RestoringGuy

Awesome. Hey I still use MS-DOS a lot of the time. Not that fancy 3.5" either.

I am sorry I don't understand all your points. I am a feminist only in that I support equality. I am anti-feminist only in that I oppose the elevated social standing most females receive. When there is male elevated social entitlement, I oppose that also. I oppose force and lying unless there exists no alternative defensive option. We are probably not in disagreement on these matters. Culture is just a word, like constellation. To say what things belong to culture and what does not, you have to pick those things. And you can pick anything! Just as you can pick 12 stars and call it constellation Flibstoi, there is a culture of "hitmen vegetarians who like Linux". If in your view, culture includes all accepted things, then yes you provide a valid existence proof. So we also have a "flat-earth-believing culture" too. I am not clear what is being obfuscated exactly. It would seem you should explain whether culture to you means somebody somewhere does it, or whether you mean behaviors that were chosen to name the culture are typical behaviors. Many years ago I have heard some sick rape comments and bad jokes, and I agree it is all evil. We can say let's enforce defensively without brutality, but males genes involve competitive sperm and it is easier to form a blind spot toward male pain. In youth I thought pandering would win favor, and I found the opposite and I was hated. Whether it is feminists who judge "male" culture in some way, or traditionalists who think I was too weak, I was at a loss. Genitals are simply not worth anything unless they are female -or- they are yours. It's proven by which kicks to the groin are being laughed at. I am happier now because I realize there is no "culture" at all.

If they give me a hassle about recycling or trade symbolism, I will change the subject to a new efficient toilet valve I installed, or some renewable energy project I am working on. Makes them feel like a bigger ass. Then I say "if we weren't taxed and handcuffed by the system, we could all do more of this kind of stuff".

I have been following this type of thing, and still amazed few people know about this. as well as the cell phone GPS chip, tracking of your TV channelsurfing, onStar, etc. Here is a good search engine that does not track. If you have https at the beginning of the URL, it is encrypted so (I think) it's invisible to your local ISP: https://duckduckgo.com/

Yes that makes sense. If a person says "Johnny should be murdered", nobody interprets or reimagines this to apply to all people -- or even any class of people. It just means Johnny and that's all. When rape is condoned as part of some sick humor or commentary toward one person, the speaker is often said to be supporting rape of all women generally (even when no gender targeting was ever specified). Now this occasionally happens with race. A person who insults a famous non-white person is occasionally called "racist" even if an insult was never even remotely racist. During my academic studies, I have found a coordinated effort on campus to practice group blame, posters like "when will men stop raping" and "stop men's violence against women". I have learned perhaps too late that it is intellectually dishonest, but I have learned I suppose. When I see that, I feel very sad. Many of their words are DESIGNED so only by getting sex change could I escape being hated.

Yes your thought makes sense, and I agree it is not hypocritical to simply say it as a matter of "promotion". But I interpret a "legitmate opponent" of rape to be, not one who says "rape is wrong" as a matter of assertion, but one who says "rape is wrong and I can prove it". It is the opposition that is legitimized, not the person who is opposing. When we discuss mosquitos, we don't discuss the legitimacy of hating them, just the matter of whether you do. Instead if you say you're a "legitimate opponent of mosquitos", then I believe you've raised the bar and have to explain why they are objectively bad. That is true about the subset argument. One cannot apply to the general power-over set directly. What I mean is the "provability". The contradiction is when a person who claims rape is wrong and puts forth a general principle that proves it wrong (rape is wrong because it is power-over which is wrong), then denies that principle (state is power-over which is excusable). It is their act of proof that is hypocritical, not their plain old assertions that are hypocritical. Without proof, a claim of legitimacy seems to lose traction. You may question whether they actually "need" the power-over argument to stay legitimate. Sure they could say any intercourse proves an act wrong (consent being unconsidered), but such a strange argument is not very common. The power argument has to be leveraged.

The problem is clear. Those who generalize to group-blame are advocating violence even when they are feminists. Let's say if a person suggests black people should be blamed for crimes due to some perceived statistical prevalence of street criminals, it is an assault on the non-guilty blacks. Same goes for blaming men for rape and lobbying for special gender law (VAWA and FGM act). The culture is the crime. I have witnessed women who don't understand that cutting a baby's penis is an assault. By your own reasoning, you should be declaring those particular women's genitials should be at the mercy of "bubba" and a knife.

Understood. No. Totally my fault and I practice self-shame for 20 seconds. I replied too hastily before noticing the category. PS Thanks, the link is entertaining and reminds me of some high school chemistry humor.

