Matthew Ed Moran

This is kind of insane to me. If you consider the fact that he is calling what has reduced climate deaths by 98% since inception and made the climate far more live-able than any time years past a pollutant, does this not suggest a serious misanthropy on his part? To me, even though I'm not close to an expert on this topic, it brings into question the entire credibility of the man. If he is not measuring something as a pollutant in terms of human benefit, and if he is not measuring the effect it has on the livability of the climate for the purpose of humans as a whole, isn't he kind of a misanthropic genocidal maniac in disguise as a scientist? And if he is measuring fossil fuels in those terms, then where is the evidence that it is a pollutant or detrimental to the climate, and compared to what alternatives?

It's weird. I also have felt that "I will fucking die before you beat me at this" feeling before. I used to have that unbreakable will when it came to sports. I would have to freaking drop from exhaustion or break me kneecap before I would let up my effort. I loved the connection I felt with my body when I played, it was like the only time I didn't feel awkward. Finally my testosterone had somewhere to go! Where as in school, showing any of the lovely benefits of your testosterone gets you shamed - in sports, it gets you a bear hug from your friends! I have removed myself very far from that unbreakable will, but I'd like to get it back. But then, there is also the part of me which thinks it's fucking insane to extend that type of will towards something like running on a treadmill. Like, it's even cowardly, if it means you're leaving moral obligations behind by doing it. This is why I think it's even harder to extent will towards a moral goal than anything else. Every bit of will extended towards a moral goal is worth its weight in gold compared to non moral goals, so Will Smith can take a seat to some of the people I've met here, but yea still a good video

Okay, it's possible I have a blind spot, so I will see if others have anything to say and I'm going to continue reading about the topic. One thing I'd be interested in from others are definitions of ought and is. I am particularly confused on what an ought is. The best definition I can come up with is 'an opinion about reality.' And so when I say something "is" it seems logical to me that this implies our opinion should also be that it is.

I think most people familiar with this site would say that a 2 year old who is pulling her hair out is severely traumatized. I didn't see a focus on that in your post. The only moral solution is to stop inflicting trauma on the child, at all costs. How is biting your nails harmful? Are there some health risks to biting your nails that I'm overlooking? I think parents who do this actually find the habit harmful and uncomfortable.. to themselves. That is why they want it to stop; and they lie and tell the child that their habit is objectively harmful. This is even more obvious if the parents are abusive and traumatizing. Obviously abusive parents are not concerned about what is harmful towards their children, or else the obvious priority would not be to get the child to stop biting his/her nails, but to stop being abusive and traumatizing towards the child, which they are in direct control of as parents. This would have a greater impact towards ending these habits in the long run, since they are only symptoms of trauma. Well, it's not like the parents aren't forcing the child to adapt these methods of trauma management by inflicting the child with trauma in the first place. Were you planning to intervene to limit the trauma inflicted on this girl? I can't tell if your post is abstract or practical, despite the personal example you decided to include.

I was not responding directly to you, Neeel, but yes I read your post. "It is raining" Therefore it ought to be verifiable. This is logically derived from the definition of "is": an instance and a concept, or a concept. All ought to be verifiable or they don't exist. I get there are a bunch of other premises, but they are all "is" statements, too. I don't see what is so special about "oughts." "Oughts" seem just to be ways we express that the things "out there" should be consistent with our definitions. Contradictions don't exist, so if I say "you ought to eat cereal because cereal is made of wheat," that is perfectly consistent with itself, the "ought" just applies only to the person saying it, since it is not put forward as a universal. Our concepts are the only things "oughts" apply to, some concepts exist only as definitions; but there are no "is" which are not also "oughts," or else we would not be able to communicate them, so we can definitely say things ought to be verifiable.It seems logical to me, but I'm open to the fact that I'm missing something.

