Koroviev

This is incorrect. This is how I understood at first as well it took me a couple reads through to really understand what exactly UPB was. However, you can just look at this sentence itself and see that what you are saying does not make sense. Universally preferable behavior is relative to society. Stating something is both universal and relative is self defeating. Although, yes UPB does correlate a lot with libertarian ideals that is only because both happen to be derived from the idea of inherent property rights. Inherent property rights means that property rights are universal (inherent = permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute). Since property rights are inherent all people have them (universal). A moral framework that deems anything immoral that infringes on an inherent property is not relative but universal. I have an earlier comment but it's still waiting on approval

Trump says something "mean" >> Trump is done for he will never recover he is the worst human alive Hillary is actually responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, actually responsible for the situation that caused Trump to be "mean," is corrupt, irresponsible, and a pathological liar >> Meh...

I think I know what you meant but just in case, the scientific method doesn't think anything up, scientists come up with a theory and use the scientific method to validate that theory. Why do you have to "get" people to abide by it? you don't have to "get" people to abide by the scientific method do you? And yes you are correct if people want to use UPB they will and if they do not they wont. Just like if people want to use the scientific method they will and if they don't they won't. That doesn't make either any more or less valid and it does not make either more or less subjective. Just because a lot of people smoke cigarettes does not make cigarettes good for you. What do you mean "what's next?" What's next is people make a choice they either do what is moral or what is immoral, and either way there are consequences to their actions. We're not talking about the law of gravity, we're talking about the theory of gravity. Just like you have to test the theory of gravity using the scientific method you test a moral theory (is X immoral) using UPB. Whether or not people believe it, or what they do with that knowledge is irrelevant.

Again I'm not sure what "binding" has to do with anything? You could say the exact same thing about the scientific theory. If you have a preference for testing hypotheses. If you have a preference for those hypotheses to be rationally consistent and empirically proven. The scientific method is the best method for doing science. Regardless of how people follow it agree with, value or care about it. Likewise if you have a preference for signs from the universe and if you have a preference dor those signs to be in the form of chicken entrails then consulting chicken entrails is the best method for discovering whether or not your hypothesis is valid regardless of etc, etc.... Religion is different from UPB as a moral system because it is not rationally consistent and relys on the interpretations of others to decide whether or not something is true it is also often heavily reliant on having a heirarchy where someone else has power over you. You could say that the bible is a moral framework however again it is not rationally consistent and is more a (poorly constructed) list of shall/shall nots rather than a framework of how to come to those conclusions for yourself. As i said above UPB is objective the same way the scientific method is objective. It doesnt matter what your opinions are you always come to the same conclusions. Religion, lets just say christianity for arguments sake, is subjective because the bible can be interpreted in many different ways and especially in sects like catholicism is continually changing.

If UPB was, as you say, the collective preferences of society wouldn't you be able to lay it out in one or more thou shall/thou shall not statements? Then you would have to change those statements over time, and it would be invalidated by any group who did hold those statements as true. Also wouldn't UPB the book just be those statements maybe with each chapter explainin how/why those statements are true?

exactly! UPB is a method not a preference

couldn't you also say that about methods for finding the truth? there are many different methods for finding the truth (prayer, reading the bible, reading tea leaves) and lots of different people think those are the best ways of finding the truth does that make reason and evidence and the scientific method subjective? I was asking a question to clarify what @EclecticIdealist Why would people agreeing on something make it objective? why would people disagreeing with something make it subjective? What does "binding" have to do with anything? UPB is not a preference it is a methodology like the scientific method. As I mentioned above some people may prefer to read the bible rather than use the scientific method, that does not make the scientific method subjective.

Because some people might disagree or use a different standard that makes UPB not objective??

1. No the point of the framework is to define universal morality. In christianity the bible defines morality. UPB is a way to define morality. UPB fills the moral gap left by religion. 2. It is objective in that if an action fails the UPB test you know it is immoral. As opposed to something like political correctness where whatever you feel to be offensive could be considered immoral. It is an objective framework arrived at through rationality thus unlike the bible (or any other moral framework) it does not need someone (preachers/god) or something (bibles) to tell you whether it is right or wrong.

