neeeel

Then you take this into account when making your decision. How well do you know this person? Do they tell the truth? And then you reason to a decision. If you dont trust them, or you dont know them, you dont give consent. If a random stranger comes up to me, and says he is in need of £100, and he looks fairly well off, and he promises to pay me back next week, and I give him the money, then nothing that happens afterwards, no information that comes to me after the event, can negate that consent. Its ridiculous to claim later that my consent is invalid. How can he trick me into agreeing to terms? Its up to me to validate what he is saying. To say "he tricked me" is to lay agency for my decision at his door. In my example of the guy dressing himself up as a rich person, there is no contract , written or verbal, The woman may hope, or think, that there is an implied contract, or a possibility of a contract later on , but that is irrelevant. No contract is broken. Its still consent. Oh, I thought we were talking about adults.

Im not sure how this works. Consent is consent. If I gather all the information, and make a decision based on that information, and then give consent, then consent is given , whether or not all the information was correct, and whether or not all my reasoning was correct. Otherwise, consent is meaningless. If we can retroactively apply knowledge, then any contract, decision, or agreement can be nullified. I cant claim "oh, well, if only I had known what I know now, I wouldnt have consented, therefore, I didnt consent". It doesnt work like that. If I borrow my friends fancy car, hire a good suit, spend a bit of money on a hair cut and some skin treatment, and pass myself off to women as a rich person, in order to have sex with them, are you saying that they didnt consent to have sex with me? Who did they consent to have sex with? Did I force them to have sex with me? Did they only consent on the expectation of resources from me? There was no contract to say such a thing. Ok, you could claim that I am playing on their wants and needs, perhaps a shitty thing to do, but I dont see how you can claim that they didnt consent. otherwise, you are just going down the "no means no, but yes sometimes means no" road.

In a take on your dictionary game, my family used to play this game, where one person would find a word in the dictionary that no one knew the meaning of, and everyone else had to make up a definition, making it sound plausible and "dictionary like". Everyone would write down their definition, the chooser would write down the real definition, and then read them all out ( including the real one). Everyone ( other than the chooser) then votes for the definition they think is real. If you choose the right definition, you get a point. If you choose a made up definition, the person who made up the definition gets a point. Then the dictionary passes to the next person, and they choose a word, and so on We played it from when I was 6 or 7 i think, maybe a bit older, up until teens. when you are 6-7 you are probably not going to come up with good sounding definitions though.

No, you explicitly accused green banana of violating the NAP . I dont see in his post where he did so

Almost anything that you play with your kids will help you to get to know them better, and they to know you. As stef says, getting down, on your hands and knees, getting dirty. So games of imagination, with toy animals, cars, dolls, etc. role playing games,( which can also involve the toy figures), also more active games, such as hide and seek, tag, just running around, being silly, wrestling, climbing, jumping. Board games and computer games can also be just as good. What is it about philosophy that you are wanting to bring into every day conversations with kids? I am not sure you can get them to learn it, unless you are already using it. I mean, if you are thinking logically, expressing your thoughts and feelings rationally, then they will pick up on that. If you are being irrational, or worked up, or un-peaceful, but are trying to teach your kids to be peaceful and rational, then, I dont think that will work. So, by playing, interacting, talking with your kids, you will automatically be telling them everything you believe or know about the world. without explicitly explaining,, you will be telling them exactly how much you value them, and what values you hold. I guess what I am saying is, how developed are YOUR logic, critical thinking, and ethics?

I am not sure how what green banana said violates the NAP.

embarassing moments of confusion? Or , moments where there is an attraction to another male, followed by guilt, or confusion, or fear, or embarassment, or denial? This is not to deny that there may be a gay agenda. I have never liked how gays are portrayed by others, and never liked how gays portray themselves ( the camp, or outrageous, or wierd acting and sounding person). I am sure that, by organising themselves along the lines of sexual attraction, some gay people may have an agenda. I am not sure how much of that agenda is trying to convince heterosexuals that they are actually homosexual though.

You can keep saying it, it doesnt make it true though. Humans have been violating natural law for thousands of years, and they are still here. so its fear of the future that is bringing up feelings of fear and hate for homosexuals/homosexuality?

No they dont prove anything like that. First, in order to prove that, you would need to show that there is a god, that he has a natural order, and that he has told us ( or you at least) that natural order. Since you cant prove that, then your above statement holds no water. I think you misunderstand what laws are in science. And I have no idea what "law of the human mind" means.

