Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No, it's not. Metaphysical objectivity is a consequence of logic, and has no form outside human rationalization. The objectivity to which I refer is epistemological, and requires no preponderance beyond reason. Your being subjective isn't a concern of lexical semantics, but a calculus of propositional logic. It's true by its mere statement, language notwithstanding.Objectivity may be beyond humans.
It is a very simple concept. Behaviors that are detrimental to species survival (even if they superficially benefit the individual) tend to be weeded out. That leaves only behaviors that aid in species survival and those which do not hinder a species survival.Amongst such behaviors areThose that promote species interest (sometimes manifesting as altruism/empathy).Those that promote self interest (so long as they are not detrimental to the species) as individual survival is necessary for a viable species.Those that are incidental but not detrimental to species or individual survival.Those which once promoted species or individual survival but which no longer serve their purpose in an organism's current environment.
You said natural selection can help explain. What you've listed is merely superficial arguments of natural selection. Please elaborate further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The state obligates her to provide her time, labor, and resources to her infant. She may only relinquish this responsibility if only if she's able to transfer this responsibility to another (e.g. medical professionals, public servants, prospective adoptive parents, etc.) That makes her time, labor, and resources subject to the jurisdiction and arbitration of the State.If you'd be so kind as to rephrase this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If I were to say that you are subjective, is that not objective? (There's a mistake you're making, and 3RU7AL's mention of tautology can help you correct it.)Well of it is objective then it cannot be subjective. The two are mutually exclusive.
Each of these kinds of behaviors promotes survival of the special which is literally the only thin that natural selection rewards.
Elaborate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No, the State effectively controls the lands, roads, bridges, and the money. It does not "own" it. The State, is argued, to be the proxy of its constituents; therefore, they would "own" the land since their tax dollars are used in the alienation of land, roads, bridges, and even money. However, since there no single proprietors sustaining ownership of the lands, it's essentially owned by no one. But I digress.Because the state owns the land and the roads and the bridges and the money, but NOT HER BODY.
But to your point, if the State does not "own" her body, and I would agree, what would justify its "owning" her time, labor, and resources? She can only dispossess her obligation if she's able to legally alienate it to another, a rule which is created by the State.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That much I know. Hence, I'm challenging secularmerlin's response to individualism's capture of the "objective subjectivity" as erroneous.It's TAUTOLOGICAL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The argument, "humans are subjective" isn't objective?Firstly subjective and objective are dichotomous. If one then not the other.
Also natural selection can predict amd explain at least these four kinds of traits/behaviors.Those that promote species interest (sometimes manifesting as altruism/empathy).Those that promote self interest as individual survival is necessary for a viable species.Those that are incidental but not detrimental to species or individual survival.Those which once promoted species or individual survival but which no longer serve their purpose in an organism's current environment.
Provide the explanations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's basically the same as what you said.The mother has sole jurisdiction over her womb.When the life-form moves outside of that jurisdiction (womb) it is subject to the laws of that new land.
Isn't the mother's territory subject to the jurisdiction of the outside territory? To what extent is her territory independent from the outside territory which legislates, according to you, the very right to said territory?
Are her time, labor, and resources not part of her jurisdiction? Why does the state get to compel those, but not her body?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is not the slightest bit arbitrary.At birth the umbilical cord is cut and the mass of cells ceases to be a parasite, which is comprised of nearly 100% material from the host and instead at that moment, becomes a semi-autonomous citizen of the state.It moves from being inside the mother's sovereign territory and into the sovereign territory of the state.This is a type of migration.Applicable laws are based on jurisdiction.If you're standing in Croatia, then Croatia's laws apply to you.If you're standing in India, then India's laws apply to you.If you're inside another person, then you are at their mercy.
You're not necessarily contradicting my point. You argue only that this arbitration is subject to the jurisdiction of a territory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Because AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH IT BECOMES A CITIZEN WITH FULL HUMAN RIGHTS AND PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
And this is merely arbitrary with no justification other than the law's being the law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's not an appeal to motive because I'm not qualifying your arguments using your motives. I'm not stating, for example, that you're wrong because you're copping out; I'd be saying that you're inconsistent; and you're copping out. Mention of your intentions are merely supplemental; not informative.An appeal to motivation (amateur psychology) is a type of ad hominem attack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Once the baby is born, the mother can choose at any time to put it up for adoption.I don't understand your confusion.