That is a total mischaracterization of the argument. Of course "P(x) & P(y) -> x=y" is not a tautology. What is being morally argued is "P(x) -> W(x)" (power-over implies wrong of event x). You can't prove rape is wrong without this axiom. because physical action alone is not what is said to be wrong, but a combination of the physical action with absence of consent inside the mind. We give intercourse two different words based on consent alone, and just classifying words in themselves (lovemaking is right and rape is wrong) is not a valid argument. You have to point to a moral reference point (ie consent/power) in order to prove anything. Once that is done, it is hypocrisy to deny it when x is substituted with a different act.

I would like to object to the practice of posting a link and nothing else. Please add details on what this is, the significance to you, a tiny excerpt, etc., so members do not need to go click-happy and spend time digging into remote web sites trying to extrapolate the meaning. I guess I am interested in chemistry and maybe it is clear, but I have found other link-only posts to be dead ends than got me upset that I wasted the time.

That is correct. I have had such women tell me directly that a man raped in prison is a less significant event. When I probed and probed why, the reason was "men do not have feelings". Exact words. One of these same women circumcised her son. Same reason.

That would seem to move things from moral absolutes to matters of personal ideology. For example, a person who says rape of one racial group should be opposed while purposely ignoring others would (on the surface) seem to be a consistent person from a purely philosophical standpoint so long as they admit to having racial bias. And at that point, their inconsistency is now shown indirectly because that bias can always be teleported to almost any other topic of morality, such as whether it is wrong to kill people or lie to people and use fallacies (so long as it meets their racial criteria they have chosen). However, if such a person reserves a moral right to lie to people and use fallacies, I would think the legitimacy of their arguments now seems greatly in question. It seems like automatic paradox. I just don't see how philosophical legitimacy can work half way without running into the problem of an automatic hypocrisy.

I have heard this point before, but it does not make sense to me to make the point so broadly. It seems easier for the state to have propaganda, but not essential. We could all be in chains for example, or have a computer chip collar that blows up if we disobey. I get the idea that propaganda makes it easier, and our minds are just added to the list of things being controlled.

That seems like the best stance. It's a longshot gamble either way, even if we were to accept the CDC as gospel truth which seems unwise. Too much hysteria both ways. You can make an argument that by "refusing" to give my annual income to starving children, there are many hundreds who will now die that I easily could have saved. But what is the long term effect? A larger dependency problem later on probably. If the CDC said this shot is a short term fix until we sort out a long-term process of flu eradication that does not add more mandates to all future generations, then they would have some merit as far as intent. Scientific progress seems good this way, that inventions may be discarded when something better comes along. That is why I am skeptical of just adding to the list even if their claim has slightly positive expected gain. Maybe by the 27th century we will all have to inject our body mass in vaccines just to have a 50/50 shot at living to retirement. I suppose if a vaccine raised average life-expectancy by a year, that would be quite unreasonable to turn down. Getting a shot for just 42 minutes of extended life expectancy probably is a gamble that is not worth the effort for me anyway.

That seems basically correct. Although a particular power-over relationship is occasionally required (such as self-defense, or some kind of momentary protection of an unsuspecting person in clear danger), and one would not find cases where rape is somehow required.

Moncaloono, who says ruling can be stopped? Obviously it can be deterred non-forcibly, if inadequately, would you agree? An anarchist can tell a person what to do whenever engaged in trade or social discourse. You can ignore them if you disapprove, but you will not trick people into saying the state is good. You have made it clear that ruling over each other is acceptable to you. Really you should not debate here philosophically. You should be trying to challenge people to a duel. Force and ruling are things you accept.

Seems like an odd comment. A guy with a gun to my head has similar entitlement to my money as the state, correct? If we are to use the scientific method (or any honest and objective method), it would seem that two situations with the same established outcomes (eg. force vs. rights), we expect a measurement of morality to be also the same. It would be bad for example if two rocks I said "weighed the same", but you witness that every scale on Earth consistently says the two rocks are weighing different amounts.

I had a similar feeling of fear when I stopped believing in "God." After 18 years of indoctrination, if I even thought the words "There is no God," I would uncontrollably wince in case a lightning bolt struck me. It took several years to overcome that reflex. Perhaps we should also be ashamed of spending this much time. Cigarettes for example are said to reduce life expectancy by 11 minutes. Even if the vaccine people are flawless and correct, they will extend the life of 1-in-a-million children perhaps at most by 80 years. So the most optimistic effect on life expectancy is extending by 80/365*365*1440=42 minutes. So should you get it? Sure if convenient and free. But if you waste more than 42 minutes worth of time, gasoline, payment, etc., then it can be a net loss on average. The chance of gain is a long shot like the lottery. And if you have wasted more than 42 minutes debating or worrying in either direction then we have inflicted on ourselves something worse than flu.

