ObserveandReport

To be precise, dsayers imported the language of "moral actors" into my initial argument. I used no such words. Mine is argument about the source of personal identity, and what it means to make moral judgments about something that lacks the necessary physical components to bear such an identity. The short of it being, that brains are the source of identity and without them, more constraints cannot apply (so long as there are no other minds involved). I survive a full body transplant. I do not cease to exist, nor do I become two people.

If you're trying to drive through a state and you know you might not find lodging that is a problem. Have you never had a flat tire? An accident? Any number of reasons? Network, a vast number of people connected by similar activities, each having to doe with others. The "internet" doesn't pass the five year old test, but you understand it just fine, or maybe you don't. Imagine the internet but strictly for commerce. The fiberoptic cables are roads and distribution centers servers.

When I said "one form or another" this could mean Stefan's dispute resolution organizations, or civil courts such as those in Brehen Law. You have not established that a civil court system necessitates opposing moral categories, however you have asserted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_law Theareas of law that would or could survive would be private law. Torts, contracts, etc. Specifically the violation of a contractual obligation to participate in the networked economy you benefited from is the wrong I allege. Contracts do not need to be written or explicit. Rather courts can infer them and they can be implied by conduct. You might object that benefiting from other's even handed participation does require your participation to be equally non-discriminatory. That seems like the discriminating actor is acting in bad-faith. Please copy and paste where I suggested the initiation of the use of force (show your work). You call it a non-problem. To the extent that integration and and assimilation are retarded, it is a problem worth solving.

I'm advocating for ostracism and noncoercive remedies as you suggest. The only addition is that perhaps civil suits against such proprietors should swing in favor of those discriminated against. Sorry if I wasn't clear. This is/was the very problem that brought cases before the Supreme Court throughout the 50's. I think it was a mistake to leave it up to government to fix the problem (civil law/courts would presumably exist in one form or another in an AnCap society).

Right. But you can't morally force them out correct? That's maybe what I thought you were suggesting.

This again exemplifies taking more from a study than is said. It's what it demonstrates to you. There is a reason scientists and statisticians don't make many related but not fact specific claims upon releasing data. It's because they are not supported by data. Saying "perception is skewed" is like saying "price is wrong." I'll fall back on the fact that this is a market, not a dictatorship.

DNA is completely irrelevant. I don't think you understand my point. I'll attempt to clarify: Even if you slowly replaced all the DNA in my body, one strand at a time, with someone else's DNA, I would merely have undergone a genetic change, not died. I continue to exist, therefore what I am can't be my DNA. Rocks have unique irreplaceable histories where each individual atom of a rock was synthesized billions of years ago either in suns or at the big bang, that doesn't give it a personal identity. It doesn't grant rocks the ability to be harmed. Whether or not someone can respond about whether they possessed the bare minimum for consciousness in the past is not what my argument is based on. Before some point, there was no possibility that the fetus was an degree of conscious. One point for certain is the zygote. I hope this clears things up.

Ok, your story may have been an example, but it was still anecdotal. I'm not disputing the content of the studies, I'm disputing the conclusions you draw from them. Women have made themselves attractive on the sexual market place. To the extent that men fail to do so is their own failing. You can't blame women because they aren't interested in what the average man is offering. Power disparity would require the woman's choice to override the man's choice (a.k.a. sexual assault). There is no coercion, there is no power disparity. If you want to say there is a difference in bargaining power, similar to an employer vs. an employee, you have a long way to go. More simply: I accept that women have, on average, more interested suitors than men at any given time, all things being equal. Unless men in general are being forced into not improving their sexual marketability, OR men are victims of circumstance such that they could not be more assertive or picky in relationships, because women can levy power than would leave them destitute (like an employee with children and poor marketability who wants to renegotiate but can't) women have no more power. MTGOW leave the sexual marketplace altogether, so clearly men have the choice to restructure their marketplace tactics. If men were dissatisfied with the options provided to them by their current approaches to dating, they could start to be more picky. Women in turn would have to lower their standards (or ramp up competition, or coercively limit the men's actions). The fault lies with men as well as women. What percentage of men are looking for long term partners as opposed to women? Might this not be a decisive factor in the difference between number of suitors? If a man is looking for sex and short term companionship, his best strategy would be to not be picky. It is a sexual marketplace, not a sexual dictatorship. Supply/demand. As an anarchist you should appreciate the invisible hand working its magic. EDIT: I would like to point out that Stefan is specifically responding to the charges of feminism that try and place all the blame at men's feet. He falls short of asserting that men are dis-empowered to select their mates.

Please elaborate

Must they leave? If I own land, why must I sell it or sacrifice it's value in order to opt out? I'm not saying I have good answers (because I havn't really thought through or consulted good arguments).