Yes by putting it up for adoption she ensure its custody to someone else, on whom the fetus depends for time, labor, and resources. What if she just left it outside somewhere, or in her home without paying attention to its needs? That would be illegal because the mother is obligated to either provide sustenance or ensure that another custodian provides sustenance. No such obligations are present or recognized between a mother and her zygote/embryo/fetus/unborn child. And that's inconsistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Except for the fact that once an infant is born and granted a birth certificate, they are NOT 100% physically dependent on their host organism.That simple fact changes them from a parasite into an semi-autonomous being, no longer part-of-the-mother's-body.
Its physical dependence is analogous to the dependence an infant has on its mother's resources, time, and labor. She has a right to her body, but she doesn't have a right to the aforestated? How do you rationalize that?
Why do you believe genes are more important than nutrition?
I don't. I believe genes are relevant in the exercises of distinction.
This is an example of the dime-store-psychoanalysis fallacy.
No such fallacy is logically recognizable. Closest thing may be the "Freudian Fallacy" but that's a rhetorical title of a hit-piece.
This is an example of the dime-store-psychoanalysis fallacy.If you're curious about my intentions, feel free to ask.
I'm actually not curious about your intentions at all. I can make inferences based on your rationalizations. That is you support a woman's right to an abortion, but you also support releasing custody of infants as long as its an medical facility. That's the cop-out. That is the "means to justify."
Parents have historically had the option to release custody of their children.Some societies will even remove children by force if they determine the parent and or guardian is unfit.
Yes, but they have to ensure it's safe custody to a medical professional, public servant, and/or willing party. Would you so support a law that legitimize a woman's right to an abortion with the proviso that she ensures the zygote/embryo/fetus's safe custody inside the womb of another?
For example, [LINK]
Assuming of course one is emotional about atrocities. My mention of the rape wasn't to trigger your emotion. It was to test the consistency of your rationale. Rights being codified by consensus is all-encompassing. I took what I presumed to be a morally objectionable scenario and codified it with your premise to gauge whether or not rights are based on arbitration like consensus, or even regulation, or a prevalent moral standard.
Christian.We want land and these savages have the land we want, so we will kill them until they do what we say, and then we'll kill them some more just to show them whose the boss.
How do you know it was Christian?
You don't have a functioning society if you don't have enough bio-diversity to sustain human life.What you have in your example is a gang.Gangster ethics are another animal altogether.
I completely agree. In my society, we'd die off soon. But that's not the point. The scenario isn't meant to describe its own merits as a "functional" society. It's meant to elucidate your rationale. And I also agree that it's gangster ethics. And that's what democracy functions on: gangster ethics. You have gangs in the forms of lobbies, foundations, pacs, and social justice movements. It's not a different animal at all.
She was clearly unable to protect her own rights.
Was she? I never said she got raped. I asked whether our voting to rape her would dictate her right to her sovereign territory?
If you can't convince your tribe to follow you, then the unconvinced will either be left behind, will become free-riders, or will challenge you when the opportunity arises.
Or they can carry out their own imperatives. My point is that dissent doesn't constitute criminality.
The open-secret is that there is virtually zero-difference between the "two-parties".More than 49% still have tacit faith in the legal system.At a minimum they believe that if they step-out-of-bounds they will be severely punished.That at least motivates them to keep their heads down for the most part.
Agreed. So what does that suggest about the system?
Ideally we can persuade each other with logic.When logic fails, we use enticements (which creates [de facto] mercenaries).When enticement fails, we use fear-mongering (which creates [de facto] cowards).When fear-mongering fails, we use credible threats of violence (which creates [de facto] slaves).
Agreed. So which are you? An idealist, mercenary, coward, or a slave? [In case, you're wondering, I wouldn't consider myself either of the last two.]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Reading comprehension is key. My language reflected yours because my response was direct, not that my language reflected yours, hence it's direct.The directness of your language isn't a point of contention.
