EclecticIdealist

Let me summarize for you. Those citing MZA Twin studies as strong evidence nature vs nurture as having the most significant influence on intelligence are failing to account for the substantially similar environments which the twins the in the study were raised under. While the environments were not identical, they were sufficiently similar in socio-economic status and other environmental factors to fail to provide any significant contrast of environments to either prove or disprove the contention. Essentially, the studies do not actually entail the substantial differences in environment necessary to prove the superior force of nature vs nurture that is being put forth by those favoring such an argument.

own - to possess with exclusive right to control, to belong to an individual or group. One can own something without controlling it. An item may be stolen from its rightful owner and controlled by another. A piece of property that is owned by a bank or mortgage holding company may be controlled by the one paying the mortgage. To own is not to control, although the two usually come hand in hand. One can possess or own things without having the liberty to control how they are used; one can control things without possessing or owning them as well. Universal Individual Sovereignty is self-rule, not self-ownership. own - <slang> to trounce another in a contest or argument.

While there exist separate bathrooms for male and female, transgender people should use the bathroom which they identify (and dress) as. People who are uncomfortable with which bathroom transgender people use need to Grow the F@#$ up. If it were up to me, I'd do away with gendered bathrooms altogether and simply have private toilet stalls for all purposes. I'd have cameras in the common area, and people would have to behave in public bathrooms as they do in their own homes or the homes of others whom they visit. Shocking, I know, to expect people to behave as adults in public. As to the law, I think the law overreaches when it seeks to dictate how privately owned businesses conduct their affairs, whether, with restrooms, or even the clientele they might cater to. I don't think the issue is too complex for government to get involved, but merely completely inappropriate for government to get involved. At best, government should only involve itself where actual harm or threat of harm exists; not the hysterical fears of the sexually repressed.

If the child is too young to go in by themselves, the girl should probably go in the men's room with their father, or the boy in the women's room with their mother. Otherwise, they can call out if there's trouble, or wait until the suspect individual has left the bathroom to enter.

It's not just about volume, although volume plays a crucial part, timing and duplication plays an equally crucial part as well.

Universal individual sovereignty is self-rulership; ownership of property is a result of individual action (one's own, or as a beneficiary of another's action).

I have a problem with self ownership, but only in the sense of it being the starting point for libertarian ethics. I believe the starting point is universal individual sovereignty, not self-ownership.

I have a minor nit to pick too... to get surround sound, you don't have to have movement, you simply have to have a time difference between when the sound is heard from one speaker or another. The brain creates an accoustical map based on the timing of when it hears the same sound in one ear or the other. If it hears the sound in the right ear before it hears it in the left, the sound is perceived to be to your right, and vice versa for sounds heard first on the left and then on the right. Sounds heard in the foreground heard before the background are perceived to be in front of you and vice versa for sounds heard in the background before in the foreground. The delays between speakers are very small and typically created from the placement of actual microphones for each speaker, but the effect can be artificially generated with sophisticated sound recording equipment or software. (There's actually a little more to it than what I've said, but that's the layman's explanation). Sound is a longitudinal compression wave, as such, it does not have an "up or down", it has a more dense, less dense, or in some sense a forward and backward along the direction of propagation and a distance from the point-source of the propagation wave.

Your parents did not buy you from anyone at the hospital, they (or their insurance provider) paid for services rendered related to an attended pregnancy. They did not purchase you, if anything, they created you. If your culture says that ownership of sapient beings is permitted, then you should be considered their property until such time as ownership is transferred to you or someone else. If your culture was a middle-eastern culture hundreds of years ago, you would be your father's chattel (as your mother and any siblings would be) until, if you are a male, you reach the age of manhood and become your father's heir (if from one of his recognized wives), or his chattel if from one of his concubines. If you are female, you would become your husband's property when your father sells you to him. In modern society, most cultures presume you to be your own owner from the time you are born, and your parents are conservators or trustees until you reach the age of majority or are emancipated by the courts.

