smarterthanone

You don't need to agree on UPB. When you use nature and what is as the formulation, you cannot come to another conclusion. We have instincts and evolutionary processes. These exist. Fact. If you think you can initiate force without anyone ever responding in defense you just live in dream fantasy land. Even if we were to will that self defense is immoral, people often can't help themselves but to still defend themselves. Aggression is not the best way to further your genes. If something is to be an objective moral system, such as the NAP, it would have to apply all the time. So imagine you are on a small island, there was a plane crash and you and 1 other person survives. You have no supplies at all. You each go off and scrounge around for food and stuff. Now, you have the option, you could beat the other person with a stick and thus have all the banana trees for yourself HOWEVER 1. you lose someone to cooperate with and divide labor 2. If you injure yourself in the fight, even if you are victorious, you will die from infection from when you slice your hand open on the stick you whacked him with. So sure people can initiate force from stupidity because its not usually a good gamble. Its like if you play Russian roulette, you win you get 10 million dollars, you lose you die. Its not a good gamble in terms of natural selection because the last time I checked, people who didn't have 10 million dollars still have plenty of kids. Its the morons game. I would look to I think its Thomas Aquinas who said that we could discover morals through our own intellect etc etc. so if someone does not use their capabilities then they will not act moral because they have not properly applied themselves but they could. Even in society, you could rob a bank but the risk of jail or getting into some kind of shoot out vs the money you could get is not a very good reward in terms of furthering your natural processes. The point is its not the initiation of aggression or force or violence, however you want to describe it, its the response. The bear in these circumstances is always responding due to instinct. The feeding bear I don't see how its applicable. If humans feed the bear and put it in weird circumstances and stuff ie destroy the woods and now its eating out of a dumpster etc and now it attacks someone that kind of stuff is all something else and taking it to the next level of complex as opposed to bringing about simplification which I am trying to do with the example.

Here is my thoughts on what exactly is wrong with the initiation of force. I typed it out a bit quick and its a bit jumbled but you should get the idea. 1. Humans are basically animals, we have instincts too. (Are you born with an instinct to move your hand if something hot touches it. Yes.) 2. Ok. It can be a little confusing to look at human behavior in terms of what is instinct or not, so lets just look at animals. 3. If you attack a grizzly bear, what will it do? It will kill you. LIFE! If you try and capture a grizzly bear in a cage what will it do? Kill you. LIBERTY! If you try and use a Grizzly bears cave home, what will it do? Kill you. PROPERTY! 4. Realize the bear uses violence in return to these initiations of force. It is instinctual. Now think about humans, we have the same instincts. We are smart so we can stop from being 100% instinctual but we can't all always be 100% all of the time because it is instinctual, its not possible. Many times we cannot help ourselves but to commit violence in return. (See store owners who shoot looters in the back, if they were rational and did not want to go to jail they would not, but in the heat of the moment they cannot help themselves from protecting their property.) 5. THEREFORE, it would be unreasonable to believe you could violate peoples life liberty or property through the initiation of force without violence in return. Instinctual behavior cannot be immoral because ought implies can. 6. If you believe in the categorical imperative (or some variation of such like UPB I think also works), we could not wish all people to initiate violence against other people because they would in return be violent and everyone would die. Self defeating.

Most of my friends are retarded about sex. My one friend literally is like jumping for joy any time some tits show up on some HBO show we are watching together as a group. He is not very sexually experienced although he has a long time girlfriend. Me on the other hand, I have been with a ton of women and watch tons of porn, simply seeing boobs doesn't do anything for me. I mean I can think about sex when I look at them and it will do something for me but just to see boobs isn't very exciting. This is very important to dealing with women. Being able to talk to a woman and not ogle her breasts the whole time is a good way to actually get her to have sex with you. How does a porn person know if they are exploiting a weakness? Many people casually glance at porn once in awhile and it does not interfere with their romantic relationships in any way. Who has the responsibility of what people do with the material produced? And why do you go for the word "exploit" again? What is wrong with exploitation? The reason is irrelevant in terms of exploitation, someone has a demand for xyz and someone is satisfying it. The onus is on the person or people creating the demand to stop such demand. Do gun manufacturers exploit violent peoples weaknesses because they can't help but abuse firearms? Give me a break, they have no idea what people are going to do with what they sell. Same with porn producers. I think there is something to the "detached from her own feelings" you suggest but I think that is extremely common, its not like its some weird thing that happened. I'm talking like 80+% of the population. Don't ask how many women are in porn vs not. Think about how many women WOULD DO porn if the opportunity presented itself. This may be a shock, but the majority would. No I meant she had one boyfriend and then she decided to get into porn. It's not like she slept around before getting into it.

