Matthew Ed Moran

Another angle to take on this, the shortest angle in my opinion, is that Rand's arguments have nothing to do with whether UPB is true or not. To say UPB is not true, is to say it is universally preferable not to be universally preferable in the domain of ethics. I know that statement alone is likely a long shot to prove anything, and maybe rightly so, but it's analogous to saying science doesn't exist because the properties of matter are completely random in observation. To say universally preferable behavior does not exist is to say there can be no hope for a universal ethics, in a fundamental sense. This is just an anecdote, but I personally am not betting on anything surpassing UPB, but instead marginal improvements on the basic core of UPB over time. Universally preferable ​behavior​ as a theory says that behaviors are events. So distinct from the hard sciences, the events in ethics are fundamentally subjective occurrences; they are based on preference, and preference requires will. Will is a synonym for self ownership, proven by axiom whenever coercion is not present; and behaviors are universalized to become theories about behavior. This theory states there is such a thing as universally preferable behavior, and it includes all behaviors, except for behaviors which cannot be universally preferable. There is a lot more to it, such as explaining testability and actually defining the epistemology of ethics. But until another theory of ethics is pit forth, UPB stands as the only consistent moral theory. And if there are flaws in UPB, that is different from saying the entire concept should be discarded for no reasonable alternative. Rand has poorly defined anything at all. It is a series of tautologies. It is oh-so-mystical or romantic of Rand to literally premise her ethics on a tautology. "Man acting as man" is a blatant tautology. I don't mean to be specifically hard on her, she actually was a genius for her age, but she was not able to fundamentally treat ethics with the necessary rigor to stand shoulders with science, as no great mind was before UPB. I guess I should mention I haven't read UPB, but I did listen to podcasts on it multiple times (UPB intro, UPB redux, several criticisms, all more than once) but then again I haven't read Popper and yet I know and can sufficiently explain the scientific method. It's because these things aren't that hard in their essence, if you understand metaphysics and epistemology (which is great in Rand). I think it is emotionally difficult! But... all UPB really says is theories about ethics should be consistent, and here is what that actually means concerning the epistemological practice of UPB and here is how consistency is measured in reality; i.e. let's see if a behavior is either immoral or moral through the lens of UPB. Obviously, UPB answers quite intuitively on questions of theft and murder, and even has something to say about aesthetically preferable behavior. The only way to escape UPB really is to become a complete subjectivist nihilist and reject the entire basis of metaphysics, which is to say to become a complete lunatic and deny all valid scientific principles. Lastly, a consideration is that ethics is a social science in the sense that the events in the models/theories are subjective human preferences. So economics can fit this category; as can biology in being about the observable properties of an abstract principle at work - Evolution. The only additional example I can think of is psychology. These are all what I would consider Social Sciences because they are metaphysically distinct from hard sciences, and this has to be accounted for in the category which differentiates such a thing; epistemology! I hope that wasn't terribly boring! Please, corrections where I may have obviously got it wrong.

I listened to this, then fell back asleep for about an hour, and it gave me an awesome dream!! That was some of the most powerful writing I've ever heard. Was it your choice to add the music? because that really helped keep my attention. and of course the drawing was fantastic as they always are, but I especially liked this one. perhaps it was the theme. I really enjoyed the clever TRUTH with the question marks inside - it gave me that enigmatic feeling that inspires curiosity and reflection!!

If Santa is just someone who goes around droppin' in chimneys, eating some cookies, lettin' off some farts from warm milk, then it is a valid concept and Santa could exist (fingers crossed). But if Santa is a man who lives in eternal obesity but never has heart problems, has some flying deer one of which has a giant luminous pimple on its nose, only produces midgets when he has sex with his wife, and has other properties which violate basic principles of science, then the concept could not exist in objective form like a chair or gravity do. The distinction, correct me if I'm wrong, is between objective and subjective concepts. Subjective concepts are dependent on a mind, where as objective concepts are dependent on a mind and something in reality. And that's a distinction that is worth making, I think!! At least to the extent we're talking about objective reality, subjective concepts do not exist.

Dude, the fact that a child is dependent makes it even WORSE to put them in the care of a stranger. At least an adult can defend his or herself!! I do not see how it can possibly be an argument for "stranger care" to say "oh, but children are helpless", please tell me if I'm missing something, but that seems only to further your point and signify that it is especially worse for children to be in the care of someone other than their parents or trusted friends and family. Maybe you've seen it, but this is a good one!

