[Feminists, White Feather SuffRAGEettes, guild shaming men into war]

Sure, it's not violence.  But are you indifferent to all acts that aren't violence?

 

Convincing somebody to go die, and to go kill - -pretty sure we can't call this ok, right?

 

 

so  ostracism is only ok in certain circumstances? what circumstances is it ok in?

[Feminists, White Feather SuffRAGEettes, guild shaming men into war]

I dont see why people would have a problem with this. Its just ostracism, after all

[How do I know if this woman should mother my children?]

 

Children are a MASSIVE commitment; I am looking after a friends children right now- they are non-stop and you need the patience of a saint to raise them via 'peaceful parenting'. Personally I think children need the odd smack, as I find children raised via 'peaceful parenting' are obnoxious and never behave because they know they will get away with anything. It's very hard to create boundaries with children when they know there are no tangible consequences. I was smacked as a child while I was small occasionally and people would always say how I was the most well behaved child they ever met, and I never grew up bitter and twisted and it had no negative affects on me.

 

 

 

 

If you want "well behaved" children, then yes, maybe smacking them is for you . If you want children who are bright, full of life, rational, and loving everyone, then not smacking them is the way to go.

[Multiplayer pc games?]

you could, although we havent played together yet. 

[Should I take advantage of the welfare system]

If someone steals my phone, and I then later see the thief with my phone hanging out of his back pocket, is it immoral to pickpocket it back?  Since money is a homogeneous good (that is, one dollar bill has the exact same value as any other), it is irrelevant whether or not I receive the same money back that I paid in.  The only moral question should be "Am I a net tax-payer or a net tax-consumer?"  If you are a tax payer, you are receiving property that was stolen from you; if you are a tax consumer, you are necessarily receiving money that is beyond what was taken from you, and are therefore guilty of theft.  What you intend to do with the money seems irrelevant. 

 

Is taking welfare morally different than receiving a tax refund?  In both cases you are receiving money from the thief that has already been stolen from you.  The only difference is the consent of the thief, which should not be a factor in judging the morality of the situation.

 

so you are saying that as long as the phone you steal is of equivalent value, it would be ok to steal someone elses phone in order to make up for your stolen phone? 

 

someone steals £100 from me, so in return I can just go and steal £100 from anyone, because all pounds are the same worth?

 

Im pretty sure thats not what you would want to argue, but thats what you seem to be saying, although its possible I misunderstood

 

 

Edit :Ah, I think I understand. If a thief takes money from you, then you are entitled to take that money back, even though they arent exactly the same bills that you take.

[My problem with immigrants: tolerating intolerance( includes article)]

Wasn't the whole point of us defeating Japan so we could make them stop acting in this discriminatory manner?

 

 

 

No

[Do you think ABA therapy for autism is abusive?]

In the 3rd video I thought, this woman has no concern with what this boy is thinking, feeling, what he wants and what hes problems are. If you don't know that how can you help. It seams to me that what they do there is crush the child in a state of obedience so that the parents, teachers, other people are happy, so they don't face the real issue and try to really help.

 

 

Yes, this. compliance, thats what it seems to be all about. Get the child to obey. Of course, this is just me looking in from the outside with no real knowledge of the situation, so I could be wrong. 

[Do you think ABA therapy for autism is abusive?]

My first response to the 3rd video was "yuk". How annoying to have some woman constantly bombarding you with things, talking at you all the time, not giving you peace until you comply with her wishes. 

I couldnt even watch the whole of the 2nd video, the whole thing of compliance training says it all. Why does she want him to pick up a piece of paper, and put a banana back in the kitchen? All that stuff about being able to sit still in school. I hated how she stood there with a bowl of treats, and the man kept demanding one every few seconds.

 

I dont know a lot about autism, or how often autistic people die or get injured through their own actions ( eg walking out into roads), that seemed to be the main justification they gave for this type of training

 

I didnt like these videos, and felt a negative reaction towards the people in them  ( the therapist and the mother). Not that that means anything, My reaction could be more about my childhood than the videos.

[#Shoutyourabortion]

You might be right. Let me try and explain.

 

To say that abortion is ok up to x months from birth is obviously pretty arbitrary. It has no basis other than what that society believes is or isn't human life / moral.

 

I'd be of the opinion however that the human life MUST begin when the genome is formed, because all things held equal, the human development would continue, just as we continue to develop to the minute we die. To me this seems the least arbitrary way of thinking. 

 

However, again, I'll state that I'm more in this for self knowledge and just trying to find a reasonable position to take. I'd love to hear a counter argument.