Alright, hear me out if you'll be kind enough. I think I can logically derive an 'ought' from an 'is' First I'll give some framing for it. Any "is" is either a definition, or it is an instance and a definition. There is no such thing which is an instance, which is not a definition. A definition is simply something which is self consistent. A true definition is something which is internally and externally consistent, and it also ought to be consistent among other true definitions. When I say I can derive an 'is' from an 'ought,' I am referring to the fact that all is statements are definitions, and all definitions ought to be consistent with themselves and with other definitions. If I am correct, I think you might agree with what I am beginning to realize, which is that 'is' and 'ought' mean the same thing, but they are used semantically to refer to the "is" relationship between the nature of consciousness, and reality. There can be no such this which is, which is not consistent. If something is not consistent, it isn't. We label these contradictions, sure. So they are not valid. But they also are not true, since anything which isn't valid ought not be true. I think the proper way to derive an 'ought' from an 'is' is to say that anything which "is," ought to be verifiable. It ought to be verified as self consistent. And it ought to be verified empirically. And it ought to be consistent with other instances which are verified empirically. If you deny this, then you are deny what it means for something to exist, either as a concept or an instance. For something to be an "is," it ought to fit at least some of these standards. Try denying that any "is" ought to be self consistent. You will immediately fall into contradiction. Let me know if I have solved this problem and can go collect my prize from Hume's grave, or if I am being batshit arrogant about my argument let me know. Either way I'd appreciate a fact check, since I really want to get to the bottom of this, and I will hand out upvotes to those who do reply

gonna rewrite this tomorrow

But dsayers, what IS depends on epistemology. It is kind of like treating any statement as both a premise and a conclusion. There is a premise for why they are saying it, and then there is a conclusion which is either true or false based on obeservable reality. And also, physical reality is not the only thing that IS. there are concepts, too, and some things are true based on their relationship to other concepts. Let me know if that makes sense to you

"I dont think I expressed an ought in my point. I suppose you could say that , by the very expression of my point, I am expecting to be considered correct, I dont know." Well yea aren't you correcting me? You said I was incorrect. If you don't even expect to be correct when you say something to me, then please spare me, I care not what you say further. I don't mean to be petty but if you don't expect to be correct, I don't see what I can gain from a discussion

Neeel, I think I get what you mean, I was trying to apply WasatchMan's point about how to make a statement about an is, you need an ought, which is epistemology. For instance, the ought you expressed in your point is that you ought to be considered correct, and to consider you correct we need some methodology. So your statement that a fact "tells you nothing about what you should, or ought, to do" I think is incorrect because you are asking me to be consistent and rational, and not arbitrary, when you ask me to consider your point as true. Does that make sense?

The big mind fuck for me, and where my resentment is colossal, is not that there are sadists, but that most of society turns a blind eye to sadism against children. We all get appalled when we see sadism inflicted on an innocent adult, but these same people will turn a complete blind eye to sadism against children, which is even worse, because they are completely helpless and innocent. That is what gets me riled up, otherwise well intending people who cower and shut their mouth so as not to make anyone uncomfortable, when it comes to obvious sadism that happens everyday against children. "well we have to teach them somehow" "well maybe there are better ways to teach the lesson, but..." It's like, no, stop saying that. Stop. Stop pretending there is any justification for sadism, stop adding the "yea but," we can't afford hesitancy on this issue, just like we can't afford not to be point blank and say that sadism against another innocent adult is always completely tragic and inexcusable. I think most people recognize it with adults. so I hold them morally accountable if they are going to make any excuse for sadism against children. The internet is literally like the underworld of sadists in society, all you need is one glance to see how widespread it is, so why aren't relatively good people speaking out about this? Maybe I'm sheltered, maybe it's the people I'm around, but I don't hear it much. I feel like I get weird looks when I defend children even when the offence is obvious, but man do people love stirring up a shit storm about their personal drama, or the selection of drama they see on the news. But screw that, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either be against immorality or don't. Don't just do it when it's convenient for you. /rant

This is complete speculation, but I also wonder if he had a past history of beatings or sexual assault in his childhood. It's just a thought, not sure it could even be established, but I know personally some of the darkest moments I've had were when I felt triggered to re-enter a childhood horror, and it can feel like there is no escape and that the suffering is bottomless. I also think the isolation is what can make it unbearable, this man must have been unbearably lonely to turn to twitter to express himself and declare his suicide. This story left me also in a very dark place, it was horrifying when I read how casually and abruptly he announced he was going to take his life. I sympathize with what horror and isolation he must have been facing, but I really wish it did not end this way.