Concepts can and must describe physical things before they can describe anything else. You can't have a concept of gravity without the necessary concepts to describe the objects gravity is acting upon. This isn't necessarily controversial in my opinion, and that there was a dispute over this means your interlocutor hasn't read his Aristotle. I would suggest 'An Introduction To Reality' as a basic but very sufficient explanation of metaphysics and epistemology.

I do the same thing, Marlon. I am so trained to do it that flashy words will just pop out of my subconscious like a boner at an orgy. Being very careful and precise should always take precedence over a good word. Sometimes I will even catch myself crafting my sentences just to fit in a specific word that flashed into my subconscious seconds earlier. Carefully crafting your thoughts is much harder after growing up in a society where smart people like us are literally trained to signal intelligence and brandish fancy words to control more stupid and less thinking people. Keep mind of this next time you read a sophist, and you will notice a fancy adjective will often take complete place of any actual argument. It is silly and hilarious when you think about it! It's so pathetic because it shows the person has to resort to pandering; meaning they are just a tool of some other guy who used a big word to fool them. I'm working on that a bit in my journal.. slowing things down.. being precise.. being original.. it is very easy to get caught up in the momentum of your own intelligent brain when it has been trained to do the big word thing, rather than the arduous labor that is beneath any good communicator that is to relentlessly focus on the fundamentals of engagement. Be clear, be precise, before anything else. And Trump is very good at that. Maybe it was just the orgy analogy, but I feel even this post is a bit sloppy.. I just wanted to tell you aren't alone in that habit

It has been over 200 years since the enlightenment ideals were put into practice in America and other western countries to produce the greatest societies ever seen before. In what ways has Islam become more willing to abide by and replicate these western values in their domestic countries in the past 200 years, and why is there not more progress? Is it not an indictment of the integrity and benefit of Islam that it has still not produced the types of freedoms and prosperity that western societies experienced hundreds of years ago? Are there not incompatibilities between western values and Islam that are making these changes take longer than necessary?

I am so sorry for both of you and about this entire subject. This has really touched a deep nerve with me. I don't want to even get started on how the state puts the worse parent, the abomination, in a position of power if she is a woman, and leaves anyone who wants to remedy the situation for the child helpless. It makes my blood absolutely boil for the state to dangle your children in front of you. It is the greatest magnitude of horrible that I can ever imagine.

Donald Trump says he wants to localize education. We'll see how much progress he makes on that, but if it were so then I think local activism probably would engender more diversity and experimentation in distribution of homework; at least we would see some dismantling of the central narrative we have now that homework is this absolutely necessary component of 'education.' According to the data I've heard about, there are no positive benefits to homework. That seems to me like another comical (and frightening) hypocrisy of the left and its worship of centralized education. Diversity is good! That is why we teach everyone all the same things, in all the same ways, at all the same times!

I think it's quite simple, really. He's being forced to do something he doesn't want to do, and that's why he doesn't enjoy it. The fact that you only think his frustration with writing is a problem, when he also doesn't enjoy all his other homework, speaks to how you're seeing this from your interests as a parent rather than what he genuinely wants. You made a choice to live in Finland. He is frustrated and doesn't want your help because he feels humiliated asking you to help him do something that he doesn't have to do. He knows he doesn't have to do it, and you know he doesn't have to do it. If it's a charade you're putting him through, he's going to get frustrated about it. He can write a good story in 5 minutes. Clearly then, this has nothing to do with a lack of ability. Maybe you should write the story if the topics are bad. I don't know if that's a good idea, but it would at least be consistent. If you're not being as honest as you could about what he "has" to do and why he "has" to do it, I think that's an area where you could improve, and possibly apologize and provide restitution for the decision you made to live in a country where your child would be put through this. If you can be more honest about this (if there is room for you to improve with that), then he can understand that when he fails to meet the expectations of the state (because you chose to live in a country where he would be forced to), that it is not his fault. Then, you can be more practical figuring out how to help him as if you were trying to lessen his annoyance as much as possible. Passing it off as if he is getting a benefit from this, or as if he is failing to meet a just standard, is only going to cause resentment, because it's not true. You chose to go to work, and you have a choice where you go. He doesn't chose to go to school. That is not a fair standard and it would be hypocritical for you to tell him he should meet this standard, when you don't yourself. At very best, it's a necessary hardship for him because of choices you made in the past that can't easily be corrected now. I could be wrong, but I think if you can help him understand that it is not his fault when he doesn't want to do this, then he will have an easier time getting the 5 minute story done without the added pressure of thinking it is more significant than it really is, or that his parents will think less of him for it. I could also be completely wrong and it could be something else. Thank you for the consideration you are giving to your children. I admire and appreciate that, because many parents do not meet even that basic standard, and would not give half a thought when their child is not enjoying something as relatively menial as homework.