UPB is a system of deciding whether or not something is moral. It is a rational proof in that it is rational arguments in support of a theory (of universal secular ethics). The examples you point out are specific examples showing that UPB would consider rape, murder, and stealing immoral since, as Stefan points out, a moral theory cannot be valid if it concludes that those things are moral. Those examples also serve to show how UPB can be applied. Part of the theory is that morality is universal (stemming from our inherent property rights) thus anything that is not applied universally would fall under aesthetics. 1. Morality is not simply like or dislike, morality is questions of right and wrong. I may dislike when people are late but that doesn't mean someone is immoral for being late. 2. Morality, historically, has been nothing more than taking personal preferences and putting them forward as a way to judge others. UPB is a framework that moves morality out of the realm of aesthetics (subjectivity), in an attempt to fill the moral gap left by atheism. It took me a couple reads through to understand UPB.

you also kind of seem to be missing the point in none of the videos is Stef saying that cops are wonderful and it's all the fault of the poor black people. In fact several time Stef has said we should get rid of the government all together...many...many times. The point is the lies that are being spread by the government controlled media and Stef is pushing back against those lies by presenting facts about the things that are going on. As for the all cops are bad cops, well can you really call someone evil who has been told their entire life that what they are doing is wonderful and everyone around them is telling them that they are the pinnacle of morality thus are doing the best they can in the situation that they are in? If that is the case then all of the libertarians who are not taking an active stance against spanking are MUCH more immoral than the cops since they have been exposed to the truth and are actively rejecting it. Don't get me wrong there are a lot of cops who do a lot of bad things and I'm not a fan of them, however the racist lies being spread by the government controlled media is, at this point in time, a much more pressing matter and one that can actively and productively be pushed back against. On top of all of that IF you can get people to begin to listen to reason and evidence then the need for the government (and government police officers) becomes much less. Whereas if, as you have done, you take the stance that all cops are bad thus it is all their fault you are simply attacking a symptom as opposed to the problem itself.

you could ask? I am wary of comparing to others' experience especially looking at them as better or worse. We all have different situations and experience and process those situations in different ways.

In Adios America Ann Coulter points out that Hollywood was created by Jewish people...so it makes perfect sense that they would continue to be an influence on it and with the influence we know that Hollywood has on people, especially the U.S., it makes sense that they would be able to go from there into politics as well. You don't need any conspiracy to explain it. Also, they're spreading their "influence" through entertainment and programs that seem to at least start with good intentions which again without the state would have very small, if any, negative effects.

Many people "in the know" agree that the Tor network is one big honeypot. 2 years ago, a couple days before they gave a talk announcing and releasing Tor at Defcon and Blackhat, news came out that Tor was funded by the U.S. Government. if you look at the court docs linked in the article it even refers to Tor as being developed for U.S. Naval Research. There are numerous accounts (including this one) where the CIA and FBI have set up honeypots specifically to incriminate people. Whether or not these people actually did something wrong (which is questionable) they were only able to do it and only did it because of the situation the State created for them. I realize that may have come off as confusing but what I mean is the FBI owns, runs, and continues to operate the child porn site this guy allegedly went to and they run it specifically to catch people who want to go to sites like this (a.k.a. honeypot).

great resources, just what I was looking for Thanks guys! anyone else who has resources keep 'em coming. @Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit keep me posted my 7 week old may be able to use it in a few years

Without the state how would "The Jews" accomplish this? She's also incorrect in saying that the media is the "single most powerful and influential institution today" that spot is filled entirely by the state. It could also be argued that the state is what largely controls and influences the media. See the repealing of the Smith-Mundt act. Now yes you can say (as she did) that it is largely Jews in governmental positions, but that may have more to do with IQ AND as I've said without the state they would have no power. Also, as a "realist" she should know that there is no such thing as a "utopia"

FBI owns and operates child pornography site = utmost good! person allegedly visits said site = evil immoral scum of the earth 'merica! good find, don't use Tor

Does anyone know of homeschooling resources that are both liberty minded (like freedom project) but are not chalk full of religious views? Or really any homeschooling resources that aren't catering to religious the religious view? I'd really like to find some good resources for a classical education but it seems like every one I come across focuses on teaching christian points of view.

