thebeardslastcall

Lots of people seem to get confused on the preferable verse universally preferred. Something being possible to be preferred by all involved parties, universal preferable, doesn't mean all those parties or any of them actually prefer it, it just means they can all prefer it without a contradiction or overriding of preferences. Is that where you are getting stuck?

Troll detector is flaring up again... not sure if serious...

You're not challenging it as a valid moral system. You're asking if morality is relevant or what the point of morality is. Which is why I asked in my first response for you to provide some example of something you consider moral. If you have zero examples of something as being a valid moral and can conclude nothing is immoral, then you're just rejecting all morals and offering nothing towards morality. If you can't accept that rape is immoral, then you are suggesting rape is morally acceptable, which is a form of promotion or acceptance of rape as okay and not wrong. Or perhaps another question is, if you reject UPB as a valid moral system, but consider rape immoral, how did you come to that conclusion? You would require a means of establishing morals another way, if that's what you're getting at, and not simply rejecting all morals while offering nothing and no suggestions of what is or isn't moral.

You're right, not being able to murder people whenever you want is impractical... If you think that is morally neutral what did you accept, if anything, as not morally neutral?

Any budget is a problem to me. Balanced, unbalanced, whatever. I want their budget to go to zero and to force them to get real jobs.

Politician pats self on back for "job well done" before going out and then later blaming all problems on new politician coming in? Think I'll skip the video, I've seen that story before.

Scroll? Also kind of looks like a water bottle. Having a flash light or tools of inspection would also be interesting and probably fit in with the theme.

"mad" is very vague and you said it twice with no further explanation really. I mean is it something like Torbald suggests, she's getting mad because from her perspective some bastard on the internet is giving you ideas which expose her manipulations and desires to avoid discussing issues? Perhaps she, like many insane people, just wants to "believe" things on faith instead of actually understanding them, which may then expose the possibility, as is often the case when people don't want you to challenge the ideas, that the ideas are in fact wrong and threatening to tribal inclusion for her and you? Find out exactly what makes her angry and then explore how that notion threatens her. If some crazy person on the internet says something I disagree with I have no real reason to get angry about it unless I feel like it's actually threatening in some way. If you can work through these issues with her you may end up with a keeper. I wouldn't carelessly toss the relationship away if she's open to talking through these things. If she's just demanding you have certain positions and not open to discussing things with you or exposing herself to you, which would be rejecting any capacity to grow with you, that doesn't seem like a fruitful or healthy relationship. As a single person I'm always weary of prematurely tossing away a potentially valuable relationship. Of course if it's a failure you'll want to move on to get to a real relationship as quickly as possible, as in that case staying with her would be inhibiting you from a better relationship or a preferred single state (if the relationship can't go anywhere good).

There's no pleasing unreasonable women and thus what's relevant to an irrelevant woman doesn't much matter. You just need to be viable for a reasonable woman and then find places where you have better odds of finding a reasonable woman and asking them out until you find a keeper who isn't just screwing around. Edit: I say "just", but I actually have no idea how to find a reasonable partner. That's a real challenge these days. There's a lot of crazy and deranged people out there and finding a decent person that has matching values is not easy and you'll likely have to make some compromises to mate.

Women are the ones with the eggs and the ones who mother the children. You need to make yourself capable of supporting a family and providing a stable and safe home environment where she will want to live with you and be able to. Beyond that just make yourself pleasant company and show you can be a loving father and husband. Then you can confidently approach a woman knowing you're offering her a relationship she'd want to be in.

I'm resolved to get my book published this year and put off going mad for another 10+ months.

Are humans a higher power in relation to other apes or animals? There's a difference between being more capable and having reality defying magics. There can be more capable lifeforms that can seem quite incredible at first. There cannot be some magical being that is defying the necessities and inherit properties of reality.

Full predictability doesn't follow from deterministic.

Should also be noted this personal experience is completely devoid of any actual visible magics. Doesn't require hallucinations or anything of the such to explain what happened. Very realistic and believable situation to occur without any need for magical explanations or mental breaks with reality. Don't even need to reject what happened, just the made up explanation that inserts magic when none need be present in a realistic situation of one person deciding to help another when they needed help.