I am sorry you don't see my point. Is there a type of article one could put on THEIR website that would be immoral? I think that is really the first question before we debate the finer points of what constitutes a click bait title and the morality of it. If you agree with free speech and property ownership, there is nothing really left to say about your question as it obviously would be morally permissible. Here on FDR I think we can assume the vast majority consider free speech and property moral. If you want to get into arguments where they are not such, ok fine, its never stupid to think through different perspectives but you are going to be in a whole different ballgame, ie if you do not accept free speech do you realize the ramifications you are suggesting?

Sure. Why would selling tobacco be immoral? I smoke a cigar on occasion. Cigars cause much less damage than cigarettes and smoking only 3 or 4 a year the damage is almost nothing. In reality I will have zero consequences. So why would that be immoral? If I buy 15 packs a day and rip the filters off and smoke them all, whose fault is that? - The incentive is so high because the market is not in equilibrium. Certain aspects of porn business are illegal. In some places it cannot be produced, in others sold. Places like Japan must blur the naughty bits but they still have a market for porn there. If it could be produced at the equilibrium level, then the money in porn would decrease substantially, so instead of performers getting paid $1500 for a scene, they would only get $200, and only people who were very interested in being porn stars would do it, because the high pay would disappear. This has been happening for the past 10 years with the spread of amateur porn. Big money companies are being beat out by a guy with a camera and a $10 domain, and the money is being removed from these giant porn cash cow companies and put in the hands of mom and pops (literally). See the decline of Playboy for example. - Porn is not courting. No porn stars think "Hmm let me get into porn so I can find marriage." I don't think you are arguing what you think you are arguing. You are here on FDR, so I am assuming you fall in the bag of libertarian, voluntarist, ancap, liberty loving conservative, NAP moralist. Ok. So people ought to be able to be free from interference with their rights of life liberty and property. No matter how bad the consequences, the ends, of stopping porn addictions, does not justify the means, violating people by interfering with their right to liberty. In fact you are arguing for the greater good. Saying violating peoples liberty is bad however more good will come of it in the long term. This is THE argument for big government people and how they justify almost anything. Prove it. It isn't true. a. Compare porn stars to the general population. I doubt its different at all. b. You do know like 75% of the population has smoked weed before. So the fact some pornstars may smoke weed I think is pretty irrelevant. Pornstars do not do hard drugs like heroin because they could not work, nobody would hire them. c. Not true. Pornstars actually have lower rates of STDs. d. If capitalizing on a human desire that leads to addiction, I am assuming you consider all people involved in adult industry just as equal to gambling, alcohol, cigarettes, TV shopping channels, credit card companies, things like ebay, facebook, McDonalds and a million other things that are KNOWN to be addictive to weak people.

What would be immoral about putting what I want on MY website? You could not go on MY website, or you could put what you want on YOUR website. Why is it my problem if you are stupid or have ADD and can't help yourself?

1. What is wrong with exploitation? People are taking advantage of a value they have to satisfy a demand of the free market for often substantially larger gains than they could realize in other businesses. This is the same kind of Marxist terminology about exploiting the workers. So what? Shouldn't someones full and best value be realized if they choose to offer it to the marketplace and people choose to buy it? 2. You say due to deep issues. I know plenty of porn actresses and other people who work in the industry. Some have issues, some do not. Some seemingly normal people have more issues than some porn stars. There is no evidence that "deep issues" have any relation to people being part of the porn industry. I've never met one porn start who was into hard drugs, if they ever did get into hard drugs, they would not be able to work any longer because nobody is going to have unprotected sex with a junkie. I've met some from nice families and some from broken families. Some that were raped and slept with everyone and some that only had one boyfriend for 5 years. You are just making a random generalization that isn't backed up by any facts at all.

If you casually learn from porn, yes. It's too much to explain here but trust me there is more to it than quick thrusts with a stranger ending in a facial. If you actually jump into it 100% then it can teach you how to build insane levels of trust and intimacy.

That doesn't make porn or fast food immoral. It makes over indulgence immoral. Would you consider learning math immoral? No? But what if you do so much studying of math, you never have a friend or loved one and your family hates you for being so distant and you never shower and you get weird skin rashes growing on you and you turn into a skeleton from eating so little. Is that immoral then? You are basically saying overindulgence is immoral, not any one thing in particular.