I've been saying people should do this for years! unfortunately not until after I passed all of my standardized tests and got into college, but even if they say something it's racist to judge someone based on their skin color

There's a lot to western Montana. How far west are we talking?

Thanks although I can't take too much credit I got it from a book my mom got for me (other than that though the books wasn't great) This is a common misconception of co-sleeping (and breastfeeding as a matter of fact!) a lot of the research actually shows quite the opposite. Children who co-sleep have less attachment issues, independence issues, and in countries where co-sleeping is generally accepted colic is almost non existent. Usually there comes a point where the child does not want to sleep with mom and dad any longer and they stop on their own, but some parents find it necessary to wean their children (just like with breastfeeding) getting them to sleep on their own when they can, but either way the child knows they always have a safe place to come back to. http://kellymom.com/parenting/nighttime/cosleeping/ http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/health-concerns/sleep-problems/co-sleeping-yes-no-sometimes http://www.cosleeping.org/ Keep in mind there is a difference between swaddling and wrapping. The wrap is what I think you are referring to and it is meant to replace, or supplement, a stroller or baby carrier so you can go on walks and/or actually get things done while still keeping your baby close. Although it simulates a swaddle by keeping the baby tight against your body it is not a swaddle. A swaddle is simply where you wrap the baby tightly in a blanket. The book "Happiest Baby on the Block" has really re-popularized the swaddle recently. I read it and thought there were some interesting concepts and hypotheses about colic in it but overall it seemed to me like he was just trying to get you to buy the smartsleeper, or whatever it was called. Although I'm sure that a good swaddle helps a lot of babies calm down it has not helped our son at all as he usually gets more upset when his arms are restrained and walking, rocking, or breastfeeding calm him down much faster and easier. If you do plan to swaddle I definitely recommend practicing before your baby comes because trying to learn to do it on a crying infant is impossible.

Thanks for checking, unfortunately no our 2 week old wasn't having it keeping an eye out for the next talk though, thanks for all the suggestions they'll definitely be put to good use.

Congrats! My Wife and I just had our first. Not sure what classes you took but I definitely recommend at least reading the Bradley method books. It's probably a little late for the 12 week class but the books are still definitely worth the read. The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding is a must for both of you. It's really amazing being able to be the one to help my wife when she gets discouraged because things aren't working right. Lawrence Cohen has some great books on his method called Playful Parenting I've read The Opposite of Worry (which made me realize a lot about myself) and Playful Parenting, and recommend both highly, even though he is a self-proclaimed feminist Just Babies by Paul Bloom and The Philosophical Baby by Alison Gopnik are both great reads looking at the child development and child psychology point of view. How to Talk so Kids will Listen & Listen so Kids will Talk as well as Parent Effectiveness Training are both great practical workbook type books for parenting. More geared toward toddlers and up but great information either way that goes right along with Peaceful Parenting. I don't know if you journal much or at all, but one thing that has helped me get into it is writing letters to baby. I don't do it every day but every couple days at least. From a practical standpoint we had a water birth and it was absolutely amazing. It helped my wife to relax so much and let her body do what it was meant to do. We're co-sleeping and it is really nice (especially with breastfeeding) everyone sleeps better and there's no getting up out of bed to calm baby down, make bottles, etc. Also, get a cloth wrap if you don't have one already. It simulates a swaddle, which is really calming to most babies and keeps them right next to your body while keeping both of your hands free and your movement from being able to walk around and do things usually will rock them to sleep. Congrats again I'm super excited for you. It has been an absolutely fantastic experience for my wife and I! We did a lot of work ahead of time, through research and making healthy choices, and it has definitely paid off already.

well that I'm planning on either way