Always a social construct? I'm inclined to think the opposite. True knowledge and understanding is never a social construct. Knowledge is what you can rationally understand and believe regardless and independent of what others agree too. Having someone else agree to something proves nothing and is just another person, who from there perspective with the same standard would be providing "knowledge validation" without having "knowledge", since for them to have "knowledge" by such a standard they too would also need external validation by some other person. External acceptance of a piece of data is meaningless to knowledge and truth, as anyone can irrationally say something is knowledge or true and this provides no knowledge or true validation of anything and gives no understanding of the knowledge.

Do you consider insanity reasonable? Lots of people are insane, so you could say it's "reasonable" to be insane and to come to wrong conclusions about the nature and causality of the situation, but calling such things "reasonable" doesn't mean they are at all right or logical. In your story you're basically trying to force in magic to create meaning and purpose where you feel it would fit in nicely with your notion of a kind God and ignoring the illogical nature of this explanation and ignoring all the countless times this alleged magical power doesn't help. A more rational explanation would be that lots of people want to believe in the magics and intentionally act in a way that makes this belief seem more reasonable by creating situations that fit the narrative they wish to create. That's without even taking into account all the subtle hints in the situation that could have helped clue in people to each others needs and desires. Lots of people need help all the time, so it's not at all unusual that this person would need help. How many times have people offered help and been turned down? If there's anything there willing to ask for, then it's a default positive, otherwise you just go on your way and think nothing of it, which leads to confirmation bias. The person turned around because they thought there was a reasonable chance of this person needing or wanting help and because they were looking for a situation to confirm their insanity and desire for a story to fit their magic narrative so they could join the community of crazies and fit right in, which gives plenty of benefits with socialization and such. People share and seek insanity because it's got social benefits. Also can feel good to help someone through a tough day and I'm sure they appreciated it, so while the reasoning for the actions is wrong, the actions they led to felt right and vindicated by the social good done by them.

How do you even know when to do something to be preventative? There must be some ability to make a risk assessment, otherwise there's nothing you can do under any circumstances, and I'm not sure when that is ever actually the case. If there is some notion of the possibility of preventative measures, there is a hint of risk and a means to make that decision to be more cautious with your own health. There's also a risk in rejecting positive improvements that have some associated risk potential. You can't know before there is evidence, you can only guess, and that's a personal choice each person will make for themselves. Thus the benefits, risks, and negatives will accrue based on how well each person guessed the best route for themselves. Failures are inevitable. The free market allows successes based on risk, which is essential for life and progress. If you never take risks you're going to die. You can't prevent failures from occurring, they'll happen one way or another. Denying risks that lead to success almost reduces the overall amount of life, which is like a form of harm or death in a way, so preventative measures can also be harmful. An abundance of caution can prevent necessary risks and lead to death. I still don't see the positive moral and functional alternative to a free market to make these choices for each individual. And to address the smoking thing, there were obvious risk factors there. People inhale and cough and anyone that is new to smoking also finds that stuff smelly. The harmful effects of smoking cigarettes didn't come out of nowhere and people who knew about the process could tell there was a mass concoction of chemicals going into them that could do who knows what. This idea of being blind with no sense of danger, but being able to take preventative actions makes no sense. Before you try something untested you take the time to test it if you want in whatever way is acceptable to you (assuming no violence against others). The data doesn't have to come post death that there is a risk or potential harm. I didn't have to jump off a 20 story building to know it would be dangerous because I'd realized jumping pressured my legs and could harm me from smaller non-lethal heights. The alternative to free market solutions is violent solutions. There's your guaranteed, but preventable, harm. Still mystified by implications that people can't come together voluntarily to fund measures to help avoid dangerous substances. Those that don't care about their health will do worse than those who do. There's some natural selection taking care of that problem. Suicidal people will do worse than non-suicidal people and will have more kids and the sane market will grow to outclass the insane market. That's what the free market is about, letting the sane people prosper and letting the insane people fail to move forward in a moral, fair, and just way. There is no "nobody ever fails or gets harmed" solution. That's an impossible standard.

