Koroviev

Personally I've never understood tattoos it always seemed like a waste of money especially when they're in a place where you can't even see them. I've always seen it as paying all this money for some really great art that only other people can see, wouldn't it be easier to just buy a painting? A lot of them are done as a rebellion or whatever but aren't there better ways to rebel (I dunno become an anarchist )? The only other answer I've ever gotten was "I just like them." That's great but it seems to me like there's a lot more other way more enjoyable things you could spend less money on. *Side note: coming from a 20-something guy I'm sure this is blasphemy but just my 2-cents

*slow clap

Next on my list

Was going to start a post like this but I'm glad to see it's already here! To add (and bump) I just started How to Talk so Kids will Listen and Listen so Kids Will Talk so far it's really good and if there are any more recommendations I'd love to read them

I'm sorry to hear that. Good Luck!

Soo many snarkuments come to mind, context clues are hard for some people, can you define what you mean by "you don't understand" and you want me to "define," but out of respect for this community and respect for you (although I'm definitely not feeling the respect reciprocated), I will restrain myself and try once more. 1. we know we have property because we have property. We have bodies which we have control over and no one else has control over our bodies without our permission or through the initiation of the use of force. 2. If someone else could control our bodies without our permission we would no longer have that property and thus would no longer own our bodies. 3. Since no one else can control our bodies without our permission or the initiation of the use of force then we must have ownership over our bodies. 4. if someone initiates the use of force in order to control our bodies that ownership has been removed. 5. since ownership over one's body is the default then the forceful removal of that ownership must be immoral. Property: 1. a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively. Control: to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command Body: the physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant, living or dead. Own: of, relating to, or belonging to oneself or itself Permission: authorization granted to do something; formal consent Force: strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence initiate: to begin, set going, or originate We(in this context): a human being someone else: any human being other than the initial one in question removed: remote; separate; not connected with; distinct from immoral: violating moral principles; moral: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical Principle: a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived truth: 1. the true or actual state of a matter 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: sophistry: 1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning. 2. a false argument; sophism. respect: 1. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability 2. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment

Very well put, the only thing that I would add is if you have to spend the entire discussion defining every single word you use you're never going to make any progress in the discussion itself.

As impressive as that would be isn't that the same argument as words have no meaning. Also it does not answer my first point which was that all discussions of principles and ethics are debates about axioms.

That's really too bad I was hoping you had some good arguments. Good luck!

Ah, sorry in my original comment I was trying to say that gravity was an analogy for property rights but instead that the proposal of "if there is gravity then things will fall" is more along the lines of "if there are property rights then they should be respected" as opposed to "because there are property rights they should be respected" We can play that game all day long but it's really really pointless. I trust your judgement as to those definitions do you have a counter argument or not? Makes sense I just didn't want to run into the problem we're running into with the comment above.

I agree if you are using a word outside of the commonly accepted definition but all of my definitions directly line up with what we've been talking about the whole time. Is there really that much confusion around the definition of body? Yes an instance of an organ transplant is bodily control, you cannot transplant my kidney without the initiation of the use of force or without my permission, just like you cannot make my arm wave without the use of force or my permission etc., etc. Nope, this is still not what I was saying just like it was not what Stef said. You are absolutely correct that if gravity inverses that claim itself would not be a contradiction. However what I've said (and what Stef has said) is that if gravity inverses in a single instance that would be a contradiction of gravity itself since the very definition of gravity makes it universal. If I must define my terms I will, although I'd much rather give people the benefit of the doubt. Body: the physical structure of a person or an animal, including the bones, flesh, and organs. Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior Property rights: the right an individual has to have and protect their property control: to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command property: that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner I could be wrong here but how is that different from: 1. Do things fall when droped? 2. yes because gravity 3. what if gravity does not make things fall when dropped 4. Doesn't matter because to change gravity you have to validate the law of gravity

You still have to compare it to the norm and then ask how or why that exception is different. Isn't it more like if there is gravity then the rock ought to fall to the ground. If there are property rights they ought to be respected.