Force is the only thing at work here. If the newborn is left alone for like 12 seconds, it is only force (either personal or institutional) that entitles her to recover the child from a closer stranger. The exclusion of fathers from this assumption of automatic genetic custody is something both statists and anarchists seem to ignore.

Yes you raise a totally valid point that markets and the state are equally inside/outside nature -- though your prior posts suggest to me you should at least deny they are real things, but just adaptive mechanisms (ie. fictitious ideas that guide us). Anyway, please admit your response style here is completely messed up.

Yes you might be right about autism, it seems random. You have me confused with the "intelligent design" people or at least their characterization of evolutionists. Of course evolution does not magnetically guide toward beneficial adaptation. But you seem to accept the general narrative that "flu shots save people". If so, then you can't deny those people reproduce similar need for shots. Animals "evolve into extinction" because they were beaten (and perhaps eaten) by stronger species, perhaps viruses, not because evolution gave them random fatal misfortune which they somehow passed on. I say this because the individuals with a fatal random mutation are less likely pass it on, correct? So it would seem to me you must either say flu is totally non-fatal, or else (to whatever extent it is fatal) admit effective vaccines facilitate a long-term weakening of the genome. This would seem essential, because if you can claim that is just the way our species was heading anyway (weakened immunity) then you should also accept that those children who get flu are equally likely (eg. survive the flu) to pass on this weakness compared to those who do not get flu. There can be no bias in the expectation.

I never doubted such a thing about modern health. What I claim is some of these improvements cost us our natural capacity for health. The progression of eye defects and vision impairment, the need for vision correction is on the rise because humans have been skilled at providing substitute optics while making hunting less of a survival need. And the so-called "superbugs" would not exist without the antibiotics which give people survival advantage. Unless one believes God will provide an answer, it seems clear that technological dependency is being bred into the human genome. John, it is great to see some quantitative skepticism. Most people take no statistics courses or have little exposure to Simpson's paradox or other statistical fallacies. There is faith-based doctrine that goverment is their protector. Important thing is that although they are sometimes right, they are using force to pay for their research and that should make a person at least skeptical, not just of the statistical claims, but the recommended course of action. Anybody can prove cars kill people no matter how many safety features, so by an overkill recommendation you should smash your car as a precaution. I think to make recommendations, you have to factor in more than sound statistics, but also what are the long-term effects and goals. On a funnier note, one could probably do a rough analysis and prove death by car crash is more likely than you changing the outcome of a big election. So the CDC should be promoting staying home on those Tuesday election nights.

As I understand, evolution guides the human immune system -- the death of the least immune provides future generations with strengthened genes, survival of the fittest. I agree that not vaccinating is not going to be somehow helpful to a randomly selected child. But on large scale we have passed on vulneratbilities for a long time and people will be weaker with each generation. That main flaw of a long-term vaccine program seems scientifically undeniable,it is sabotage of naturally evolved immunity. It is similar to antibiotics, their overuse is now being admitted. Evolution proves treatment methods helpful in the short run can become harmful in the long run.

Anarchism does not mandate staying away from law and legal force. It may be just a last resort like self defense. Yes I admit that it seems hypocritical that an anarchist would ask the cops or fireman for help. But it's not when you consider they would only prefer to spend their money on a superior system, not pay for the current system and foolishly boycott it. If while under attack you suddenly needed a mafia guy to protect you, it is unwise to say "no, thanks I'll just sit here and die instead of being saved by evil mafia-guy". That admission does not make one a mafia-supporter. You would not say a mafia-opponent is "immobilized" in the same situation. I think you have a point though, and maybe some anarchist take this last-resort idea in an unclear way. Besides I don't accept that legal action is the only way. Social disapproval includes refusing to do business with somebody. The fact that single mothers can abduct their child and get material help tells me somebody is aiding their crime even when they are not required to do so. I was abducted solely for the money I could generate for her. I will be angry with everyone who I learn made it possible, and if I learn of a person who aided a similar crime, I won't do business with these predators.

I have stopped distinguishing between corporations and the state. The campaign contributions, bailouts and tax credits guarantee enough influence goes both ways to make the two things act as one. We should have learned in the 90's, with Microsoft being grilled for inclusion of a web browser (and witness subsequent lock-ins now standard on Apple, Mobile/Tablets,etc.), that a corporation does not get state goodies unless it pays up. The more a corporation donates to the politicians, the more it's abuses are ignored.