neeeel

Its not clear that he did "freely agree on washing the dishes". hes supposed to do the dishes, sure, but what does that mean? theres no attempt, from what I can see, to find out why he doesnt want to do the dishes. She even says to refuse to talk about it any more .Its basically, do the dishes or else, I will take away something you like. Which might be fine, depending on the context and cirumstances, but stinks of coercion to me. Its just a made up scenario, so we cant know whats gone on before or after, but it would be a great chance to talk to your son about doing things we dont like, find out what he thinks about that, negotiate, see if others can swap chores, any number of possibilities, instead, you just force him to do the dishes.

sorry, but what does this even mean?

How? edit : to be clear, how does the establishment of reason, imply that the deliberate use of ones body is a demonstration of property rights?

Sorry , I dont understand. I havent mentioned absence of property rights. your claim was Which to me, indicates that you believe that things that use their bodies, are, by that very use of bodies, accepting/proving property rights. I showed that this was false, because animals use their bodies and that isnt the acceptance/proof of property rights. so your claim cannot be true, that that using bodies means the acceptance/proof of property rights. There must be some other variable. If you want to bring reason into it, thats fine, but you now need to show how the use of reason is the acceptance/proof of property rights.

No , but my point was that your reasoning doesnt hold. using your body != acceptance of property rights

I dont think this follows. animals use their bodies , and you dont extend property rights to them. I also think it would be possible to "use your body" without it meaning the automatic acceptance/proof of property rights

why are you pro-voting?

Its an interesting point. I find that musicians who use drugs make more interesting music than those that dont ( in general). I often find that listening to music on drugs is a more interesting experience than listening to music clean. I find that playing music on drugs is a more intense, creative experience than playing clean. Although the drugs I am talking about are psychotropic rather than speed/cocaine type drugs, so maybe thats the difference. I was never that into princes music. So what is going on? Why does music written on drugs seem richer, more emotional, and more connected, than music that wasnt?

Sorry, but this doesnt make sense. IF its true that theres no god, or no proof for god, THEN the default position is to not believe. Whether its a "bad idea" or not , is irrelevant. Its not possible to toss atheism, since atheism is simply the non belief in a god or gods, its not possible to just toss that aside on a whim.

It sounds like you need to deal with your history first. Also sounds like a terrible idea overall, but what do I know.

I am not sure it can be disproven. But it can be rejected until further evidence. No it doesnt and no it hasnt No we dont

for no 3, surely if some things can directly violate the laws, then the laws cant be absolute?

What does "genetically inferior" mean?

Wut? Its not your fault, but you are making things worse? So, its your fault then

In group preference, distrust of strangers, etc, exist, and are built into humans. Racism would fall under those categories. Denying that racism is a thing is just as moronic as saying everything is racist.

I agree with the sharing toy thing. Sure, the child that wants the toy can let this be known, but I think the mother coming saying "You have to share" is making a mistake. The child also knows its not true. he doesnt NEED to share at all. Rather its "I am going to MAKE you share" ( which isnt actually sharing, anyway, its just forced) Left to their own devices, children are generally quite generous anyway, I think giving them opportunities to be generous of their own accord, or selfish of their own accord, is very important.

I did the test, and got "Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between European American and African American." I did find though, that when things switched around in the second half, that I was pausing on some words or images and felt like i had made an implicit association of white/good. I dont know if thats cos of my already existing biases, or because the test programmed me to do that in the first half

that just seems like equivocation to me. So 1) initiation of force is evil ( this is universal) 2) using force to save someones life is the initiation of force therefore C) using force to save someones life is evil either 1) is universal or not. If its universal, then its evil to save someones life using force. Whether the person forgives him or not is irrelevant. I dont think anyone would agree with C) , so it cant be universal. I must be missing something here

surely by this argument, the initiation of force isnt evil, because applied universally, you cant say some guy initiating force on a man to save his ( the mans) life is evil?

Not sure I believe in implicit agreements, or that using them to argue for morality is a good idea There is no logical contradiction in holding the following 2 statements to be true at the same time 1) I don't want anyone to harm me or steal from me 2) I want to harm someone else or steal from someone else

If he doesnt acknowledge that theres a problem, you arent going to get anywhere. Either he doesnt believe theres a problem, or he has an inkling that there might be a problem, but doesnt want to face it. Have you and your brother ever talked about your childhoods? Does he believe there was nothing wrong with his? "Well, I was hit, and I turned out ok" ? Do you have an "in" to the compassion that might still be there in your brother? A shared childhood memory of when your brother was upset and hurt and in pain? Are you able to bring him back to that place? Would it be dangerous to his son if you reported ( without telling him which of his kids said it) that one of his children had said "I hate my dad". Not saying it to your brother in a nasty way, or a condemnatory way, but a "Do you want your kids to hate you " way? If he is liable to take it out on his kids, then do not do this. Edit: thinking about talking about your shared childhood with your brother, I am worried that this may also make things worse for his kids? It might bring his pain more into focus, and he may not be able to deal with it, and so take it out on his kids. What do other FDR people think? Edit 2: if you have the opportunity, allow your brothers kids to talk to you, if they say stuff like "I hate my dad", use that as an opening to talk to them about it. Reflect back to them that they are allowed to hate and be angry.

Right, its just a story. Neither of us know what happened. I dont know why you think this somehow justifies what he did. I suppose you can accuse me of the same, that I am condemning him before knowing what really happened. No. You have the right to force someone to leave your property EVEN IF THEY DID NOTHING! That is, if you dont like their hair, or the smell of their aftershave, or you just want some alone time, you can ask them to leave. If they dont comply, you can use force ( someone correct me if I am wrong here?) So, no, I havent conceded your point. It totally does not imply that the protester committed an initation of force. As I keep stating, if someone is leaving, or being escorted away, elbowing them in the face is an initiation of force. I still dont understand why you are defending this? He is not "forcefully removing" the protester from his property. He is violently assaulting him. You are totally defending what the guy did. You are justifying it under all sorts of reasons, none of which I accept.

my reply to valheeb disappeared, it got modded I guess.

You missed out "trump supporter walks up to a protester who was leaving, and elbows him in the face" This has nothing to do with ejecting someone

Im not sure where I changed your example? Perhaps I am being dumb but can you point it out to me? I notice that you didnt address any of the points I brought up in my previous post I know you keep saying that verbal aggression is initiation of force. Your example didnt show that, it was just you asserting that it was. How does that work? Who decides what is verbal aggression and what isnt?You have still to define "verbal aggression" in any way. Currently its very vague as to what you mean by it. No, you are not allowed to stop someone from cursing in front of your wife and children. You can leave ( or if on your property, ask/force them to leave). Again, its very vague as to what you mean by "cursing in front of your wife and children". If its just a guy screaming and cursing at the sky because his football team has lost, does that count? As mello says, if its a credible threat, then yes, you need to protect yourself and your family. So if its a guy yelling threats and invading personal space, sticking their face right into yours or your wifes face, then you act to get your family to safety. That might involve ( but doesnt automatically mean ) physical violence against the guy. Walking up to a guy in the street and elbowing them in the face because they swore, is insane, in my opinion, perhaps thats not what you mean when you talk about it, but as I said, its very unclear as to what you mean by verbal aggression and "swearing in front of", and currently your argument includes that scenario. You dont like that he swore in front of your wife and children, therefore, you get to use force against him. If the police are escorting a thief out of my house, and I swear at him , call him a f**king thieving b****** , is he then justified in punching me? I am sure you will say no, but why not? Your argument currently allows this scenario..