I really like how you summarized that. Good stuff, guys. Also, you can deduce an opinion from a fact, the opinion is that we should be empirical, consistent, rational, and this is contained in the premise of what it means to state a fact. So we can get an ought from an is. The ought doesn't exist "out there" but it is a logical deduction from what it means to accurately state about the "out there" from the standpoint of human consciousness. A fact ought to be empirical, logically consistent, falsifiable, and if it's not then it doesn't fit the category of a fact. Then it is an ought without an is, which is the ultimate no-no. At least I think so..... I still have a bit of learning to do

Great post +1 I liked the comment about his mental state actually being of confusion. It makes sense to me, since I thought that was an odd way to lead off his answer. To conclude my comment on your post, I will say this: If the post, economically numbers, whatever! gonna go bust, we all need to buy a donkey.

I don't understand the "should" in your statement. It doesn't add anything. The whole statement is an is. If you wish to have children, it is necessary you pursue a woman (whether this is actually true or not let's just forget about). What the heck is the purpose of a should or ought except to wrap something objective in subjective language. A should or shouldn't is the opinion part, it relies on the subjective value that is chosen. If some one walks up to me and discusses morality with me, then automatically if they are considered sane, it implies there are objective components to what is being talked about, it also implies that the person values a peaceful exchange with me rather than forcing their opinion on me with a gun, it also implies they'd rather speak with me than spend that time donating to the 3rd world (fuck you Peter Singer you hypocrite). So I don't even think oughts exist. Is that crazy of me?

Sorry to jump in here without reading much, but wouldn't the only way to suggest that an "is" does not imply an "ought" is to deny objectively observable preference communicated by human action? If some guy is in a conversation with me about morality, I will not take it for granted that he has no value or preference, that would assume he does not exist at all. The very fact that people engage in certain behaviors does imply that they have goals and preferences, if these goals and preferences are completely arbitrary and random then we can discard them since we are talking to a crazy person by definition, but if they are not arbitrary and random then we can use causal reasoning to see how their preferences imply they look at data. Everything at a fundamental level reduces to sense data, and then we create abstract goals by which we manipulate the data. The only "is" is the fundamental sense data, and then everything we do to manipulate the sense data would by definition imply an ought, an objectively verifiable set of preferences. For instance, I get aroused looking at hot women when they're naked (most of the time), this is implies that I have an ought which is genetic preference, and whether I will pursue the hot naked women and how I pursue them will also imply other oughts that are implicit in my actions. This is a new thought for me, so you beautiful donors please let me know if I make making any errors.

I think all this narrative, whining, poisoning the well is really just filler to hide the fact that you have no rebuttal. If you have an argument just provide it. "mind automatically rejects" in not an argument. "it seems obvious" is not an argument. Calling something a disaster or disorganized is not credible when you have no argument, it is petty.

