Kikker

You already have me confused because observer dependent means that the thing observed is dependent on the thing observing it. Better yet things that actually are observer dependent have universal standards of measurement for example: time. For James Dean to be subjective his existence must change dependent on the observer, which is obviously not the case. James Dean's looks however are a arbitrary collection of attributes which does change per person because that particular person is making both the list of attributes what makes someone attractive and the list of attributes that the person perceives James to poses. The things about James Dean which can be observed doesn't change. To summarize: I said that objective and subjective things are mutually exclusive but that doesn't mean objective things always have a universal standard of measurement nor that subjective things can't have a universal standard of measurement.

You haven't explained why subjectivity and objectivity are logically mutually exclusive. One would assume because objective observations are universal while subjective ones are not. If you don't know what universalize means how did you come to the logical conclusion that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive?

"I exist" doesn't require faith as it was logically deduced by Descartes (I think therefore I exist) and has been unsuccessfully challenged for 350 years. The rest is simply the assumption that you can derive truth from your experiences, which requires you to "have faith". Anything that requires more "faith" has to be outside of yourself and your experiences.

So you respond by misunderstanding the implications of said experiment? I mean the video doesn't mention moral obligation but mentions something in the lines of preferable behavior. So the video assumes that you find it preferable that people (including yourself) should rather save the child from drowning even with $500 costs than let the child drown. In other words what is the good action and what is the bad action in this case, or is it devoid of any morality at all? Edit: eclecticidealist has a much elaborate response.

So would you consider the abolition of slavery in the USA a step backwards towards instability or a necessary evil to prevent genocide? So would you consider the freedom to practice any religion you want also a step backwards within the christian faith which allows for so much diversity? So would you consider the defeat of Nazi Germany the begin of the demise of western culture, or did that happen when the Soviet Union broke down? So would you consider the two party system in the USA to diverse of different ideologies and should be reduced to a one party system? So would you consider the renaissance perhaps the most destructive event happening in Europe because of the diversity which came from it?

You can't list those Chirstian leaders yourself? And could you perhaps pin a number on their support? Maybe cite some studies?

If you would actually look at the other videos in his video series you would see what he actually proposes (Charity, Poverty and Welfare). Or to put it here, he wants charity to avoid government and instead give directly to people they want to help. He sees economic growth as the main reason poverty is diminishing. He proposes a basic income to replace all current welfare programs to (at least) avoid bad incentives but still enable people to fill their basic needs, or how I interpret it: avoid the poverty trap. So compare that to Stefan (your mention podcast) who wants charity to actively limit government (instead of avoiding it), who also sees economic growth (directly linked to the free market) as the main reason poverty has diminished and probably would consider a basic income better than the current welfare system but would rather see no taxation at all. (I may be refuted to that last bit if someone has some quotes). Furthermore if you recognize that the drowning child example is meant to shock why not explain the inaccuracy of the analogy?

Why not debunk any real arguments for the state?

That's a weird distinction between present self and future self because in practice we use the word unempathetic for a psychopath who clearly show actions which have their future self in mind. Another problem that arises when you consider your future self to be another being instead of just being yourself is: when are you your present self? I mean I can try mindlessly satisfy my current hunger but it would take me 5 minutes to buy some food, does that mean I have empathy for myself in 5 minutes? Furthermore my future self of 3 minutes is moving towards the supermarket which means the hunger only gets worse for that particular future self, do I hate myself to induce more suffering like that? And even long term goals like being a doctor can be fueled by my current self's desire to be a doctor in which case the line between yourself and future self really starts to blur. Viewing your future self as a separate entity only needlessly complicates things and in practice we already use unemphatic to describe people who, according to you, have empathy for their future selves. Perhaps, though I'm very interested to know how those irrational believes come into existence in the first place. I mean it would be easy to believe it's one irrational person who makes up an irrational believe, but it would also be very possible that simply a observation of a rational person who draws an untruthful conclusion could snowball over generations into an irrational believe.

After you said this I checked the word and unempathetic is the lack of empathy, which is 1: the ability to project your own characteristics onto another person in order to better understand them or 2: projection of your personality trait upon a object. I don't see how the lack of those projections prevent you from acting in self-interest. Well there is another point I would like to make, the occurrence of information deficiency. A person can be 'sane' and act rationally but still commit evil because he misses information about consequences of certain actions. A person can also simply disbelieve the information even if it is available. In that sense a religious fanatic can be sane and rational when he commits mass-murder if he believes certain premises and was never exposed to alternatives. Even rejecting alternative premises can be sane and rational if the person believes that accepting alternative premises would have detrimental consequences for his/herself, family or kin.

If someone is unempathetic and acts in self interest he is sane according to your own definition: "sane involves concern of your own future welfare and/or others". You may want to change your statement to: "and/or others".

A video which, in my opinion, describes hard determinism and libertarianism pretty clear.

I simply state that your reason to punish women harder than men isn't true since, i repeat, men are just as responsible for their children as women. A woman needs a man to have a child, it's just that sperm is more available than uteri and eggs for obvious reasons. I would say that when you fertilize an egg that you're having a child, but apparently having children is in your case the act of giving birth. So if you actually mean pregnancy and giving birth by saying "having children" then yes there is a difference between men and women. However you have yet to explain why that difference is relevant so i was forced to assume something, in this case i assumed that you hinted at the difference in responsibility for the children because women "can have children" so they their crimes are more severe because by committing crimes they also abuse their children. But since there is some other relevancy this argument isn't appropriate. You may have brought arguments in which men are treated unfairly by the court system but that only means punishment should be equal, not that women should be punished harder than men.

Then you're misunderstanding my point, you differentiate between men and women by claiming that only women can have children.That simply isn't true, as men can have children too.

A man can also have children, the man is just as responsible for the making of a child as a woman.

I don't understand, you clearly have the personality test in mind when discussing why people are libertarians and you seem to put great emphasis on circumstance (information received/available). A poll with an open question is fine to formulate better questions in the future which I find a better alternative than a forum question in which people partly talk about themselves partly speculate on the rest and are most likely reluctant to share personal stories because it's a public forum everyone can read.

If you truly want to know you need to organize a poll. I got here through youtube and I'm a INTP. For anyone who wants to take a test too.

It's unclear why you ask the question, if people can't deduce that from the context you give you are bound to get "wrong" answers.

Your unconscious?

As eclecticidealist said not every conception of god is inherently contradictory, you might find yourself switching between agnostic and gnostic depending on which god is discussed. Besides agnostic and gnostic do not determine whether you are an atheist or a theist. Richard Dawkins for example seems to be agnostic for practical reasons since he emphasizes the lack of scientific evidence for any god of any description instead of engaging in logical debate on why, specifically the monotheistic gods, are contradictory per definition.

It's disappointing that you just ignored all but two of the remarks I had on your "brainwave". Besides, you never took distance from your original statement so my critique is valid. In addition post #7 conflicts with your previous posts so I don 't understand how reading that would make your position clearly understandable. And no i'm not going to write your statement for you.