outside the marriage, and you can help each other in doing so. I'm really sorry these people were in your life for as long as they were. It sounds like you're moving towards the conclusion that they won't change, but I just wanted to make the case to you after reading your thread that they definitely won't. I was appalled at the idea that these people deserve to be taking care of children at any extent, so that is why I wanted to speak out.

"I dont know the full story, but the impression I get is that you are reading too much into all this." I don't know if others feel the same way, Neeel, but I find this phrase dismissive. You are saying there wouldn't be a problem if he stopped thinking about these things. But there is a problem, obviously, Ricardo identifies it himself - he thinks he was manipulating the other person into thinking he was empathetic and curious. That's an issue that is really important to him. Ricardo, I really admire that you decided to share what happened. That is really brave, I think. It is hard for me to understand exactly what it means to fake empathy, though I have some clue. If you say you don't know how to connect, then I will believe you, and I think if you were not being truthful about your emotional experience, then you may have been misleading the person you were talking to. But it's not immoral. I'm sorry it was a bad experience, but it's important that to call the facts as they are, and admit at worst you made a mistake, but what you did was not immoral because it was not the initiation of force nor was it threatening. But lastly I think "faking empathy" can be a phrase that sets you up for self attack. I'm not exactly clear on what that means. If someone is joking about a serious matter, it might be worth asking about their childhood. Maybe it might be better just to ask them why they are joking, or bring up your feelings in the moment as you witness it. Maybe it was distracting or bothersome to you, and if that were the case it might be better to just plain say so. Of course there is also the question why you felt the need to act as if you were curious or concerned about his childhood experiences if you were not. What was it that you were fearing about being honest in that moment? That is rhetorical for you to answer in your journal if it's a question you can connect with I hope that was of some help, I found it a bit touching you would share all this on a forum for others to learn from

Ah ok sorry about that. I was trying to say that there would be a lot more options if the market were not regulated by government captured government "psychiatry." But yea I don't mean to discredit your experience, that makes sense to me if you are having bad panic attacks to take something which would relieve it. I'm sorry you had them I also knew a guy, a friend for 8 months, that was on meds continually to manage his anxiety and he was very unhealthy psychologically in my opinion now. But he was not in therapy.

Robin, The IPCC papers are cited on that site you gave me. You said they are definitely corrupt and politicized. So why should I trust a source of information which shares information which cites corrupt and politicized organizations without mentioning their corruption and politicization? Here is where IPCC is cited http://www.c2es.org/science-impacts/basics And actually it is linked to from the site you gave me here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/to offer the basics about global warming. There doesn't seem to be much caution here among these climate scientists to me. I am very skeptical in response to it. Edited to be less goating

That was a typo AccuTron, but thanks for pointing it out so I could correct it. I don't know if you all saw this video.

I've thought for a long time that consequentialism cannot be considered a moral theory. If you say morality is defined by an effect, to the extent the effect can even be measured and defined, you're just creating a tautology. You're not actually proving anything. But I'm pretty sure it is a performative contradiction to say that you are consequentialist because it is true, rather than because of the effects it will have. UPB begins from self consistent statements that cannot be denied without performing a contradiction. It is not a tautology, it is a logical proof of concept to the extent the axioms cannot be denied and that he reasons from them consistently. It is a consistent moral theory that can be easily applied to see if theories which tell us to act in a certain way are universally preferable. You haven't made any arguments in this thread that I have seen and I read a number of your posts. If you can't actually make or refute arguments then maybe philosophy isn't for you.

That is what assault in a personal relationship is called, abuse. It is modeled in parenting relationships towards children, to their detriment, which is why it usually re-occurs in their future relationships if they do not seek therapy and self knowledge. You can make all the non arguments you want, but "he got hit once" is not a refutation of anything. He recorded the video months in advance of releasing it publicly. Damn he must have planned that all along to get the best return on investment instead of releasing it within days of making it. And I guess you'd say January makes perfect sense since it is right after the holidays when people are on Youtube a lot. Doesn't that sound just a tad ridiculous to you? I would be extremely surprised if he wasn't actually hit by her. It dawned on me that the abuse is just going to continue into the next relationship unless he finds the root source, and he didn't say anything about that. I'm actually not sure I appreciate his show of emotion now, since the advice was such a small part it felt more like an empathy dump. In fact it could be harmful for this message to come from a source like him, since he really doesn't seem credible at all in terms of self knowledge.