Still seems like you're asking a ridiculous question. Are you suggesting someone being punished for unknowingly and innocently harming people while trying to provide for them, when there is no evidence to suggest they are harming people and people are voluntarily choosing to take that risk, knowing there may be harm in hopes of gaining a benefit? People aren't being forced to eat any specific food in a free society. They can grow their own food if they really want to and have access to arable land or can go through the effort to satisfy their own level of risk and desire to get the quality of products they desire. I still have no idea what you're suggesting beyond just screwing around with irrelevant or trolling questions. Poisoning the well calling anything a utopia. No such thing as a utopia. To the degree that there is a solution to any problem a free market will provide a better solution than a statist society and those who fail will fail based on their own bad choices. Responsibility will go where it belongs. People who choose wisely and assess the situation well will do better than those who experiment and fall victim to toxic stuff. In a free society it would seem almost trivial to test out the use of new chemicals before taking the risk of consuming them. This society will only exist with lots of thoughtful, smart, and high integrity people, which will be exactly the type of people able of creating and sustaining a functionally useful reputation system for helping to evaluate risks and also the type of people who would be less inclined to intentionally poison themselves. People are poisoning themselves now intentionally. People will do so in a free society as well. You sound like you're just whining that there is no utopia so you're mocking the suggestion of any progress towards a better and more free society. Please make a point or stop posting. This intractable problem, calling stuff 'utopia', and whining about every suggestion is just trolling.

This question is suggestive of a negative. Implies a solution in the absence of knowledge or awareness or the ability to make a risk assessment. I hear statists ask questions like that all the time "There cannot be a 'market' solution to this 'problem', which we suggest is a problem without any evidence, therefore we need violence to magically solve this 'problem'. Therefore government is the only solution" Pure evil insanity. People trained to ask the wrong questions is a large part of the insanity and propaganda problem plaguing us.

Radio theory? What is the theory? It's "there is a magical radio that stores your consciousness safely with magical transmission abilities". Just promoting the insanity of souls and eternal consciousness and fractured people.

The guy locked up in the basement, who may or may not be fed, depending on whether we deem him to have the "right" to be fed (for now), is most certainly, probably, likely "unemployed", but maybe will be given some arbitrary task and be told it will have an effect on whether or not he gets a meal (it won't and will do nothing productive towards the acquisition of food or anything else).

That's an income tax. There are property taxes that take merely for you having something, like a home. Thus if you lose your "job" and are just living off growing food on your plot or doing nothing, they'll keep taxing you until you lose your home too in some places. Taxes are anti-life.

Doesn't really make sense. Translated to my ears I hear it as "He kidnapped me, beat me up, and locked me up in his basement, so I have a right to be fed food, because he's caged me." It's true if he doesn't feed you, you'll die in there, but to call anything in this situation "rights" is just going to cause people confusion and in the situation of a state it will mask and help hide the violence and injustice of the situation, which is exactly what we should probably be trying to illuminate as much as possible. So talking about "rights" in this context is antithetical to the goal of having non-violence as the baseline.

How can you have a right to something that doesn't exist? That's the problem communism/socialism ignores. They presume the wealth just exists and is merely being gobbled up by the "greedy" and they merely need to step in to alter the allocation. Houses don't exist until someone creates them. Jobs don't exist until someone creates them. The right isn't to have a job, it's to be allowed freedom from violence to create one for yourself. What's stopping you from developing a plot of land, building a farm and home on it? That's your right, so much as such can be non-violently acquired, and it's governments and violence that are preventing you from your right to work. The idea they can grant everyone something they don't have without stealing from someone else who has it is a immorality and failure. Life isn't a given or a right. Life must be earned. Talking about rights in the context of a life and rights denying system is a fool's game.

High IQ doesn't mean you don't believe in stupid things. Lots of smart people believe stupid things because they don't have the integrity to explore things in a more philosophical and first principles approach and have emotional and social attachments that prevent them from really considering things outside of the box they were put into. Seems kind of wrong to call a guy the smartest when there are some apparent deficiencies. What good is a super fast computer processor if it's stuck with some overly limited software that prevents the speed from ever really being useful or well utilized? Maybe instead of asking if it's possible to learn match you should just do it and see how far you get. Learn what you can and have help with any barriers. Then you'll get a good sense of the limits of your abilities and will be able to do as much math as is possible and then you can assess from whatever wall you may hit as to what you want and can do from there.