D-Light

I am the ultimate source of my thoughts and actions, and I am the one that is ultimately culpable or creditable for my actions. I hold this as true for all individuals capable of voluntary action, and to the degree of their developmental psychological maturity (i.e., I wouldn't not hold a 2 year old culpable for the act of murder, as they cannot be considered able to comprehend what their actions entail to the same degree that a teenager or adult is capable of comprehending).

You need to stop being so accurate.

I'm going with unintentionally.

Can't decide whether this is intentionally or unintentionally ironic.

Because you didn't know it was wrong to be an @$$hole to someone?

Yes, but they are not the only one's working to produce them. The so-called "educators" are also working to produce them. Such is the nature of livestock/slaves.

The determinist position is not an imperative (moral) system, it is a declarative (empirical) system. If the determinist is able to choose whether or not to hold another person morally responsible, their assertion of the truth of determinism is demonstrably false. If, on the other hand, they are not able to make such a choice, but there only appears to be such a choice having been made, then the determinist position holds, regardless of the moral condemnation or exculpation. Personally, I find the strict determinist position to be irrelevant to the question of moral responsibility since whether or not determinism is an accurate depiction of existence or not cannot be determined as it will look precisely the same anyway.

The children are the commodity being produced by government schools. They are traded and consumed by the corporations and businesses which lease them from the government that created/developed them.

Strict determinism has been interpreted to suggest no culpability; however, this is a false dilemma since holding a person morally responsible would be equally unavoidable. If we can avoid "wrongly" holding a person morally responsible, then they must be capable of avoiding the "wrong" action themselves. Thus, either holding them accountable is unavoidable, or their immoral action was.

My nervous system is responsible for my thoughts and actions to the extent that it processes sensory information it receives from the environment. My nervous system is not the primary cause of the sensory data from the environment, but it certainly has an effect on the environment from which the sensory data is obtained. In some sense, you could say that the environment I have lived in is also largely, responsible for my thoughts and actions. I have very little doubt that had my environment been less advantageous or more advantageous growing up, that my present thinking and circumstances would likely be different, probably vastly different depending on the amount of difference in the environment. There are many factors which are responsible for my thoughts and actions, and yet in the end, I (the mind) am the one ultimately culpable or ethically responsible for my thoughts and actions as I am a self-aware, volitional being (or at least I seem to be--a very strong case has been made for strict determinism).

Responsibility has two common meanings. The first connotes cause (e.g. "What is responsible for the rise in temperature?") and may or may not involve non-volitional entities such as the sun. Such is not sentiment, but an objective, causal relationship. The other definition connotes culpability and only has any bearing in the context of societal interaction between volitional beings (even if that society is limited to two) and an explicit or implied contractual obligation. In the second instance, responsibility is a sentiment that is mutually agreed upon (or not). To answer your question, agreement is result of all involved parties sharing the same (or at least compatible) sentiment regarding the reality of an explicit or implied contractual obligation; so in a word to your last question, yes.

God is not obvious. There is no credible evidence that your ability to think and speak is a phenomena that was loaned to you. It is merely an assertion (quite likely born of years of indoctrination including self-indoctrination) of belief.

Responsibility for the action I performed? That is self-evident. I am responsible for the action I originate free of force or coercion. Ownership is derivative of mutual consent. It is meaningless apart from a voluntary society. Yes. "My" refers to one of two different conceptual relationships. One connotes a relationship of origination or association, the other connotes a relationship of ownership or sovereignty. The first exists without agreement to the sentiment of property ownership, the second requires it.

This is begging the question. Nice try, but no, it is not. Begging the question is the attempt to prove an assertion by using the conclusion as a dependent premise. I have not attempted to prove the definition of morality here, merely reiterate what I have claimed in my OP where I describe what morality is; therefore, it does not beg the question. Your consistent demonstration that this is not a discussion has led to my decision to no longer treat it as such. I offer the rest to further call attention to your lack of integrity for the benefit of others who are enticed by your sophistry... Poisoning the well by asserting a lack of integrity on my part? Looking at other posts you've made in the past, this seems to be a pattern of behavior for you--asserting a lack of integrity in people who best you in reasoning and intellect. You might want to investigate the term "projection" as it applies to psychology and do some very deep self-reflection. That shouldn't be too difficult for you given how invested you claim to be in self-knowledge. ARMT are not performative contradictions. You've failed to demonstrate that they are and every claim you make about them being performative contradictions or the perpetrator of ARMT "telling you with their actions that they understand their actions to be wrong" is nothing more than a warrantless dogmatic assertion. Theft is a person using their labor to deprive somebody else the effects of their labor. Assault and rape is a person using their body to deprive somebody else the use of their body. Murder is somebody using their life to deprive somebody else the use of their life. You are peddling your assertion in multiple places, so if I truly failed to elucidate my claim of performative contradiction here specifically, I do apologize to the audience. You have failed time, and time, and time again, as you have failed yet again above. You assert that a person using their labor to deprive another person of the effects of their labor (theft), is a performative contradiction. Such is simply not an example of a performative contradiction. An action which is a performative contradiction must do the opposite of what it purports to be... so in order for theft, rape, murder, and assault to be performative contradictions, an act of theft must be an act of giving another property, and act of rape must be an involuntary act of anti-intercourse (whatever that might possibly be), an act of murder must give life to the person, and an act of assault must remove injury (or the threat of injury) from that person. Since it is self evident that this does not occur, your claim that these are performative contradictions is ridiculously false. If your argument is founded upon faulty reasoning, your argument is invalid, if its foundation is upon false premises, it is unsound. Your argument is both unsound, and invalid. Your argument is about morality and your definition of morality is internally inconsistent. No, in fact it is not. That you continue to insist that it is is nothing more than a strawman. I'm not sure what mental gymnastics trying to claim it was not dependent upon is about when that's exactly how you framed your argument, but I'm done giving you my time. That "sentence" does make any more sense than your ridiculous attempts at proving your delusionary notion of objective morality. I'm not sure why you need for morality to be drek just because most people use it as such, and frankly I don't care at this point. I don't need morality to be anything other than what it is. Someday, if you're not the hypocrite you seem to be, and you actually do keep an open mind about the things other people have to say, you might actually discover the truth about morality as I have. Until that time, best wishes.

If reported accurately, this is a clear case of the real harm done by multi-culturalism -- the legitimization of child abuse under the guise of religious tolerance.

Let me rephrase, it is not an argument, but yes it is my assertion.

No. It is not my argument, nor a sentimentally agreed upon argument. The claim of owning something is not wholly dissimilar to the claim of liking, loving, desiring, or preferring something in that there is the individual (or group) and that which the individual or group expresses a sentiment for. The claim of ownership is unique in sentiment in that its sole purpose is to justify the use of force in retaining possession or control of the item. The claim has no foundational existential basis, it is simply a claim that, if necessary, is justified to others on the basis of other sentimental justifications including but not limited to primacy of claim, effort/labor put into it, reciprocal exchange of other goods and services, etc.

Referring to the American system as Capitalism is like referring to the Russian Soviet system of Communism as Democratic Socialism.

The fact that it fails to infinite regression is still irrelevant to my argument that the very idea of morality is internally inconsistent with liberty; that only voluntary ethical behavior is necessary for a peaceful society, and it cannot by definition be imposed upon others not even in four special cases.

Addressing it and refuting it are not the same thing. I ought to have been more precise. You claim that people are not fundamentally different, that is irrelevant to the definition of morality which I provided which again, only fails to infinite regression if you infer things I have not implied. The KEY idea is that the morality is being imposed by another rather than self-imposed. The supposed authority of others in imposing the morality is completely irrelevant.