I would argue their (women's) perception is skewed to the extent that they expect more than they deserve, because the state is 'competing' with men to provide resources to women. This is praxeological: if you give someone more options, the least best options become less marginally appealing. I agree that in general, men compete for women. This is how the selection of our species has progressed. The men with the most capacity for gaining resources are rewarded by the most fertile women. This isn't immoral, maybe it's unfair, but so are lots of things. But to the extent society is willing to point out the difficulties of child bearing, etc. that nature has handed towards women, it is sexist to ignore the difficulties nature has handed towards men. A lot of women do bear responsibility for directly utilizing the benefits of statist sponsored sexism, and those women do have a power disparity based on that force. This should at least be pointed out. And to say men are more responsible for single mother hood when this fact is a given, is doing the opposite of accomplishing that because not only is it untrue, but it is pinning responsibility for the effects of coercion on the victim.

I appreciate the common ground. I just want to try and be clear. It does not follow that if there is not state aid, that single mother outcomes are the result of a mistake by the woman in choosing the man based on virtue. It could be, but it does not necessarily follow. There could be many reasons why any single mother outcome has manifested, but in general, since there is a choice involved to make babies rather than not make babies, the mother cannot abdicate her responsibility (sorry to repeat the phrase) to the man for leaving. Even if it were a mistake, then either the woman is responsible for the mistake, or she isn't; but if she isn't, the man can use the same reasoning to say his choice to impregnate her was a mistake. If the woman (or the man; interchangeable here) were committed to virtue rather than biological self interest, then it would not be exemplified in her decision to chose a man who would not raise his child (and to the extent he provides financial support, it can be argued he is fulfilling his most essential role as a father by providing resources for the woman to raise the child). The claim that any woman was seeking a virtuous relationship but resulted with a single mother home would have to be true in spite of that evidence. In other words, there would have to be additional evidence that would have to overwhelm the fact that the relationship ended in a way contradictory to virtue, if the claim is the woman chose according to virtue, but failed. That's the only way I see to make the claim testable, given the disparities in biological self interest and the ways which that manifests to the detriment of virtue. For instance, the corollary to run-off dads are mothers who use the state as a surrogate husband, or women who get one man to raise another man's children unsuspectingly. Again, I appreciate the common ground. Every argument I gave with regards to what a person is responsible for applies to both sexes, and the only factor that would make one party more responsible is a power disparity such as that resulting from force. There are power disparities between the sexes in nature, but I've yet to see the evidence that males have more power in the sexual market, where as I have seen evidence or at least arguments to how the woman has more power. That said, neither party is relieved of responsibility for making choices which could have been avoided or substituted for better choices. I appreciate how clearly you said what you agreed with. I also appreciated that you did not ask multiple questions in a row, and that you didn't digress too badly, which were things I personally noticed that I had a hard time responding to in previous posts of yours. It was an improvement for me personally, so I appreciate that whether it was conscious will of yours to make that effort for me or not. Just as an example of the digression thing, for instance: "If I had to guess, what makes me feel as though the departing father is worse, has to do with the devastation not only to the child, but the betrayal of the mother as well. This of course isn't logical because we are talking about the effects on the child, not the mother. However, this extra moral weight may inadvertently bleed into the discussion when we are empathizing." Which is something I probably do too sometime, which is to bring up something as though it is relevant, without actually making the case. I think you'd agree "moral weight" is not an argument, and whether it could bleed into the discussion is irrelevant to the actual point, unless you were attempting to say it was currently clouding your ability to process arguments, in which case I might have been more empathetic if I had a clearer understanding of that.

It's pointless to talk about non-interventionism when there is no candidate who has a likely shot of winning that is explicitly and trustworthy a non-interventionist. The relevant comparison to Trump's foreign policy are the other candidates. Application of the NAP towards innocent civilians is a theoretical discussion that has nothing to do with the present situation. The present situation is that there are two groups initiating force, USA and ISIS, and there are the 'citizens' of each group who are under the threat of force. That each group would rather guns be pointed at the other than have guns pointed at themselves is completely rational and not a violation of the NAP. What is cuckish is that some people would rather highlight force against innocent muslims, but ignore force against innocent USA citizens, and pin them with the responsibility of murders committed by their captors. That is atrocious. All this moral fiber strings pulling without any context, without refuting any of the actual arguments given by the show, is just trying to manipulate your capacity for empathy towards muslims, when muslims have not displayed any more empathy, and in fact are hostile to western society as demonstrated in numerous polls. Germany is an example of what happens when you vote for an r selected cuck; the force doesn't disappear. Peaceful society doesn't make itself present. No, the guns, the force of the state, are increasingly turned on the domestic population. This is not a situation of choice. I'm done responding in threads like this, unless they're willing to take on actual arguments provided on the show. The show is putting out too much great content for me to waste my time dabbling in non arguments by people who won't call in, and just want to bring up "muh concerns." News flash: the point of philosophy is not to care about your feelings. Make an argument that is actually represented here, cite it, and refute it; or shut up.