etc. to you too, mate

Hey. I appreciate you sharing, since it is good to have counter-information. I haven't listened to the interview yet, but I did read the two articles. I'm going to check the interview out later since I'm curious, but I do have a critique of his article on inflation. http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35806 The old idea is that an increase in the supply of money is the definition of inflation. It has long been stated according to this theory, that rising prices are merely an effect of inflation. For instance, in theory, if the price of eggs soared, there would have to be a corresponding decrease in price somewhere else in the economy, unless there were an increase in the money supply. Once again, for oil prices to rise without a corresponding decrease in the price of something else would necessarily imply there is an increase in the money supply. If the money supply were constant, but oil prices soared, other prices would decrease, not increase. For instance, the price of labor would go down in other industries so they could remain profitable despite the shortage of oil, all other things equal. How exactly did gold fail to provide a store of value during these periods? And wouldn't this be irrelevant if (1) gold were a hedge against inflation in fiat currency, or (2) there was no reason to expect a significant increase in the supply of gold over the time in which it was used as a hedge? I am also having trouble interpreting how gold failed to provide a store of value considering this data I have only vaguely looked over: http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf Steady slow growth in the supply of money is steady inflation. If you endure steady inflation without trying to recoup your losses some other way, then your money over a long enough period of time will erode as if there were an inflation "wave." But I am not sure the relevance of this point, since the money supply of dollars has been increasing exponentially and without historical precedent since the financial crisis. I think it's good to share counter-information but also be skeptical. If my points are correct, then it would seem unwise to take advice from someone who doesn't understand what inflation is, if your main concern investing is to hedge against inflation.

Calling something incomplete an argument does not make. So that would mean you were poisoning the well in your very first sentence, which is usually not a good sign for the rest of your objection. Property should be about causation because if it wasn't in any sense, it would have no relevance to reality (since everything about reality is both an effect and a cause). But clearly if we want to talk about property as applied to reality, the idea is to make it consistent with cause and effect, since reality is consistent and there is a cause and effect to everything in reality, and we want to understand property as it relates to reality.. I know this sounds obvious, but really it is curious to me what you think property would have to do with if not for cause and effect and reality.. Would it have to do with the property rights of completely imaginary things, which are not subject to cause and effect? I hope that doesn't sound like a jab I'm honestly just trying to wrap my head around what you said. Oh and one very important thing I forgot to comment on, causal relations are not "enforced," per se, so they definitely cannot be "reinforced"; causal relations simply are, and we can either create our theories to be consistent with cause and effect (i.e. reality) or not. Obviously this will have implications to how we use force in society, since there will be causes and effects of that force which are obvious and implied. I'll let you chew on that and tell me what you think because I didn't want to pile up too much criticism about that specific paragraph, since I do actually have objections to everything else you said. "An economy needs to perform economic calculation so that way it functions at maximal efficiency." An economy is an aggregate of people. An aggregate people cannot be more or less efficient. They are just an aggregate of people; you need to have some goal to compare them with to say they are efficient. Economics says that more people will be better off if everyone is subject to the same rules; it says that less people will be relatively better off if they can make the rules and/or exempt themselves from the rules. It is pretty simple, but unrelated to anything you are talking about, which is not a valid representation of what economic science actually is. And hopefully I could say so with some credibility since I am decently literate in economics and the Austrian school, including the calculation problem. As a final note to leave about your post as a whole, since I didn't want to respond to everything, I think you are going very quickly past some very shaky/vague statements, and it felt like a bit of a spin having to go through each statement respectively; and then at the end you're declaring things, which I found a tad creepy after all the poorly defined arguments you made prior. So I look forward to see what you think in reply, but I will admit I'm mostly writing this for the benefit of refuting you for others, but I also would be surprised and curious if you had a objection I haven't contemplated.

I agree with Dsayers, it's amazing to me how peopel can talk about "daddy damage" as if fathers are just these islands that no one can reach, they just drop from the sky and you're stuck with them, and all you can do is limit the damage when you get older. I really am annoyed at the entire article in how their is no consideration of the male point of view. Some men are just "dominating" and if you're a girl with a bad daddy, you're not even choosing them, they're choosing you (she literally said something like this, among many overtones and examples where she was avoiding responsibility about her life). What is even creepier to me is how these women have no concept of how they might be preying on men. You say you find depressed men attractive? Well that's pretty sick, since anyone with basic courtesy knows depressed people are not healthy enough to enter a relationship. And the woman who tended to fall in love with gay men.. How the fuck do you let that happen more than once, and try to pretend you aren't a dysfunctional and manipulative person who has no respect for boundaries in relationships? Might we at least acknowledge how these damaged women aren't just victims of daddy damage, but that they are also using and manipulating men to ignore thinking about their own trauma? Sorry if this post was more ranting than useful, but I am so sick of women not be able to understand what responsibility is. "I didn't know how to be non sexual" "I was claimed by men" "I suppose my dad was distant" (can't even admit it when it's basically the subject of the article) "But he was fascinating, just as I find other sad people to be, and he did his best" She sounds like she has the emotional maturity of a 12 year old.. And she's 45? Yuck I'd rather we not focus on childhood trauma at all if we're only going to bring it up to confuse things and excuse women. I'd rather women just get more of a grip and take responsibility for how their trauma might actually hurt other people besides themselves if they ignore it, and that they have responsibility for their actions whether they had damaged daddies or not.