 

I dont have any position either, I am interested to learn more, and look at any logical inconsistencies. It still seems fairly arbitrary to me, You are stating that human life starts from the instant of conception, on no basis other than what you believe is or isnt human life/moral. I suppose I might agree that its the least arbitrary, but I have no good arguments against someone who says, "why not 1 month"

[#Shoutyourabortion]

 

Agalloch: I think we might be on the same page. In answer to your question, I think from a logical point of view it's hard to justify where the human life begins so any arbitrary decision is kind of meaningless. Therefore you would have to fall back to conception right? So, at any point from conception it would follow that you are ending a human life so all loss of life is to be treated with equal tragedy. . . But then it comes into question when you consider a medical abortion, or the consequences of rape, abortion of massively disabled individuals... I don't know.... Hence the questions.

 

 

 

I dont understand this. You say that any arbitrary decision is meaningless. And then go on to make an arbitrary decision for conception?

[Ahmed Mohamed and his clock (somebody slap this kid)]

...snip...

 

 

Do you know the full story? Do you know the boy? Or the circumstances in which all this happened? 

 

Yes, there is more to it than just the media story, but you are talking like you know exactly what happened, and who is responsible. 

 

there is a lot of religious thinking in your post. You are ascribing motives to various people, of which you can have no idea.

 

do you have extra information about this case that you would like to share?

[Should I take advantage of the welfare system]

the money is already stolen, its either i steal it back and spend it on something good, or do nothing and its spent on something bad, so your P1 is a misrepresentation of the situation.

 

Are you actually claiming i have equal moral responsibility as the government? or just having a go at me because my argument style/format isnt water tight...

 

 

 

 

I am saying that your argument isnt valid, the conclusion doesnt follow from the premises, and its possible for the premises to be true, and the conclusion to be false.

I am not claiming anything, I am looking at your argument. Are you really arguing that later actions change the morality of a previous action?

[Why does god need to be outside of time?]

Am I not arguing from empiricism here? As far as I thought, evidence trumps concepts. Therefore, every effect has a cause.

 

 

 

I suppose it would be fair to claim that, since every effect we have seen has a cause, that every effect has a cause. Im not sure I would consider the universe as an effect though, but point taken, it is just speculation on my part

[Why does god need to be outside of time?]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

 

Logically, each effect must have a cause. I can't answer why, that's like trying to answer why does 2+2=4. It's just a fundamental principle of the universe. Maybe you have an answer as to why the creating of the universe, the very effect that is the cause of all of us being here today, is the one single exception of cause and effect for philosophers.

 

just because everything we observe has a cause, doesnt mean that everything has to have a cause. thats the argument from incredulity. Also, having a cause doesnt imply having a causer. 

 

Our minds probably cant grok the concept, but that doesnt mean that everything has a cause.

[Why does god need to be outside of time?]

 

There must be a cause for our universe

 

Why?

[Should I take advantage of the welfare system]

1. You can't be assigned an equal amount of moral responsibility for stealing stolen property as the person who originally stole it, because by taking it back you can in some way give it back (by having conversations and making the world a slightly safer, less violent and more philosophical place) rather than it being spent on something bad.

 

 

to put your argument into standard form ( as I understand it)

 

P1) stealing something and spending it on something good, is better than stealing something and spending it on something bad

therefore

C) I cant be assigned an equal amount of moral responsibility for stealing stolen property, as the person who originally stole it

 

Again, your conclusion doesnt follow from your premises. Are you trying to argue that later actions lessen the immorality of a previous action? That stealing something in order to do good is ok? I am not sure you want to go down that road.

 

2. I have been paying tax for years and will continue to do so for the rest of my life in all likelihood, so in exact dollar values I won't come close to getting back all of my own money let alone start to "steal" others money, so the whole discussion of stealing stolen property is moot.

 

 

 

P1) I have been paying tax for years

P2) The amount I get back is less than what I have paid

therefore

C) I am not stealing.

 

This also seems a bit ropey. If someone steals my phone, I can go and steal someone elses phone of lesser value? I can see that you are trying to argue that its not stealing, since its "your" money that you are getting back,  I am not sure I agree with that.

 

 

3. The money is gone and will never be seen again, there is a system set up to make sure this happens, under these conditions it is reasonable for people to have a preference for where the money should go since they cant get it back.

 

 

I am not sure what you mean by "the money will be gone and not seen again" . Which money? The money that you paid in taxes?

[Should I take advantage of the welfare system]

my arguments are flimsy? not as flimsy as that non argument, how bout you rebutt them properly?

 

 

 

I cant, Because you havent made any arguments.