I put in bold what I think are your most relevant statements. I am interpreting that you are asking two fundamental questions: how is responsibility determined; and how are the decisions of women increasing the prevalence of single mother hood, in general (there will be exceptions, but an empirical trend obviously trumps any particular exceptions). So what does it mean to be responsible? I would argue that responsibility is an effect or a consequence of choice. In a matter of choosing a mate, to the extent coercion is not involved (such as in an arranged marriage backed by force), each individual bears full responsibility for engaging in a relationship with their mate, and if children are created, each individual is respectively responsible for choosing the other as their child's parent. If sex in a voluntary relationship is consensual, and since creating a child is a foregone conclusion to engaging in unprotected sex, then any children which are created as a consequence of engaging in unprotected sex in a consensual relationship are respectively the responsibility of each parent; since choice was present, and the option to do otherwise was available, then the basic requisites of responsibility have been met. You will see in what I said, the fundamental link which binds responsibility to a person is choice. To the extent a choice is present, any and all effects of that choice link back in the responsibility continuum to the initial choice, and the degree to which an effect is directly or indirectly linked to a choice delineates where responsibility begins, becomes less clear, and eventually ends. If responsibility is defined as a consequences of choice, it can be applied empirically to an example of a woman choosing a mate, choosing to create a child with that mate, and choosing (if applicable) whether to keep the mate around. To the extent it is possible to do otherwise in all these situations, the woman bears responsibility for her actions, and for the effects that can be linked to her actions. With responsibility defined, I will apply it to the example of a woman creating a child with an unreliable man. Here is where choice exists for the woman who has unprotected sex with an unreliable man - Choice exists to abstain from a relationship - Choice exists to have protected sex if in a relationship - Choice exists to end the relationship at any point - Choice exists to provide more value in the relationship, if doing so would keep the man around - Choice exists to give any unwanted children up for adoption (who are about as healthy as children from two parent households) There is no such thing as a man being "more responsible" for the effects of his actions, than a women is for the effects of hers. Responsibility is an effect of choice; and it cannot be abdicated to someone else unless that person has used force to remove choice. For instance, a man would be more responsible, and in fact the woman would bear relatively no responsibility, if a pregnancy were the result of him raping her; obviously, because that is not a situation of choice for the woman. It has been cited multiple times on the show that adoption is preferable to single mother hood for the child. Sources are in the description. I don't know what it means for an argument to be centered around something. If you have a disagreement with my definition of responsibility, please make it clear. If you agree with it, please make clear how all the choices I presented previously are not present. "Don't know well enough" is your value judgement which you are substituting for the woman's. It is not empirical to say a woman didn't know her man well enough to have a child with him. It is subjective, based on substituting your ends (or the ends you believe she has) for her actual ends. It is to assume she is choosing a man based on virtue, rather than something else. If you want to be empirical, I suggest thinking about the benefits of choosing a mate based on a short term reproductive strategy, when state aid is plentiful. Here are some statistics to help you out, but I suggest you watch the show's coverage on this more because clearly you're not aware of or are not digesting the information. Single mothers have an average IQ of about 90 Single mothers tend to abuse their children Single mothers tend to live off state aid Single mothers tend to be black and mestizo on average R selected mating strategies thrive in all these groups. The empirical data, in my opinion and as has been argued extensively on the show, suggests single mothers do not take any precaution to prevent becoming so, and therefore are invested in the possibility of becoming single mothers because the benefits, especially from a standpoint of reproducing as rapidly as possible, outweigh the costs. Unless you can directly respond to my arguments, that will be my last reply in this thread.

No 'Truth About' as far as I know, but there is

Since it was said you are not being manipulative, I thought it would be important to point out how that is not actually true. You said Trump is vague about foreign policy and then quoted one line out of context. That's not an argument. It is manipulative to say he is vague and then immediately after quote a single line out of context. it is a very sly way of not making an argument but attaching a negative connotation to the other person. It was in fact you who was being vague. "observe and report." ... more like "observe and slander"

Why don't you call in, dude? Obviously you haven't been receiving the types of responses you've wanted here, so why not call in and get your points heard if you think they are really important and deserve to be tested, and you are yearning for valid criticism of your points. I would really enjoy it, and I think many others would, too. It's obviously a very important topic that could benefit a lot from the platform. So why not call in?

