HenryJubeda

In a time where truth and reasoning are a rare commodity, people giving it away for free are very likely to get a huge following quickly. People need truth and reasoning, because without it we would not be able to survive. That's the crux of the problem with the Left, they both need and hate objective reality. Their base facts have been inversed, so everything they think is wrong. Murder, rape, theft and assault are not only not bad, they are GOOD things in their minds. For mental maturity, we need philosophy. We need to know what is real, what is true and what is right in order to live good lives. Self-knowledge is essential to understanding the world around you. I know people who make a lot of assumptions. They draw conclusions, and then try to find facts to back up that conclusion. It never works if the conclusion is just blatantly wrong. They're emotionally invested in conclusions, so they must reverse the facts to support the conclusion. The biggest example of this is single mothers, who believe they have inherent value by existing, and therefore they get to harass, steal, mistreat their children and take away the freedoms of others. It's all about the avoidance of personal responsibility for choices. Do something good, I earned the good results. Someone else does something good, those good results should belong to me. Do something bad, it just "happened". Someone else does something bad, they are the worst person ever. They want something for nothing while also calling themselves the good as a way of justifying their behavior. The movie Baby Driver portrayed this beautifully. Every time the gang would rob a store, Jamie Fox's character would repeat a mantra along the lines of "That stuff is ours, we're just taking it back", making him the good guy and the people who actually owned the property, evil thieves.

You are trying to smother your past in love. That is not acceptance. That is not processing. The only way to get past it is to accept that it happened. You don't have to like it, in fact this should piss you off. I hope at the very least that you cut off your horrible parents. Drugging a 10 year-old is an act of extreme aggression and shows that they did not care about you in the slightest. They treated you like a nuisance. If you want to be loved, you must become lovable, and for that to happen you must first fully accept your past. Acceptance doesn't mean being happy about it, just acknowledging that it happened allows you to start figuring out how it is affecting you today. I didn't start socializing until I was 17, so I feel your pain. My mother for 25 years told me that no matter what went wrong, I was the cause of it, and then berated me constantly for not succeeding more in life despite her constant abuse. I left and stopped talking to her, and now I am quite content and working towards happiness. I am both mentally and physically scarred from my childhood, the constant stress even made me chronically ill, but I don't really let any of that control my life despite it limiting what I can still do. The lesson here is that you can't have people in your life whose sole purpose in life is to drag everyone around them down to their level. I'm working on a translation of the Art of the Argument in my own language. It's going to take a long time, but contributing to something larger than myself has done a lot to make me feel better about the future that I'm helping to shape. I'm sure there's something out there for you too. I remember Stefan and Jordan Peterson mentioning Karl Jung, a clinical psychologist, having written books on people who have split part of their personality off of themselves because they aren't connected with it emotionally. Maybe that's an interesting place to start looking for answers? This fracturing of your personality is not good for you, because it disconnects you and prevents you from seeing which of your thoughts and behaviors come from yourself and which come from your past.

The first thing I'd ask you regarding this idea is "Why talk in such absolutes?" because you aren't actually explaining most of them. You are making a LOT of truth claims without substantiating them. "Emotions are simple involuntary responses to our rational observations". Do you think the Left has been responding very rationally to Trump getting elected? Is the passion furies have to fuck animals a good passion from rationality? How are all passions rational? If your passion is drinking a lot of alcohol, you aren't going to get rich off of that. None of what you are saying is making any sense whatsoever. It's a word salad, not an argument. There's no objective basis for anything you're claiming in your story.

Human intelligence is based on the abstraction of concepts from specific instances. How good you are at that determines how intelligent you actually are. Defining "good" is trickier, but I think we can use some metrics such as memorization, information processing speed, ability to universalize and apply abstracted rules to different situations etc. My experience with less intelligent people is that they see every situation as entirely separate. They cannot understand concepts that do not have immediate real-world results. Such as, fire is hot, I burn my hand when I touch something hot, therefore touching fire will burn my hand. This is simple to understand. However something as simple as taxation is theft is alien to them because they can't define theft as an abstract concept and recognize that the definitions are identical.