Ok here is the answers. 1. Nobody cares about your idea. They won't steal it. If they steal it, so what? As soon as you launch they could just buy one and copy it then. Do realize 99% of businesses do not offer a completely unique product without a copy cat competition. - if you aren't making some chunk of plastic and its like some high tech airplane part then ok go for patents and stuff like that, but I doubt what you are wanting to make is worthy of a patent (plus the $10,000+ dollars it will cost to get it and it still wont protect you from Chinese knock offs any ways). 2. Regards to getting a prototype. Find someone at your local college that can run their 3d printer. Have them build a few units and put up a spec sheet with basically the autocad dimensions and exactly the materials to use ie Plastic 3425 painted with xyz paint color 123 for plastics. 3. Send it to a REPUTABLE factory in china. Yes. China. Have them make a small order of like 20-100 units. They will be very expensive because the order is so small. Check the quality. Show them to friends see if they like it. etc. 4. Raise funds for a big order. Hit up your family and friends etc. the bigger the order the cheaper the unit price. Store the pallets in your garage. 5. Sell the stuff. you can go through like Amazon and other store and deal sites. You can make your own website. You can get them in local retail stores. Don't bother with walmart or anywhere like that until you have a PROVEN sales record AND you can offer insane low prices. You are welcome.

Automation is awesome! I just automated consumer side system for my business and was able to avoid hiring a new employee! Its also more consumer friendly because its 24/7 access.

There is a proportional defense. What I mean is an entity like the United States of America has funding and need for a certain level of man power, equipment etc to protect its "employees" from violence. Such as the military and other organizations. Same as a corner store owner has its own amount of equipment proportional to the size and risk of its operations, probably a shot gun and camera system and bullet proof window. A nuclear power plant is somewhat more than a corner store, but far less than the USA. So no, they can't feasibly go around killing people or all their CEOs and people will get shot as soon as there are 10 of them together. Secondly. Existing ones would most likely stay. New ones would not be built. What would happen I think is the existing ones property values would decline unknown amount over an unknown time period. Depending on how they are run, if the community tolerates more leaks and stuff as opposed to less then the areas will become ghettoized where only poor people will live and tolerate nuclear sludge.

What? I mean in theory nothing stops someone from building 100 nukes and destroying the world in anarcho capitalism. Except there are no incentives to do so and many incentives not to do so. So realistically its a non issue. Same with someone who owns the world or some ridiculous amount of property. In theory its possible. Practically its impossible. Not because government. *Facepalm* Commence the mental masturbation but be ware you will be disappointed because you will not experience a mental orgasm on this question, just furiously jacking until you are exhausted and pass out.

Kiyosaki is the man. Ok, there are two kinds of people, people who know how to bake cakes, and people who know how to build a massive company that bakes cakes. You have to be able to see the patterns. Hint hint this is an IQ powered kind of work. But if you don't have a super high IQ, Robert gives you the next step. Debt. You borrow money at 10% and invest it in something that makes 20%. You keep 10%. These numbers hold at any level. You could borrow $100 and get a $10 cut or you could borrow $100,000,000 and keep $10,000,000. Just get as much debt as possible to make as much money as possible. This is the easiest way to do this.

Porn is not immoral if you believe the NAP is the moral framework. If you do not believe in the NAP, then you could find porn immoral or violating in some way sure. But I guarantee it would stretch to more than just porn. Example using the same argument: If you were to buy a car, that would provide money to the makers of such car. If they had more money, they could expand to make more cars and be in existence as a car manufacturer that much longer. Therefore, more people will buy cars and force their kids to ride in them to go to chuckie cheeses and then get into car accidents. So buy buying a car you are responsible for other people and kids dying in car accidents. Do you buy this? I sure don't.

Just because one AI is going "kdsjflkdjf dskjfd fsdkfjdsl fdskfjdf" and the other AI says "4354543 23krjkrr kj3 aaaaaa" doesn't necessarily mean they are communicating anything either. I am a web developer for 5 years and I think its all bull excrement on 10 different levels. On the philosophical side. There is no such thing as the true sentient AI because it must be programmed. So basically with perfect knowledge you would always know the outcome. I think most people would consider it AI once the knowledge was so far from perfect that it seemed like magic. Kind of like how the sun rising seemed to cavemen. But it begs the question, if we understood the human brain with perfect knowledge such that we could predict the outcome, would people cease to be considered sentient anymore?