I am not sure this is possible to do. Do you have any examples of this? you realise that I dont believe that the church is an authority that I should pay much or any regard to, so citing the church to support your position does nothing to support it. What do you actually have that supports your position of there being a natural law, and that homosexuality breaks that natural law?

Maybe off topic, but I would really like to see that video! Dont suppose you still have it?

How does it violate natural law? What is the natural law that it violates? How do you know that this law is a law, and a natural one? So you are saying that its possible for heterosexuals to become homosexuals, ie people who are attracted to the opposite sex, to become attracted to the same sex? Or pretend to themselves that they are homosexuals? Or what? I am not sure that buggery was the worst thing in the world in 1915. What you seem to be doing is the slippery slope fallacy. So, no, homosexuality being seen as a good thing, does not automatically, or necessarily mean that other things will become seen as a good thing.

I may have misunderstood, but it sounds like you think theres something wrong with being gay, that it is somehow innately bad, or , I dont know exactly what it is you are saying. if its not bad, what is wrong with the media saying theres nothing wrong with it if it is bad, please can you explain what it is that is bad about it? I am assuming that the links you posted cover at least some of the things you think is wrong with homosexuals/homosexuality. Is it just the "conversion" of children to homosexuality that you dont like about it? Or is there more?

Its looking good so far. The only thing I found annoying was that it is difficult to read the small white text on the light blue background.

determinism is pretty much a banned subject here, so dont be surprised if you get little or no response.

why do you want to discipline them? Are they actually doing anything wrong? I dont necessarily think that touching other campers, or not listening, is wrong doing. It may be labelled as that by the other counsellors though. unless its a safety issue, I see no reason why they should listen to you. I doubt 3 or 4 year olds really know why they are doing what they do , a lot of the time. Not that you shouldnt ask them, or listen to them, but that the answer they give may be just the first thing that comes into their head. when you are explaining that what they are doing is wrong, what do you tell them? What reasoning do you follow? can you give some examples of what you have explained?

I am not sure I would agree that they got it right. What does it mean to get it right? what did they get right?

ok, that makes sense. I guess I am thinking of things as fairly static, A vs B, A wins, end of story. Thats probably a pretty hefty flaw in my thinking.

Ok, destroyed may be a bit fanciful and emotional, but it still stands that, by being able to offer their product for free, it removed any chance of netscape being able to compete

again, my concern is how all this would work in a free market. I make no statement as to whether it was good or bad for MS to give their product away for free. I make no statement as to whether government is good, bad or otherwise. I am trying to understand how a fully free market can allow competition in an area where there are already extremely powerful companies. I like thomasios example of how in a free market, walmart could buy up all suitable land to stop competition. I understand that this would significantly drive the price of nearby land up , until the last bits of land were so expensive that walmart wouldnt want to buy them, or couldnt afford them, but in that case, they are not available to anyone else either.

It wasnt meant as a justification for anything. I was simply asking a question. Nowhere did I say "I cant think of a way to beat walmart, therefore what we have now is the best system" I am not sure that the things you listed compete directly with walmart? perhaps costco and target. I am trying to understand how, in a place where large corporations wield power through wealth, it is possible to compete with them, unless you also have wealth. perhaps you are right and my lack of vision consigns me to be a burger flipper for the rest of my life.

How would I compete with walmart? I dont have the capital to compete. Whatever I offer, they can offer at a reduced price. If I find a niche market and its making money for me, they are going to see that, and can take that market away from me. The point wasnt whether it was good or bad. It was that microsoft destroyed its competition, by offering its product for free. And it was only able to do that, because it was a bigger, richer corporation than netscape. Firefox and Chrome are free and are better , yes. How many people would pay for them, if theres an ok free alternative?

Im still not clear on how it would work. I can understand something like the FDR film club, they can talk about philosophy in terms of the characters, the story , motivations, actions, etc. With games, especially the popular on line games, I dont see how that would work. CS:GO or LoL or DOTA dont really have story lines, or characters. Would you talk about philosophy whilst playing the games? Or would you wait till after? If you wait till after, what was the point of playing the games? Is the intention to attract people who arent into philosophy? I actually think something like Leisure Suit Larry might lend itself to some philopsophical discussion, not sure how popular that would be with the Twitch crowd though.

You keep saying this as though its making some sort of point. It isnt,

I suppose you might attract a niche audience. But given that most content of twitch chats I have been in is "GRILL!!", or spamming emoticons, I dont think that many people who watch streams would stay around for a philosophy discussion. How did you envisage it working? I cant imagine how they would fit together