You cannot expect more from your relations than you give yourself. Would you invest a lot of time befriending someone who you know is going to leave within a year?

You want books to read on the topic or what? What does the year some concept was conceived of matter? Even animals recognize personal property and the right to defend themselves. They aren't moral agents so they will be more inclined to take "immoral actions" such as stealing food from other animals etc, which ironically doesn't fall under morality because they aren't moral agents capable of understanding the consequences of such actions.

That's nice, but when forming such a framework it's important to state why you think these rules are necessary. For example, point 2 is self-evident because universal is in the name and it means "under all circumstances", so that one can go into a list of term explanations instead. 1 is unclear in its definition of terms, which then leads to assumptions. I know that you likely mean something regarding positive rights compelling the actions of others, and if that's true then you've missed the point of UPB. UPB is the PROOF of secular ethics. It's not the rules FOR ethics. It is the proof that moral absolutism is the way to go. Universally preferable behavior is essentially, from my limited understanding, all preferences that continue life. A buddy of mine is also a major fan of UPB and is writing a book on moral absolutism based on UPB. I think he puts it quite nicely: UPB is behavior that continues a species. The point of UPB is to prove that all life has certain preferences, and therefore we can reason out what others do not want forced onto them, which is a perfect match for moral rules, so we can use morality as the rules and UPB for the proof for why people should be moral. Effectively, no species actively wants to die out, because they'd die out. Moral Absolutism: https://www.minds.com/blog/view/817044209175621632

What you call karma is just other people remembering all the shit you did to them. If you do bad things to other people all the time, chances are that they will do bad things to you as a response, usually for self-defense. Morality is about universal rules, and universally preferable behavior says that it's universally preferable to want to stay alive and continue existence of the species, as that's what pretty much all life does at its core. Organisms gather energy and reproduce. Therefore, organisms do not want to be harmed. Humans are organisms, so humans do not want to be harmed. I think where you're struggling is universality. Universal means NO EXCEPTIONS whatsoever, under any circumstances. There can't be a universal rule that says "I get to steal from you, you don't get to steal from me". We are both humans and therefore moral agents, so the universalized rule becomes "Humans get to steal from humans, humans don't get to steal from humans" where stealing is the act of taking another moral agent's property without their voluntary permission. So the universalized rule becomes contradictory. “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” means that by initiating force, I am giving express permission for force to be used against me. Immorality is the initiation of force. That's why the NAP says you can be perfectly moral simply by NOT initiating force, otherwise you'd have a lot of immoral coma patients as initiating force at all times would be the moral thing to do. Negative rules, the ones saying NOT doing something is good, can be achieved by anyone. Positive rules, the ones compelling specific actions, cannot be achieved by everyone at the same time. I can't make a rule that says that to be morally good, you have to eat this specific sandwich I'm holding, but it's easy to say that to be good, you must not murder. The universal preferable behavior is that nobody wants to be murdered because that's in the definition of murder, so not murdering people is good. However, if I'm trying to murder people, and people kill me in self-defense, they are still perfectly moral because I'm the one initiating force. If nobody initiates, you simply don't have any violence.

The initiation of force is immoral, so no, you can't be moral AND initiate force because that's a contradiction. You don't get to say "I have a need, therefore I get to initiate force" because that justifies, rape, assault, murder and theft. A better question is WHY would such a man do something like that? And the answer is that it's the act of a madman because what can possibly be gained from this? If such a person wants the people to leave his property, he can just ask them. The well is his, so the water is his. What the other villagers can do is just stop supplying everything else this man needs. Food, shelter, conversation, anything he exchanges for the use of the water. Not wanting to exchange something you own is not an act of aggression. Say there's a food shortage. Do the villagers then get to rob this man so that they all die from hunger a little bit slower? How did they end up being solely dependent on this guy without any preparation? The accumulation of consequences of decisions is essential to human existence. Without it, there's really no reason to do anything ever since no matter what you do, you can't get ahead and bad decisions have no bad consequences.