You are mixing it up. If she is at the club, she is definitely bad. If she is at the gym she only may or may not be bad.

Just meet any women anywhere. I haven't found the place or method to be too important. Just learn to identify if they are potential or not asap so as not to waste time. I don't recommend the club though. I've never met a decent girl at the club in my life. I can immediately think of like 10 girls from my past I did meet at the club and they were all terrible. I've met decent girls pretty much every where else though. If a girl is decent she is not at the club. If a man is such a nice guy would he be hanging out in a drug house with criminals? Nah. So why would a nice girl be hanging out with sluts on coke binges? Just saying.

I hope you like being single. So few people, including men, are free thinkers to a significant degree while they are young. I think it can be summed up in the famous quote "If a person is not a liberal when he is twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative when he is forty, he has no head." It takes experience to come to some conclusions and time to come to others. Neither of which a young woman has had in abundance if she is still young.

You are mistaking physical attractiveness with top SMV. Being hot is different than being relationship material. Physical attraction is one attribute to SMV. You also assume your buddy who is a model would keep him from getting shutting down, like if he does, anyone would. No. Women don't really care about physical attractiveness that much. Model is also a lame job and not good for SMV, if he looked how he looked and was say a wealthy wall street banker, and had the brains to go with a job like that... that would be a high SMV. A model is kinda ehh I think, not relationship material in most womens eyes. So sure what you are saying makes sense if you just want to bang every 10 with no regard to compatible personalities and values. If you see a woman with compatible personalities and values and THEN hit on her, you will have a very high success rate because she will also be interested in finding a matching man. Make sense? If you find a great match for you, chances are you are a great match for her. Just because a girl is hot doesn't mean I am interested. That is why I don't just approach every hot girl. Story time: I once saw a girl who was like a 7 which is low for me but she was playing with some other peoples kids and she was AMAZING with them, and I spoke to her for like 5 minutes and found out she was very traditional and believed in home schooling, she got my attention. A 10 who is out shopping for 5 pairs of shoes and 3 new pieces of jewelry and being loud and obnoxious about it does not turn me on at all and I would not approach.

I am very selective who I hit on. I am not approaching a million women. That being said, my strategy will not work for most men because I am a sniper and I almost always get what I want, very rarely get shut down.

I definitely look my age. I also have a big long ass beard down to my nips that no youngin could ever grow. Girls love older men. At your age, you have it as hard as it will get because you can't compete easily with older men. We have cars, houses, vacations. We also know way more about how the world works than you. We also know exactly what we want from life, from girls, from ourselves. We are also way better in bed. So yeah you have to compete against us. Good luck! (lmfao its all true but its not thaaaat bad for you) Nobody really cares about it. Friends will be like "Damn, hes such a pimp" "Good for you bro" stuff like that. Older women get really jealous like "Why wont you give me a chance?". My parents just say "Isn't she a little young for you?" but then they don't care at all and just want to know when I am getting married. The girls families have never said anything bad to me. They have all been impressed with me and ok with it all. When I was younger I felt like I struggled to get decent girls. Now I feel like I am slamming hot quality girls all the time mostly by accident. lmfao I suggest not getting married until you are at least 30 years old. I almost got married at like 24 to someone but now I get way better girls than her. Unless you aren't constantly increasing your SMV, then maybe take the first decent girl you can get. This. ^^^

I will be 31 soon.

Actually STDs are transmitted through porn population less than non porn population. Actors get tested very regularly so its caught very fast. Non porn workers do not get tested very regularly and it spreads like wild fire. Yeah actually. If you could use heroine and control yourself to only do it once in a blue moon and always when you had nothing else going on and in a safe manner, what would be the harm? You cant just say promiscuity is a bad thing. Bad for who? Im sure you would consider me promiscuous. Nothing bad ever happened to me. How is having sex treating your body like crap? I feel like you are conflating the individual to the group and vice versa. If everyone just slept with everyone might it be bad for society, yeah it very well might. If some stranger you don't know does it, how is it bad? I has no bearing on you, so what is so bad? The question if it is moral, well if you believe the NAP is the moral rule, then sure, it absolutely is moral. I don't see how non consent or violence plays any role in pornography. I also don't see how NAP could lead to other moral judgements outside of that. Where is your moral framework coming from is the real question before we can answer about pornography.

I am currently dating a 19 year old for the past month. We met on Tinder. The previous girl who was 18 I met on snapchat. The girl before that was 21 I met at the park.