Jet Fuel that it atomized burns very well. With the impact of the cargo jet with the ground, the fuel tanks were hyper compressed until they burst in a very quick manner, this would cause tremendous heat (from the initial high-speed compression of the fuel in the tanks) followed by atomization of the fuel as the highly compressed fuel is suddenly released into the air. allowing it to spontaneously combust... as the initial atomized fuel was burned off, the remaining fire served to keep the remaining fuel hot enough to continue atomizing the fuel allowing it to burn. Could the buildings have been destroyed by pre-planted explosives or some other weapon other than airliners as the skeptical musician suggests? I believe he makes a compelling case, enough to create reasonable doubt over the official story, but not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his theory is what actually occurred and that airliners did not in fact hit the buildings as the official findings indicate.

Tell him that he doesn't need to write a good story. Ask him to write a story that isn't any good that he's not going to turn in. It's a matter of inertia. Once the writing starts, it will keep going. If he gets stuck, tell him to write about what didn't or won't happen next instead of what will. Tell him to be as ridiculous or off topic as he wants, but he needs to at least write it down. Once he gets writing, he should be able to get back on track with the actual story after a bit. Also, don't forget to have him walk away from the problem if he gets stuck instead of sticking in there and trying to force it. Never allow him to stay in a stuck, "seized up" state for more than a minute. The creative mind sometimes needs a little pressure to make it work, but not so much that the engine seizes up. If he gets stuck and doesn't have a solution after the short break, have him write about what doesn't happen, won't happen, couldn't happen. Tell him that you don't need to read anything he writes unless he wants you to; especially not anything he's not going to turn in.

Clarice Starling (Silence of the Lambs) Ziva David (NCIS) Joan of Arc

What I was indicating is that your first statement "The mutual acceptance of the non-initiation of force" was not a statement of a principle, it was merely a description of the behavior part of the NAP or perhaps a policy. I then stated what the NAP is (or at the very least, my understanding of it). Whether or not you choose to kill a fish to eat is, to most people, a personal preference (unless the fish happen to be endangered, in which case, it might be considered immoral, or at the very least, aesthetically negative or taboo.)

The mutual acceptance of the Non-Initiation of force is not a principle. A principle describes an action or cause and its relation to a specific effect or result. The Non-Aggression Principle is the notion that the best way to maintain the maximum amount of Individual liberty is for all members of society to refrain from the initiation of the use of force. All that may properly be termed as principles (i.e., the effects or results rationally and empirically follow from the action or cause) express true relationships or in other words, they have an affirmative truth value. Principles are not the same as moral propositions. The NAP is a principle. The idea that "Following the NAP is good" is a moral proposition which does not have a truth value.

In speaking of "the good", one is speaking of an ideal state of being. Referring to "the good" as though it is an objective truth is making an error similar to stating that objective facts such as the law of identity or the facts of existence are merely subjective preferences which are "only true if you want them to be true." Ideals, preferences, values, these are all subjective, whether held by an individual, or a group, or virtually all members of society. This is not to suggest that subjective preferences do not have some basis in objective reality, nor is it to suggest that there is not an objective relationship between ideals and the moral principles which rationally achieve, or maintain them. I believe our preferences and ideals have their foundation in biology and evolution, specifically in our instincts and drives which cause us to avoid pain and pursue pleasure, pursue social relationships for mutual benefit and promote the survival of our species in general and our particular genetic contribution in particular. I do not, however, suggest as the Randian Objectivists that our existence and drive to survive deterministically makes "that which is best for man's survival" an objective good. An objective good presupposes a good apart from any and all subjective preferences; and the continuance of man cannot be said to be a preference to anyone but man and those desirous of man's continued existence (or their own continued existence if such is dependent upon the existence of man). As to Sam Harris' theory on morality, I would say that what he is really talking about is not morality, but virtues and ideals. By that, I mean that a moral framework establishes a specific hierarchical preference for various moral virtues and principles which objectively promote ideals such as the further existence, well-being, and happiness of those who adhere to them and those who are directly and indirectly affected by such behavior. The subjectivity comes from the preferential ordering or hierarchy of these virtues. Mankind's continued existence, physical and psychological well-being, and happiness and other such ideals can be referenced as measurements of elevation on a graph. Which ideal or virtue you prefer most, second most, third most, and so on determines your individual moral standard. What a society collectively prefers determines its moral standard, and so on. Some moral systems are inherently better than others at maximizing the longevity, or well-being, or happiness of some or all members of society or some other particular ideal or ideals. A way might be discerned to judge the relative merits of various different moral systems. What cannot be determined, however, is whether there exists a system which is objectively the best unless it can be determined that a particular moral system maximizes all virtues better than any other system maximizes any single virtue or set of virtues (which seems unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibility). Even this might not be considered the best by some if certain ideals or virtues are maximized more than others. Nevertheless, speaking of "The Good" as if such an ambiguous, abstract, subjective concept is actually a discrete tangible or rational fact is every bit as much an error as speaking of "The Truth" as it if is merely a subjective opinion, perspective, or preference rather than the description or mental equivalent of an objective tangible or rational fact. Yes, truth can be absolute, or approximate or describe a causal, spatial, or temporal relationship which in some cases may appear at first glance to be subjective; however, when it comes to the truth, the subjective can be removed without destroying the facts, the subjective cannot be removed from the ideal, preference, or value without destroying the ideal, preference, or value.