Money is a universally traded good within a scope. Currency is a form of money, but cows could be money in a society where people would trade cows for everything within that society. Currencies are usually owned by some entity like a state or a business. For example, it's currently very popular for online gaming stores to give you "points" that are worth the same as money within the scope of the website. Within the website, these points function as money, but they are useless outside of the scope of the website, just like any fiat currency is effectively useless outside of the scope it is used in. In North America, people are unlikely to accept pesos or euro coins as legal tender, because those currencies can't easily be exchanged for value in the form of goods and services within the scope of North America. It's very important to understand that the goal of money is to be EXCHANGED for value in the form of goods or services. This allows it to be a form of stored value, as money should not perish unless something drastic happens to the value claimed by said money, or the currency the money is denoted in. For example, in Zimbabwe the value production crashed after the blacks killed all the whites, which made the money worthless. To "remediate" this issue, Mugabe then tried to print more money to solve the issue, like a retarded 4 year-old would reason is a good idea. This of course means that the reality of "total value produced" divided by "total units of currency" resulted in bills worth trillions of Zimbabwean dollars that could buy you absolutely nothing. The idea of money is that your value production is expressed in your earnings, so that you are motivated to produce a lot of value when you are young, so that you can take raise a family and take care of yourself when you are old and unable to work as much or as hard or maybe even at all. Any excess money can be used to improve your quality of life, give your kids better chances, invest in businesses etc etc etc. The people who contribute the most to society earn the most money, so their offspring is more likely to succeed due to being able to access the best knowledge and having a better starting point to succeed from. Voluntary exchange of money is basically eugenics, as people who produce nothing will not have the resources to attract a mate and reproduce. Violating this principle results in dysgenics, which is the dumbest people breeding the most successfully.

You're paid through the use of force, so yes, that part is immoral. However, you'd be an idiot not to use these facilities as refusing them would severely cripple your ability to get anything done, and like you said, eventually you'll pay for all this in taxation thrice over. Just keep in mind that you are working for a coercive agency, get your papers, and then move into the free market to see if you can actually provide value for the world. If there's any way you can get to becoming a neuropsychologist without the use of government force, I'd take that path. In fact, I'm mostly self-taught and very good at my job. The question I think you need to ask is "Do I really need to put myself into this situation?" rather than whether you can live with yourself. The danger of having a government job is having no customers, and therefore no challenges. It makes people lazy and complacent. Very few people can work for a government and remain sane.

What nonsense. Why are the parents letting some child watch porn? You can't just say something is immoral, because immorality is specifically the initiation of force. Watching porn is a voluntary choice, as is producing it, so there's no force involved, and therefore it's not immoral to watch porn. Yes, it is BAD for you to do so, but a choice nonetheless. Cigarettes, meth and booze aren't immoral either, forcing a kid to do any of those is. Because of the force. Morality doesn't apply to anything that isn't a moral agent and the only moral agents we know are humans.

Literally the first thing he did was condemn Trump's bombing of some empty airport. If anything, Stef is being too harsh on Trump given the results this man is getting us.

It's entertaining, with the woman telling her story of how she shouldn't really be alive and telling you her story. But let's make one thing very clear here. You entered a low-risk situation with a total stranger and it worked out for you. She didn't have money, so she paid you with praise. What you did was very, very nice and I personally think being nice makes us nicer towards ourselves, because all rules we apply to others must apply to ourselves first. However, from a moral standpoint, you would be completely fine if you had said no without specifying why, or even responding to her at all. Morality is fundamentally about not applying force to others. You wouldn't be "evil" or "bad" for refusing to help, but you were in a position to help so you did it to feel good about yourself, and you were paid in compliments. It's a voluntary exchange of feeling good for manual labor, which is perfectly okay. But, making it universal? Saying yes to every person asking for help is a terrible idea. Knowing you can handle situations does not mean that it's a good idea to put yourself in those situations. And on 3., I 100% wholeheartedly agree. We cannot hold others to standards we ourselves do not follow.