Regarding your argument, I think it was actually a pretty good sentence you had there. The thing is, it was only one sentence (okay, 2) and you poisoned the well right after. But besides that, and just assuming for granted the person has some ability to understand universal principles (which might be unreasonable), I think you gave them something to possibly chew on. But as Freddy Mercury says, you can only sing as well as the crowd wants you to. If you came in with the notion that these people were going to dismiss your arguments, then it would seem automatically suspicious as to why you are there saying anything at all. But it would seem your gut instinct was spot on (perhaps the situation was biased because of how you initiated) that this was not going to be a productive conversation. So then, the interesting question might be: why did you act out against them? I can think of some reasons why I would and have in the past unconsciously acted out against people I knew or thought to be stupid and/or biased. I'm not sure I would label it contempt, because at least personally, I feel like I would have to have some (not necessarily a lot just some) influence over them to be able to hold them in contempt, which it seemed clear you didn't have any, at least in the way you chose to express your contempt. I wonder if "acting out" might have anything to do with unprocessed feelings of guilt... Maybe Alice Miller has talked about this I'm not sure But then the other side to that is maybe you really didn't know how these people were going to respond, but you poisoned the well anyway, which might be worth thinking about, too.

Internal Family Systems therapy is probably what you're thinking of. https://www.selfleadership.org/

And to be fair, at least about my post in that thread, I was purposefully giving him the chance to prove that his hyperbole was justified. Either it was, in which case we could judge his statement with better information at hand, or it wasn't and he was poisoning the well and being manipulative of anyone else who didn't know better. I think it is quite appalling to liken atheists as having murderous impulses against theists on this board, and the case, I'm just assuming considering his language though I may be wrong, is more likely that it was him who felt a murderous rage at the idea that he would accept the truth about his past abuse. Which I sympathize with in a sense as long as he is not acting it out, but we cannot let a claim like that go unchallenged. It would be careless.

The whole point of this video is to get you to offend yourself. It is trying to get you to viciously attack your conscience. Only the most emotionally disturbed or those completely dead inside altogether would be receptive to the message. The identity of the girl was stripped, and in her place was that bastard nihilism, that hackneyed cockroach slipping under the rug yet again. This is how much these people hate rationality, humanity, reason, existence; they want to murder it and put blackness in its place because they boil to see a mirror. So instead they replace the girl's personality, scorch it, and stain the hardened glass of her soul into a portrait of their sadistic madness. I don't chose to be offended by this video, it is clearly an especially acidic drop of rain water into the bucket, but it is a single drop in a hurricane of propaganda. These people can only feed off others who have been crippled by imprisonment in indoctrination facilities as a youth, and tortured by abuse in their homes. This video would be see by all as the frantic and fragile psychology of sadistic madman if it were not for the brutal storm of propaganda that is in place before children are even exposed to any media. I feel a very invigorating anger at the idea I would let this enter my conscience. To do so would be a self flagellation, coming as a result of a conscience so littered with guilt, that there is no doubt this video will eventually provide an excuse for them to act out against others. It is a tragedy for a single boy or girl to see this, a seriously contemptuous crime, but I appreciate it to look into my enemy's dissociated and maddened soul to be reminded what effort is required of me to support philosophy, rationality, and liberty. And let us all be reminded that art is not an argument, and it is a plea of someone who is trying to manipulate you when it is presented as such.