There's no problem if you're not claiming an objective standard of morality. If on the other hand, you are claiming an objective moral standard, then bridging principles will not remove the subjectivity from inherently subjective preferences, and so the problem remains. I'm not making any invocations, I am merely pointing out what seems not to be obvious. No, I am pointing out that the proposed bridging statements are nothing more than moral propositions which assume certain preferences for ideals or values. One can evaluate the proposition and determine whether or not it is a behavior that is held as preferable (or deplorable) by nearly everyone; or merely a personal preference or aversion, whether or not it can be rationally universally applicable, and whether or not the behavior itself is sufficiently avoidable to be considered an aesthetic, or whether it is inherently an unavoidable use of force and therefore a moral rule according to UPB. The UPB framework is essentially a means of evaluating moral propositions to determine, not if they are part of an objective moral standard, but rather, if they conform to a rational moral standard which exclusively idealizes Universal Individual Liberty, Proportional Response. While this is a moral standard (or at least part of a moral standard) that I and most libertarians consider to be superior or "the best" for mankind to live under, it is not the only possible moral standard. It is also not an objectively true moral standard as all moral standards are inherently subjective preferences for one hierarchy of ideals or another, no matter how prevalent or even universal the preference for that moral standard might be. One could, for example conceive of a moral standard that is not based on the Ideals of Universal Liberty and Proportionate Response, but instead upon the Ideals of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or any other Religious Ideology. Alternatively, one could conceive of a moral standard based on the ideals proposed by Karl Marx, or Medieval Feudalism, or some other socio-political ideal. Such moral standards might not be as rationally consistent as UPB, but tests could be devised to determine whether and how various moral propositions would fit into such standards. No, "Adding properly requires the sum of the involved numbers." is not an preferentially evaluative statement, it is a descriptive or declarative statement. The term "properly" indicates, not a preferred method, but rather, a correct method (as opposed to an incorrect method), or in short, an objective fact rather than an objective falsehood.

Richard Y, please define the NAP as you used it in the post originating this thread.