Do you mean someone uses only their mind to control my body? First off I don't think there have been any advances in this area...ever Second, this is an abnormal situation so we have to compare it to the normal situation by asking questions like how did the person with telekinetic powers get control over the other person? Did the other person give the psychic give permission? If the person being controlled did not give the psychic permission then the psychic must have forced their way into a position of control over the other person thus the psychic is immoral. I hope we're not basing the soundness of UPB on mind control but it does seem to still hold

Sorry, lol, this is my news

Come on, you can't really be serious with this...are you? I hope you are perfectly capable of finding the definitions of words you do not understand, I'm not using them in any confusing context or in anyway out of the ordinary. Second, do it. Really, try it right now. Control someone else's body without the use of force or their permission. Spoiler...you can't. Since you can't without the use of force or that person's permission that means that person fundamentally has property rights over their body. I believe it was Isaac Newton who said the yellow part (http://study.com/academy/lesson/newtons-laws-and-weight-mass-gravity.html) what I was saying was in response to this " Now Stefan says its a contradiction to say gravity should point down except on thursdays in the middle of the ocean. Actually, its not." Stef has never said this what he's said was if gravity pulls things down except on Thursdays in the middle of the ocean it is not a universal and therefor contradicts gravity, which is very different from saying it is a contradiction.

link?

I absolutely agree but from the material standpoint the only property would be your physical body, as you've said, but would take away any responsibility you'd have for actions that were not directly observed (i.e. murder moves into the grey area when no one sees it). If you find $5 on the ground and do not give it back when someone asks for it well then technically you've taken their property. Why is painting a picture any different from chopping firewood? There are different efforts involved but fundamentally they are exactly the same you could paint the Mona Lisa then leave it unattended someone could still take it and try to sell it to you. There's still no material proof that it's yours.

Right, but there's no material link between you and the actions of your body either. By that line of thought if I stole something from you without direct evidence that I stole it wouldn't I then not be responsible? The same "direct link" exists when you push a rock as does when you leave a pile of lumber unattended, the only time it is obvious your pushed the rock is when you are in the act of pushing it. The only difference would whether or not someone saw you take the action. If I come across a house while someone is away at work wouldn't that then mean no one owns that house because they are not building and or buying it at that point in time?

But then aren't you saying that you aren't responsible for the results of your actions?

This was kind of brought up in another recent post, and the way I look at it is 1) does your mother know for certain that they were not spanked and 2) there is a HUGE difference between being a "push-over" by letting your kids do whatever they want and peaceful parenting. parents who are "push-overs" often seem to have done just as little research into parenting as those who think spanking is the answer, the difference being they do not want to be violent toward their children (I'd assume because they're scared of what others would think of them not necessarily because they think it's best but I could be wrong here). All this is doing is shifting the power structure so all of the power is in the child's hands and the parents generally just become..well...empty shells trying to corral their unruly children around. If your children never learn that you have needs/wants/desires/etc. then absolutely most often they will become spoiled brats but that in no way means you need to beat them. It's a false dichotomy that people fall into all to often.

I'm not sure I said anything that Stefan has said. I did interpret what I understand into my own words but they were my own arguments. If you want me to clarify specific parts that were maybe hard to understand I'd be more than happy to do that but I don't see any use in restating everything since it's all right there. But I guess a summation would be it seems you'd misinterpreted UPB. Side note: I am not hurt or anything that my post got missed I was simply responding to Bugzysegal who'd told me to come read this. This was already talked about as well above: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45392-problems-with-ethics-from-principles/?p=414801 In a nutshell either they would have to take control of your body by force (immoral) or you would have to give them permission to take control of your body (you are responsible for what happens).

Maybe something like a 1 page flyer?

but isn't inductive reasoning empirical? Also, is anything pertaining to morality true in an absolute sense? Either way what does it matter if it is or is not. If the argument is sound and it is sufficient why does it need to be true in an absolute sense? I did read labmath's post and responded to it, quite well I thought, but my response seems to have been missed or ignored.

Ah! Great! So if all arguments are inductive then you'd have to hold all arguments to that same standard not just new ones. Also, if everything is inductive then couldn't you say that which is supported by evidence for a really really really long time in every situation is consistent? And that which is consistent and influenced as little as possible by personal feelings and opinions objective? Then that which is deduced from that which is objective and consistent is logical. etc. etc.

If every argument is based at some point on an axiom and an axiom cannot prove itself then there can be no arguments which is self defeating no matter what you're arguing about. By that theory then every argument breaks down at some point and there is no such thing as a valid argument. If I propose that E=mc2 but the meaning of E only exists because of our shared experience of it. Wouldn't you then have to propose that that theory is weakened as well?