Will Torbald

The following statement does not represent the views of FDR, any of its other members, nor any of the staff. It is only my own. Go fuck yourself.

Guys, I think I understand what egoism means. Here it goes: If you don't believe in cancer, you'll never get cancer. That's it! Just don't believe in it, and nothing will be wrong.

In any case, it seems like a gross misunderstanding of the concept of consent to begin with to argue that if the person giving the kiss wants to give the kiss then it's not a transgression. It's either stupendously dense, or willfully ignorant not to understand that concept.

Since you've never been spanked, and you're skeptical, the only thing you can do to change your mind is to be open to the testimonies of those who have and the research of the consequences of it. To remain stubborn while saying "there seems to be a need" isn't really doing anything productive. You either want to learn, or you want to say you don't want to learn.

The lie I accused you of making is saying that there is no difference in the terms preferable and preferred by themselves. There is nothing wrong with that accusation. If you misunderstood me, and thought that I meant 'universally preferable' that is a different mistake. Maybe I didn't explain myself well, or you misunderstood. But I have had to endure your own misconduct from the beginning of your posts with: 1- Assuming I didn't understand UPB 2- Refusing to address the argument after I proved that I understood what objectively required meant 3- Your default out because you feel pain at the calling out of a lie From my side it is you who have not taken the emotionally mature road from the first step. I am completely willing to let this misunderstanding go as I think we both are competent enough to continue the actual argument without "but you saids and you saids". That's just a distraction.

And I gave you an explanation of what I meant. I did not make a blanket statement, I also made an argument. If that hurts you so bad, that's fine. I just lament that you have to default out of the conversation when I had just made my point quite clear. To me, and this just my subjective interpretation from my side, the pain (which you brought up when you used the word masochist) comes from having to read and think about the argument and not from being told that you lied when saying that preferable is not about being able to prefer something. I totally understand why it would hurt to be told that the theory you are an expert in would have a flaw and that is fine - but the pain is from resisting to simply rebut my argument. Anyway, thanks for your patience as I am sure it was tried in this discussion. Just to clarify: I know that "universally preferable" is what you say doesn't mean that it is capable of being preferred - that would be just "preferable". My argument is that this compound term should be "universally preferred" as the correct translation of "objectively required" if we agree on the definition of preference versus choice that I made in the OP.

Not to be a negative Nancy here, but doesn't this beg the question at least a little? You define voluntary actions as moral and then say that to be moral interactions have to be voluntary. The trick should be arriving at the conclusion that only voluntary interactions are moral with another argument.

But you do understand the cowardice of saying that you reject something you don't understand, right?

"I don't know what UPB is or means, but it's wrong and I hate it!"

I know Stef has written rebuttals to this, but does this sound like an amateur student who hasn't studied philosophy? https://mises.org/library/molyneux-problem

If you want to confirm or debunk what you understand about UPB I suggest you look for the arguments other people have made against it rather than in favor of it. There's lots of debunk videos on youtube and articles in blogs. When you start reading them or watching them, and you see how wrong the rebuttals are - or how right they possibly are, you will come to a higher level of confidence in either side. I have never seen anyone arguing in favor of it outside of here, and every philosophy board I've seen has nothing but contempt for it, and plain mockery. It worries me personally, which is why I also continue to reason for and against it. My latest argument is that it is correct in most areas except that it should be preferred (like it was originally) rather than preferable.

My contention is that the correct translation of "objectively required" is/ought to be "universally preferred" and that the correct use of "preferable" is correct in the term I used for "infinitely preferable". To say that physics is -infinitely preferable- to magic when building a bridge is to say that physics is -universally preferred- to magic, and that any argument against its universally accepted preference is irrational and invalid. I did not say that you were making shit up. I said that you were bending preferable and preferred to suit your argument. I am separating them where they belong. Now, are you going to actually address my argument instead of repeating yourself for the third time?

A classic.

A good /s at the end indicates sarcasm.

What? Incarcerating who? Locking the door of your home is perfectly acceptable behavior. Who would argue it isn't?