Bridging statements cannot remove the inherent subjectivity of preference. All they can do is shift it from preference for an action to preference for an ideal which the action rationally supports. The judgements of "best" and "good" always come down to a matter of preference for one thing or another. Two road lead from the city to the beach. The longer one takes me on a scenic route, the other is shorter, more direct, and crowded with traffic. Which route is best? If my preference is speed, it may depend on prevailing traffic conditions, but is probably the shorter route. If my preference is for a route that is less stressful and calming, it may be the longer, scenic route. "That which gives the most pleasure to the greatest number of people is best," expresses a preference for pleasure and egalitarianism or universalism. "That behavior which respects property and the NAP will always be good," expresses a preference for individual liberty and property rights. The quest for quasi-moral statements which bridge the two realms of course exist as you have just demonstrated, but these statements do not and cannot unite the two realms. You cannot change the identity of that which is inherently subjective to that which is objective. Morals, no matter how well they are tied to reason (which happens to be my preference as well as Stefan's) can never be made objective; they will always remain subjective by their very nature of being preferences, regardless of their being universally believed, applied, or attached to virtuous ideals or their vicious antithesis. I don't disagree with anything you've said here. Essentially, you demonstrated what Stefan has in his book, that a moral principle can be proven to rationally comply with specific ideals. The morality which Stefan proposes under UPB assumes a preference for Individual Liberty, Equity, Universality, and Rationality (these ideals or values I happen to hold as well). UPB evaluates moral propositions based upon these ideals to determine whether they conform to these ideals or not, and proves that the most common moral values do rationally flow from preferences for these ideals. Nevertheless, and the point i think you were trying to make is that Universal in UPB applies to the applicability of a moral proposition to all persons, and while that is true, it is not the only way Stefan uses the term Universal. He also uses the term in the sense of believed, shared, or held by all (or nearly all) in what seems to me to be an attempt to move from subjectivity to objectivity. I might be mistaken on this point, but that is what I have gleaned from reading and rereading, and analyzing the relevant passages on the subject in his book. In looking back, I did not express my concern particularly well in this regard. What I am attempting to say is this: Stefan regards the moral instinct or empirical sense of morality rather highly, as do I. I believe that instinct largely, but not exclusively, informs the culture which defines the societal morals in the different societies around the world. Various different societies consider various different moral propositions differently and consider certain questions which UPB does not seem to consider, such as, "is this good for the whole, not just the individual?" I am pondering whether a moral system I would adhere to and advocate others should adhere to should consider the needs of the community or society as a whole, or whether it should only focus on the needs of the individual. I know which way I lean, but I am somewhat pulled in a different direction.

I see you have opted for option three. No point conversing any further. Interesting how you consider what I'm doing to be manipulative. All I have been doing is attempting to demonstrate the flaws in your logic and the validity of mine. I tried direct reasoning, and when that failed, I attempted to demonstrate, which you played right into. You cannot possibly rationally claim that what I am doing is manipulative because that contradicts your argument. Consequently, you chose to irrationally make this claim and assert that I know my "'arguments' cannot stand on their own merit." when in fact you are simply projected your own failings onto me. Rather than engage my arguments directly to demonstrate their flaws by direct analogy, you utilized a weaker, inapplicable, indirect analogy borrowed from Stefan in a vain attempt to bolster your position. As I've said before, lame ducks don't fly. As mentioned before, you have three options: Option 1: Concede I cannot possibly have been manipulating you because that would mean I have more responsibility than you over how you react to what I write; you will maintain your position that your argument is correct and you'll at least be consistent. Option 2: Concede that manipulation is the use of force against another person's mind and their conception of reality, in the same vein as lying, and we can move forward. Option 3: Demonstrate your preference for neither in which case there is no further point in discussing further as you demonstrate that you are not committed to reason or logic at all; you are committed to sophistry bolstering your position in spite of reason and logic. Lying, like other verbal forms of manipulation, as well as psychological and emotional abuse, is the use of force against another person's concept of reality. It is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle to lie except as a matter of self-defense or the defense of others, or when the lie is expected and desired as in the case of entertainment such as a magic show or fictional story. Non-defensive lying is universalizable in that it can be rationally expected of everyone. Non-defensive lying is unavoidable in that it is a volitional initiation of the use of force which is enforceable upon another in the same way that physical initiations of the use of force are enforceable upon others. Just as physical applications of force can be small or great, causing little or no effect, or causing momentous change, lies can be relatively inconsequential, or they can be life altering. Just as it is not justifiable to shoot someone for merely nudging or poking you, it is not justifiable to shoot someone for telling lies which have little consequence when believed. Similarly, just as a serious assault is justification for limiting a person's ability to assault others, a serious lie with significant consequences when believed is justifiable in limiting a person's ability to lie to cause harm to come to others, as in the case of lying under oath to subvert justice (for example). To suggest that lying is not immoral (but merely aesthetically negative, like habitual tardiness, or other socially undesirable behavior) because one can avoid believing a lie by exercising due diligence to discover the lie and reject it is like saying rape and assault are merely aesthetic negatives because they can be avoided by learning self-defense and going out of one's way to not place oneself in potentially vulnerable situations where one might be likely to be raped or assaulted. While not always the case, such an argument is typically fostered by a person seeking to justify their own use of lies, deception, and manipulation to engage in fraud or otherwise manipulate others for personal gain. To suggest that the person believing the lie has greater moral responsibility than the person telling the lie is the same as suggesting that a person who is a victim or rape or assault has greater moral responsibility than the person committing the rape or assault. This notion is absurd on the face of it and is ethically and morally indefensible. It is an idea foisted by people seeking to take advantage of others' ignorance, gullibility, and sloth. Such predatory behavior is harmful to individuals and society as a whole and indicative of low character, or in other words, a person lacking virtue. If you disagree with any or all of this above, please take the time to actually address the points I've made in a direct and substantive manner. If not, I will simply assume you are not serious about logic and reason and henceforth ignore your comments or replies to this subject.

