Mullerick

I feel like this is sophistry at it's best. I would love to see Stefan do a response to point that out.

This guy did a reply to it. It's great. See for yourselves.

Here's the video: I found it to be really amusing. Just like Stefan said, the media has no idea how to deal with Trump and are scared. So do you guys have any rebuttals? Personally I see a lot of straw man arguments.

I don't play any games (and I'm 21) except for Hearthstone. Any one else? If so, add me. My tag is carstairs # 1 6 0 4

I don't know if I agree with you. In the book Stefan clearly drew a line between morally wrong actions and aesthetically negative actions. The difference is that one can be avoided and the other can't (page 70). So if an action is aesthetically negative it can't be immoral at the same time. Aesthetically negative actions don't break moral rules, they break aesthetic rules. To further my point Stefan often says that actions that don't involve the initiation of force or property rights are not in the realm of ethics. (notice, disrespecting property rights involves a sort of force) So I still think I have the right interpretation when I say that Stefan believes that only the initiation of force is immoral. Unless he believes suicide is immoral but I've never heard him talk about this topic. I'm still interested in what you're working on. I want anything that will help me understand this better.

Many times during call-in-shows, a caller asks Stefan if x is immoral. This is usually followed by Stef saying that x is immoral because it violates the non-aggression principle (NAP) or x is not immoral because it does not violate the NAP. The latter statement obviously implies that only what violates the NAP is immoral. But is this true? If so, is it not immoral to pressure a person into doing something dangerous or to lie to a person in a situation where you know that lying would lead to that person being harmed? And what about suicide, where you're not using force against anyone but at the same time are knowingly inflicting close ones with immense grief? Or are these examples still using some sort of force? Now I've read Stef's book on UPB a few times and in the book he says that the initiation of force is immoral because it is unavoidable from the victim's perspective. The above examples are situations where you're not using the initiation of force but are putting people in unavoidable situations. So are they still immoral or are they simply aesthetically negative? If so why?