I'll try and parse my response accordingly. Sorry if there is redundancy. Harm=being aggressed against Necrophilia is not harming or agressing against anyone. You cannot be harmed/aggressed against after death. "defamation of someone's memory" morally has no weight. I can aggress against your memories of someone who is dead. Cheating on a partner without getting caught is self-harm. There may be some situations where it actually might be best not to reveal said infidelity. Even there, there is a being harmed. What makes you assume an action is morally neutral if it results in no conscious person being harmed? Think of the things you can't do to a comatose patient even one with no hope of recovery. Think destroying a tree. Is there no hope of recovery because there is no brain? If there is a brain, stuff might be going on. If it's certain there will never be consciousness again, doesn't matter. There is no violation of the non aggression principle for cutting down a tree. I'm not sure where you are getting any of this. There are ways you can benefit moral agents and ways you can harm them. If you are doing neither, your actions are morally neutral. I can eat as much peanut butter as I want, but it is neither hurting nor benefiting any moral agent other than myself (except perhaps peanut butter producers) What makes you assume transgressing against another party is only possible if their potential is realised in the now? Think of the comatose patient who needs months of cerebral healing and reconfiguration. Think of little trees. I posted many responses as to why potential human beings are morally distinct from actual human beings. I recommend you start at the beginning and scroll your way down. That being said, it's not your dna or your organs that make you, you. You begin existing no earlier than your ability to think and be conscious arises. Therefore, there is no one to deprive of a future existance. The same way you cannot harm someone after death, you cannot harm someone before existance. This is a reductio but imagine someone being tried for homicide, not just for the murder they committed but for all the children that person planned on having. That would be rediculous in my estimation.

While self-correction and profitability are strong motives, I'm looking for a stronger case. I'm not sure many places in the Jim Crow south would have opted for the more profitable option (I would wager that some still don't so clearly government isn't the answer). The benefit isn't just derived from being a member of one stream of commerce, instead it comes from all industries. More than that that, there seems to be an expectation when being an active participant in the workplace (either owner or employee), that along with trading your goods/services, others will do the same according to things like supply and demand. There is an expectation that McDonald would no more only sell to brown eyed people than would its beverage supplier. The inefficiency is the result as you described, but the harm has impact beyond that. Social cohesion and integration is a extremely valuable thing as Stefan has so often stressed (along with homogeneity). So when these people discriminate in their business practices, real people are being hurt. When SCOTUS was beginning to take cases referring to the 13 and 14th amendments, the question still arose as to whether private business would have to conform. Black travelers would be unable to find lodging in entire swaths of certain states. If we truly want the black community to change and assimilate, the first step is knocking down barriers to those that are trying. White flight precedes property values dropping. Affluent blacks move in and whites move out.

Hopefully it doesn't take much time to wade through the candidates issues but... even an avid reader has a lot of material to go through.

I'll have to ignore your experiences as they are anecdotal. I will watch the video when I have the time. However, because women are less likely to approve a suitor than men, doesn't mean they have more power, simply that they exercise it more often. Literally at any point in the woman's vetting the man can say "fuck this, I'm investing my time elsewhere" and because women outnumber men slightly, he has all the options of who to pursue. Men choose to narrow their scope (by doing so men empower women so to speak). What you have done is pointed out who initiates relationships and who terminates them most often. You have also illustrated a lengthy vetting process men and women go through. None of this is arguments for a power imbalance, by which I mean mean can equally terminate a given relationship.The sexual market, like any market is one of supply and demand. If men desire different things, the market will change. Lol no, she holds herself responsible. If you look closely, she even views the woman as "partially responsible" for the deficiencies a single parent child will suffer. She has an IUD and she's intimated that she is not willing to have a child at this time in her life. I trust that she'll give me a heads up if that changes.

And while undoubtedly most animals lack this, or anything close, what about the smartest of other animals? Particularly dolphins (mostly kept in captivity, not eaten) and pigs come to mind. As Will pointed out, most great apes are not really in the equation because they are not being hunted (though their habitats' destruction might be problematic and that is widespread). Even if none of the above mattered, I'd ask why the cutoff is fully understanding as opposed to the gradations between, say, human and snail? What makes the full ability to reason as opposed to some lesser abillity key? It was my understanding that pigs rank among the most intelligent non-human species in the world. I agree with your grey area statement. Considering the widespread eating and raising of animals (especially pigs) it might be worthy of our investigation. Additionally, there might be some principle that we out to hedge our bets, such that where we can easily avoid the widespread pain caused to animals (I'm thinking factory farming here) we ought to. I think this is where we get pulled into the slipperiness of "capacity." I despise that word. While children differ from animals (most likely) in that they will one day have the full duties and rights of a person, it seems that the mentally impaired lack that distinction. This I'd say is quite interesting. Do you happen to know Stefan's take on the rights of those who are mentally impaired?