 

 

 I think it is right to take what you can of what has already been stolen and is now unavailable to the people it was stolen from

 

 

and

 

I watch the show, I share links, I have conversations with people, I have shown people that you can live a moral life without religion, the money stolen from you is being taken in part to help spread the good word and that has to be preferable to the bullets it would have bought otherwise.

 

 

 

are not arguments. You have made some statements, 

 

For example, your second statement above, is saying, in effect 

 

P1 its better for stolen money to be spent on something good,

P2 I am spending stolen money on something good

C therefore I am not immoral for taking stolen money ( implied conclusion)

 

the conclusion doesnt follow from the premises, which is why it seems to me you are trying to justify taking welfare, to yourself and others. 

[Any experiences with proxy female violence?]

"just you wait till your dad gets home"

[Because I feel like it]

I also wonder if you are feeling bad about yourself, or sensitive, because of some of the things said to you about you and your values and standards, when you first came to the site?

[An emperical proof against white privilege?]

While I think that "white privilege" is a misleading term, is it not true that, in a country that has a "white" identity, identified as being predominantly white, that whites will prefer the company of, and employ more , people of the same race and/or culture as them, with the same belief sytems, common memes, and similar values?. When you are looking for someone to enter your life in some capacity or other, you would prefer someone of your "in group". you will likely have suspicion and dislike of the out group? Especially the more different and foreign they are? 

 

I would guess the same is true in black identified countries. 

 

You hear about studies where exactly the same CVs were used, but one with a white sounding name, and one with a foreign sounding name, and the white CVs got interviews, but the foreign ones didnt. 

 

So, isnt it likely that some sort of in group preference exists? I am not saying that its good or bad, just whether it exists.

 

Perhaps that is not what people mean by "white privilege", I dont know

[Should I take advantage of the welfare system]

If you have the opportunity to take some of the money stolen from me back through the welfare system I applaud and congratulate you for doing so, as it is already lost to me. A second answer is they are always stealing, and will do for many years to come, so no I won't do this forever because I will get caught eventually but the money I get will not come close to the taxes I will pay in the future. 

 

This is what I don't understand, the money is gone, wouldn't you want someone half decent to take a little while they can rather than it just being spent elsewhere? I

 

 

This seems to me, exactly the same as saying "Someone stole my phone, my phone is gone, I hope they sell it to someone half decent rather than it just being used elsewhere" 

 

Do you feel bad about taking welfare? To be honest, your lines of reasoning seem to be just flimsy justifications as to why what you are doing is actually all right.

In order for you to be coming up with these justifications, it seems like you must actually think that you are doing wrong. So perhaps it might be useful to go into that here?

 

Please note, this is not a condemnation, or trying to tell you that you should feel bad, or shouldnt feel bad. 

[Explaining miracles]

The things that ( I imagine) you are thinking of as miracles, such as recovering from cancer,a or surviving  car crash, arent actually miracles. They are just outliers on the bell curve. 

Things that would really be miracles, such as growing a limb back after amputation, or walking unaided on water, it is not possible to study with science because there are no examples to study. 

[Recurring Childhood Nightmare]

I was thinking along mellomamas lines. Where did you come into contact with the idea of a gangster at the age of 4 or 5? Is the gangster just a concept you have applied to the cricket in the dream later on, or was it that type of feeling/idea even at the time you were having the dreams?

 

I also was thinking that the large cricket is your mum, or an aspect of your mum. But, in that case, wouldnt the cricket be female as well?

 

alternatively, is it possible that the large cricket was your brother? You started dreaming the dreams about the time he was born, right?

 

He is now taking over your previously held position as mums baby, and I can imaging that younger siblings are very smug and in your face and haughty about supplanting your position.  She was on the phone ( if you think about people on the phone, they are very much "somewhere else", as in, not able to give you attention, focused on something different, not able to engage with you), meaning, she was looking after your brother, he is on her back looking haughtily at you ,  and every time you tried to get her attention, to make sure that you were still loved and wanted, she waved you away with a "not now", she has no time for you.

I can imagine that would be very scary for a child.

[Roosh V. Branded Rapist by Social Justice Feminists]

I think you're confusing fraud and rape. If you gave incomplete information in the formation of a contract, that is fraud. But it is not rape, and it is not theft. People make and consent to stupid decisions all the time. Doesn't mean there was any force involved,

 

possibly, I am just trying to understand someone elses claim.

 

But, if you dont give consent, then isnt that force?

[Roosh V. Branded Rapist by Social Justice Feminists]

the claim is, as I understand it

 

I did not have full information when I consented, therefore, my consent is invalid.

if I did not consent to something, then I was forced.

Being forced is a violation of the NAP

 

 

But this can be applied to ALL instances of consent, since you will never have full information in any decision, making consent irrelevant and useless.