neeeel

You are redefining what "valid argument" means In logic, a valid argument is one in which "it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false."

man, the spanking call was great. When I read the question I was all kind of angry and hating on the things he said in the question and the way he phrased things. I suppose I was expecting stef to be kind of confrontational too, sometimes he is with spankers, but he was very calm and empathetic and open. ( I did wonder, when he recommended to the caller that he be empathetic to his kid about not wanting to brush his teeth, if he was using the same "tactic" on the caller), and he really had a great conversation and directed the caller to think about things in a lot of different ways. Absolutely amazing, stef.

.

Im not sure what this means, or how you would know it was true

ok

Ugh. I dont think you know what a strawman is. I dont think you understood my point either Its pretty simple. If I make a statement about X, and then try to use that statement to prove the existence of X, I am engaged in circular reasoning, or begging the question So If I say "I saw a unicorn", and then say "Look! my statement mentions unicorns, so they must exist" , that is not proof that unicorns exist If you are asking, is "I can choose what to spend my money on" an example of the concept of free will, then sure. Again, perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought you were using the statement "I choose what to spend my money on" as proof that free will exists.

All your statements assume free will exists, in order to show that free will exists. If I say "I saw a unicorn, therefore unicorns exist" and then point to my statement and say "look, my statement talks about unicorns, therefore unicorns must exist", you wouldnt be convinced would you. Maybe first we need to define what is meant by free will?

Why are you accusing me of all sorts of negative things? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying. Are you in fact saying that the statement proves free will?

saying "I can change my mind" doesnt prove free will either

the fact that minds can change does not prove free will.

Why? What if they didnt love me? Do I still need to consider it an honour?

I dont think that Jsbrads advice is that great, to be honest. I dont think that petersens idea , which is basically a time out in different guise, is very peaceful. . Not sure thats true, given what you have told about the first year or so of his life. What you describe in the OP ( when he has the meltdown) doesnt sound like a conflict, unless you left something out? This also sounds like your issue, rather than your sons, so the sooner you can get therapy, the better it will be, I think. If we have grown up being squashed at any conflict, or not being taught how to negotiate conflicts peacefully, then its going to be very difficult for us to do it when we are parents. If I had to guess, your oldest was jealous of the youngest climbing on you, and thats why the meltdown occurred. Im not sure the aim should be to stop the tantrums, but to rather support him through them, and explore with him what was going on, afterwards. Is he able to articulate his thoughts and feelings afterwards? Edit to add: also check, was he tired, or hungry? I would guess 4:30 is right in the zone where a tiring day can hit you?

They are just Deepities

You still havent explained what these "facts" actually mean

All I have done is ask questions about your statements. I dont understand why you dont want to answer them. You havent provided any insight. Insight is the conclusion or meaning that you glean from your observations.

I wasnt talking about converting.

Are you saying that you have no conclusion to what you are saying? Why are you making these statements, other than that you want me to see something significant , or otherwise draw some conclusion from them?

I dont know what this means? Go outside, see theres stuff there, therefore ...? It still doesnt explain your 2 statements from the previous post? What does it mean to be the ultimate creator? What does it mean that its within us and we are within it? What does it mean that we are connected to everything else? What conclusions can we draw from this?

This doesnt seem to be saying much, if anything. What does it mean? And what does it explain?

As I understand it, it boils down to logical consistency. the statement "X is universally preferable" means that all people, at all times, want everyone to do X So if we have 2 people in a room, they are both ok both with doing X, and having X done to them. The problem with some X's is that if you want X done to you, then its no longer X, thats where the logical consistency comes in If X = "watch TV" I can want you to watch TV, and that doesnt change what watching TV means, if you watch TV you are not both watching and not watching at the same time. If X = "stolen from" then I can want you to steal from me, but then if I want you to steal from me, its not stealing , because I am giving you permission to take my possessions. You would be stealing, and not stealing, at the same time. So the test for morality is, does the definition or understanding of X change, when I want you to do X. If it does its immoral.

this almost exact example has been brought up to me when I have been putting forward ancap ideas and principles, it was further stated that withholding water from someone who is dying is violence. While I dont see how it can be violence, unless you have a weird definition of violence, or then open up any other non action or refusal to trade as violence, it is still an interesting thought experiment. I dont see how it can be immoral to refuse to give someone access to your property, doesnt morality tell you what you shouldnt do, rather than what you should? That is, there are no actions you can take that make you a moral person, but there are actions you can take that make you an immoral person. I suppose you could counter their thought experiment by saying "well, what if the guy who is dying and needs my water just killed my wife and kids? Do I give still have to give it to him?"

I dont get it. whats the difference between choice and decision. The way you are using it is interchangeable.

again, perhaps you are using a different definition of choice. At a basic level they are choosing what to eat, what to wear, where to go, who to talk to, what to say, and so on. Or are you saying that they are robots that respond purely to programming?

Unless you have a very unusual definition of choice, then you would have to say women make choices all the time.

If the graduating class was on private property, you could just eject the drug dealers.