No, no no no. You are bending the language to suit your needs. You are saying the opposite of the truth. The word "preferable" literally means that it is possible to prefer it over something else. I don't know any world in which that word doesn't mean that. In every debate of UPB I've heard Stef say that it is preferable and not preferred because of the argument I am repealing. In every debate I've seen the guy opposing it always clashing with Stef when they ask why they should prefer said behavior if it's only an option, and the only thing Stef has to answer is "because UPB is true, you can't say it isn't" but that isn't a real answer, and you know it, and Stef knows it. It is only a standoff. It is true that UPB is valid, but it is not true that you should accept it just because it is valid. Chocolate and vanilla are valid ice cream flavors, but that doesn't make vanilla any more preferable to chocolate just because it's valid. What kind of argument is "I promise you" anyway? Where am I that I get these rebuttals? Here, I am going to use your argument of sufficiency and necessity to prove that it should be preferred and not preferable: -To build a bridge an engineer can prefer to use the laws of physics in its design -An engineer might try to ignore physics like gravity but the bridge will fail -The engineer can say that he "prefers" to use mystical arts instead of physics -To have and make a preference there needs to be logical consistency and rational comparisons to ideal standards -Magic is not a logical framework, therefore all "preferences" of magic are not rational, nor are they preferences, only "irrational choices" -No logical argument can be made that justifies ignoring the laws of physics in order to make a bridge -Thus using the laws of physics is not only preferable, but the only thing you can actually prefer thus making it "universally preferred" and any other "preference" for an alternative to physics is simply illogical-wrong-inconsistent-contradictory-fail -Magic in this case isn't preferable to physics because physics is the only valid preference possible. -Physics has infinite preferability to magic when it comes to engineering - therefore it is not just preferable, it's universally preferred - when it comes to making bridges. Besides, if it's "required" it only applies to "if" cases. What's the "if" case in U Preferable B? The problem with an "if" case is that it would mean that UPB would only matter if you decide to engage in an "if". Therefore you could just avoid engaging that "if" and never deal with UPB and you would have no need for morality. But in U Preferred B there is no "if". There is no escape, no choice, no alternative preference. It is not only true, but inescapable. You can't unprefer it with reason, only unreason. And that's why U Preferred B, if it's true, is the only universal and secular theory of ethics that can't be avoided. UPB as it is can just be dismissed. It is frustrating to make an argument and have it treated like I've never read it, or seen the debates, or thought about it. You know what you could do? You could have asked me before writing a very long redaction of what I already know and ignoring the topic, not once, but twice. No hard feelings at all though. I'm completely aware that this argument is against the current and against the inertia of what everyone expects here.

But doing that is a harm to others and their property. If you build a cage around a person while they sleep it is obvious that you are incarcerating them. Same with the house.

I think this is a fair position. However, I maintaint that it is you who have misunderstood my initial argument. The misunderstanding is that you have defined the preferences of the victim, and not the preference of the murderer. That is what the argument from preferences is about. What the rebuttal of universally preferred behavior referred to wasn't the preference of the victim - it is easy to understand how the preference of the victim either makes a killing either a murder or a suicide. What is harder to understand is that if the murderer "prefers" to murder a victim, then it can't be said that "to murder" is not universally preferred behavior because someone does prefer to murder. That is the argument that you didn't address, and that I believe is the crux of why preferred was changed to preferable. If there is a mistake in the history of the theory, and there was another argument or reason in this distinction, then I would like to know it as well. The difference between U Preferred and U Preferable is as significant as the difference between black coffee and decaf. One has punch, and the other doesn't. and Contradict each other. In one you are saying Preferable has nothing to do with the behavior people prefer, and then you say behavior can be preferable or not. Doesn't make sense. UPB is ultimately about morality, and if you say "morality is preferable" you invoke the question "why should I prefer it?" and if you say "you can not prefer it if you want" then the argument that I am making comes into place by saying "you can't not prefer it without contradicting yourself".

I know it sounds counterintuitive, but I think it's better if you find a therapist that thinks in the opposite trend than you. After all, if you could have solve your own problems you wouldn't have looked for a therapist - so get one that doesn't think the way you do.