"I get a lot of push-back from people saying you don't need to spend 24/7 with a baby/infant/toddler to teach them values, empathy, etc.​" Not spending time with your baby is not equivalent to putting your baby around 20 or more strangers for 6 hours a day without their parents. What empathy is being displayed by the parents, if they only specifically put their children in this situation and never voluntary put themselves in a room with 20 strangers without getting paid for it? This is empiricism. Studies are great, but so are arguments based on reason and evidence, such as the factors you already brought up in your post. A well done study can get a point across very quickly, but citing a study isn't the only way to be empirical. Just saying! This is just a suggestion if you were open to any sort of ideas. You could even ask them if their child has ever expressed a desire not to be at daycare but had to go; or had to stay when wanted to go home. If they answer the question honestly and it is "yes," then they are clearly admitting they do not value empathy towards children, at least when it's happening. This might not be relevant if it's 1 day a week in a great daycare, compared to 4 or 5 in an average daycare, but the general tendency to put children in daycare is the extent empathy is not being displayed for the child, and where it is actually being harmed and creating feelings of insecurity around empathizing. You know, they did set up a false dichotomy in what I initially quoted (not spending time with your baby = daycare), so that is something to at least be aware of. If you're attempting to argue against a false premise, that is not going to work no matter how many studies you have. Good luck!

Black government playing the victim card - how unpredictable! I'm sure the 1st world will eat it up. Burn your wealth, say your solutions are your problems, manufacture a villain, and watch the 1st world rush in with foreign aid and funding. Man, black people must think white people are really stupid. Edit: Sorry, I meant to say some black people, specifically those in the governments

I thought regression to the mean would exist from an evolutionary stand point because any trait has diminishing marginal utility towards reproduction.

Sorry, but if a person is asleep or comatose I don't see how they possess the capacity to exercise sentience in that state. Isn't it more accurate to say they have a future capacity, which relies on them leaving that state successfully? People die in their sleep, and in many cases a comatose person will not be able to enter sentience for years, so saying they presently possess the capacity to exercise sentience in a state of comatose is just not accurate. On the other hand, future capacity is necessarily indefinite to some degree. An infant has an indefinite future capacity for sentience. You may say the degree of indefiniteness is important, but it's not accurate to say an asleep person or a comatose person possess the capacity for sentience unless you're assuming they leave that state successfully and transition to a state of sentience. That would be like saying a computer has the capacity for performing tasks before it has been charged. No, it has a future capacity dependent on its successfully charging. I'm not really sure what your argument is here. Are you just repeating that children at certain stages of development lack sentience and self awareness? So what? The question is whether force can be administered against the mother to keep the child alive. You also seem to be completely unaware of the difference between an obligation to do something backed by force, and an "obligation" not to do something backed by force. We can get into that if you like, but I just wanted to point that out for now. I look forward to your response

It sounds like excusing responsibility. Both parties are responsible for their choice of who to have a baby with. If you have a baby with a person who is such a poor parent that they don't even care to stay around for their child, you are completely responsible for the effects of that, since you had every opportunity to prevent it from happening. That doesn't include the exceptions, but if you've ever met any single mothers, I don't think you'll see many moral diamonds hiding in the rough within that group. I believe they tend to be low IQ, abusive, and parasitical. These are not among the highest rung of moral people in society, to say the least. How many single mothers find a new husband who is wonderful to provide for their children? How many single mothers apologize to their children and take more responsibility for their actions going forward? Where are the groups of single mothers trying to warn others about the mistakes they have made so they are not repeated? In my experience, and if you want to test this just go on a single mother website or speak to a few single mothers, there is a general expectation that their children are responsible for adapting to the mother's choice not to have a father around. It's actually insulting those children to say their mothers are not as responsible. It is to say their mothers could be doing no better for them in the present, and since single mothers are often abusive, that is not even close to the case. There is colossal room for improvement for single mothers (and this isn't an insult - to pretend it wasn't true would be). Giving them excuses is just going to precipitate even more single mothers and resentment on part of their children which will be repressed, and acted out in the future.

Can you name another situation in which choice is as constricted as in a situation of coercion? Remember, it is a situation of fight or flight so any choice like choosing what to eat for breakfast would not be comparable.

To love children you must do things that make them hate you? What about the children who never hated their parents? They must be pure evil.