I wrote, "Since the map of reality in a person's mind is the what a person bases their decisions upon..." to which you replied: I wrote, "I fully expect that you will again accuse me of claiming the equivalent of 2+2=5..." to which you replied But you did exactly this above: Then you stated: By your own criteria, for my words to have been manipulative, affecting you or your behavior (similar to the way a lie is manipulative), you would have to prove that I am more responsible for your decisions than you are. This leaves you in a bind. You must either concede that you were not manipulated in order to maintain rational and logical consistency with your position, or you must concede that lies, including those which are obvious or transparent or otherwise recognized as lies are in fact manipulative and by definition a use of force as I have asserted. To refuse to do one or the other is to demonstrate yourself to be inconsistent in your application of logic and reasoning and prove yourself to be a fraud for representing yourself as committed to logic and reason. Full circle indeed. DSayers, you resemble to me the man trapped in an invisible box in a field in Stefan's book, "Truth, the Tyranny of Illusion". No amount of reasoning or proof will get you to see the truth, it only serves to provoke your anger at having your illusory mental concept which you are so devoted to challenged. And as a possibly final prediction, If you are the one Negging my posts, I predict you will likely do so again, if not actually kicking me from the board, or putting me in some form of timeout; which incidentally will only further prove my point that words used to lie (or manipulate, or harass, or emotionally or psychologically abuse) are the use of force against the mental concept of reality in another person's mind. Subconsciously, you know it's true, but your conscious mind is refusing to see it because you're more committed to your position than you are to truth and reason.

The violent, so-called anarchists of the 19th and early 20th Century were Marxists. They believed that anarchy was a necessary step towards the realization of the socialist utopia envisioned by Marx.

No, ironically, that is precisely what you're saying. I have demonstrated with logic and reason the validity of my argument. You on the other hand have not. Of course I do, but that is immaterial to anything I've stated. A lie does act upon the mind of the person who it is told to. Since the map of reality in a person's mind is what a person bases their decisions upon, including life-course altering decisions, lies can indirectly affect reality as well. You have cited an example of a type of fraud, not provided the exclusive definition of fraud. If you misrepresent yourself as something you are not (say for example, a person committed to logic and reason), you have committed a fraud. A credible threat need not be actual; perhaps you are unaware of the number of people who have robbed banks with unloaded weapons or "bombs" made from nothing but road flares they passed off as dynamite? These people lied (deceived people) into believing there was a credible threat where none in fact existed in order to obtain a desired result. For an example of how State governments might do similarly, I refer you to Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin, and the sinking of the USS Maine. Now, i do not expect you to agree with me. I fully expect that you will again accuse me of claiming the equivalent of 2+2=5 and other such foolishness rather than actually addressing the very direct analogy I made between lying and rape. In fact, I'm so certain that no amount of analogies or rational proofs will convince you that I will simply let you get the last word. My arguments stand for themselves. Reason is on my side despite what you will say, and I will have to be satisfied with that.

The wiser person only has to reject the lie BECAUSE it has already been told to them. To measure if something is binding upon somebody, you have to test avoidability. If person A lies to person B REGARDLESS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE WISDOM, person B cannot NOT be lied to by person A. Therefore lying is a behavior that is binding upon another person. What comes after the lie (recognizing the lie and rejecting it) has no, and could have no bearing on the identity of the lie itself. Non-defensive Lying (attempting to commit fraud or coerce through deception) is NOT an Aesthetic Negative according to UPB, it is an unavoidable (to the victim) moral wrong.

It is not the only problem, but I agree with your sentiments completely. Long-term incarceration is often deemed a fate worse than death, prompting many to attempt suicide.