Gravity in GR pushes because space is curved into the center of mass of an object like a planet. Space pushes you into the planet or star. But dark energy is the same thing, but applied to space. According to GR, if space itself has energy inherent to it, the result is that space begins to expand and everything in it would be pushed away from each other. So the theory has always been about a push, not a pull. Pull is from Newton's gravity, but push is from Einstein.

I think slander remains in the negative aesthetical category as long as you don't profit from the lies. That is, if you slander a person, and you are directly taking money or some other commodity from your lie, then you could say that you have commited some kind of fraud or immoral transaction. But standing somewhere and calling a person stupid things isn't any merit to initiate self defense, which is what the line between ethics and aesthetics is.

No, it doesn't clarify. I am not making a statement against UPB itself nor its theories. That I am wise enough not to do. You did not address any of my arguments regarding the distinctions of choices and preferences, nor about the fundamental reason why it matters to have them separate. I don't know why you ignored it and went on to summarize the theory as if I didn't understand it because none of my arguments contradict it - they simply modify what UPB means as a whole since that is the important detail. If UPB is prefered rather than preferable then morality is a fundamental aspect of sentient reality for moral agents - not a made up thing to organize society out of convenience, practicality, or virtuous preference. U preferable B makes no persuasive arguments for it. U preferred B does make the case that to disagree with it would be an error. And you made no effort into replying about that. In the context of U Preferable B, the NAP is the only universal principle that passes the tests and thought experiments. But with U Preferred B, the NAP is not only that, but to argue that you can just prefer to ignore it or break it would not pass for a valid argument since it is a rejection of logic while using logic. Preferences require logic to be preferences at all. A preference for not-logic is a self detonating argument, and U Preferred B would be valid over U Preferable B. In this case the only U Preferred B would be the NAP, as to satisfy your demand for a universal principle and not a particular.

It is theoretically possible to live in an ancap world and never touch a single hierarchical structure living by yourself or with an egalitarian band. Cap just means voluntary exchange. It is so misleading to mix coercive authority and voluntary leadership. It's the origin of all propaganda to lie this way.

This argument would have been interesting a few years ago, but the new evidence for dark matter really suggests it is much more than an ad-hoc made up thing. There have been observations where the mass of the galaxies does appear to be shifted outside of the visible matter in accordance to dark matter theories. Look for the bullet galaxy photographs for that. Now it is true that there isn't one definitively confirmed theory of dark matter, but that it exists as a thing at all is almost undeniable by now. There are also people working on alternate or modified theories of general relativity without dark matter, but they do fail to explain the latest astronomic observations of galaxy clusters and the cosmic microwave background. No one is yet claiming any absolute truth or authority over dark matter, but they are not taking out of their asses either. Dark energy isn't incompatible at all with dark matter since its effects are only noticeable on the largest cosmic scales in the space between galaxies, not within galaxies. I suggest you update your information and watch some of the latest talks on the subject. I've been doing that, and there are plenty of lectures on why dark matter and energy are being taken very seriously now.

It is not necessary to create two worlds, a platonic and a real one. It's a matter of environment and opportunity within this one. In the ideal circumstances and opportunity (at the right time, with enough money, with enough confidence, at the right place) then your preferences can be acted out, but if the circumstances are unfortunate or simply even skewed by third party motivations then you might choose something against or different than your preference. While you might claim to have a preference for immortality and super powers this is more of a fantastic scenario in a platonic world. In a strict sense of this material and limited reality, philosophically only those preferences possible in this world are validly reasoned into whereas fantasy and delusions of grandeur are, well, that. They could however be useful pragmatically when making choices. Like choosing to diet and exercise because you prefer immortality, and living longer is closer to that. You could choose to become a prostitue because that is closer to unlimited sex. So even fantasies outside of logically consistent preferences inform choices - but even then your fantasies have a core of logic inside a cover of candy. It is preferable to me to live compared to be dead, therefore (fantastic leap) I prefer to be immortal \ It still contains internal logic by ascribing values and comparisons to different states, but it goes out of bounds in the conclusion (but in practice it would resolve in the practical health choices).