Well, I guess if it doesn't apply to you it doesn't apply to anyone, then.
Reading comprehension is key. I used myself as an example.
Again, when you are arguing that the minimum wage is sufficient when you add supplementary assistance then you are, in fact, arguing that the minimum wage is insufficient.
No. Even with the minimum wage, I conveyed it meets the costs of living you provided. More so, I also rebutted your claim of necessarily raising the minimum wage.
A minimum wage that exactly equals the cost of living is necessarily insufficient because of the non-zero chance of emergency or extreme situations. If you have to miss work for any reason, you are automatically less than the cost of living. If you have no emergency funds then there are innumerable emergency situations that can completely derail your life.
That's hypothetical, and in your own words, amount to nothing.
The context in which I am arguing is the well-established 40-hour work week, living on minimum wage alone. When you argue that minimum wage is fine, once you add assistance programs and overtime, you are conceding my point.
I am most certainly did not. Your point is that it's necessary to raise the minimum wage to meet the cost of living. I've rebutted that through the demonstration of calculating the annual salary of minimum wage workers as well as providing possible government programs to help mitigate the costs of living.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The zygote/embryo/fetus is functionally a parasite that shares some dna with each parent, but 100% of its food supply (and therefore its biomass) is provided by the mother exclusively.The zygote/embryo/fetus is-itself less than 1% "father" and over 99.999% "mother".Also, 100% of the physical risk of permanent physiological change and or disfigurement is borne by the mother.
If we broaden that which we consider parasitic, or even analogize, infants are no different. They consume resources at the expense of their custodians. And those proportions need work. (I know you're attempting a conceptual rhetoric intended to reflect the proportions of labor and resources, but my point was about the genes.) And you don't have to convince me. I agree with most of what you said. But trivializing the life of a zygote/embryo/fetus is a cop-out. It's also cognitive dissonance. It's means to justify abortion, while also obligating parents/custodians to an infant's care when reflecting the logic back. I reconcile the justification for an abortion by removing all obligation a parent has to its child. Anything less is contradiction.
Appeals to atrocity trigger a shut-down of the pre-frontal-cortex, impeding reasonable thought.
Does it, now?
If you are a perfectly isolated society, then you can do whatever you can convince the group is best WITHOUT FEAR OF LEGAL HAZARD.
True. But are rights merely legal privileges, or is there particular meaning in referring to it as a "human right"?
Yes. For example, [LINK]
What moral economy did that reflect?
Interesting, your entire society is comprised of 11 males and only one female?I'm pretty sure you're going to die.
Well, 10 of us will--maybe 9. But the point still stands.
You mean like the woman in your example?
Yes.
Everyone you fail to convince is a likely criminal.
That's not true. They could be indifferent, or impartial.
Can a society function with 49% criminals? Probably not.
In the context of the U.S. two-party system, how would that apply?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
The written/typed word is an excellent resource.No, you said "No it isn't" to the statement "Minimum wage is insufficient." If the minimum wage is sufficient, then I can only ask to what problem you are offering a solution to.
You:
I:There is a need for a higher minimum wage right now. When the government has implemented your magical solutions and there isn't a need for a higher minimum wage, we can readdress the issue.
No, there isn't. Even if one were to argue that the minimum wage is meant to reflect the cost of living, the solution would then be to address the cost of living, rather than artificial nominal increases in wages (which price out low-skilled labor.) Your logic is consistent with political narrative of addressing the national debt. Rather than find ways to reduce it, the solution is often argued to be taxation and bailouts.
Do you see how my language reflected yours? My response was direct. And every statement I made afterwards, supplemented my point.
You're right, I presumed that people would need to be able to get places and wear clothes. How outrageous of me. I also presumed they would need a place to live and food to eat. I did not consider that they would be naked hobos walking everywhere and eating out of trash cans.
Neither martyrdom nor sarcasm helps your argument. It's a legitimate query. Using myself as an example, I make well above the minimum, and I don't spend $50 a month on clothing. Not to mention I live in area with a high cost of living. Assuming that the cost of clothing is recurring like utilities or even food has little to no substantiation. Now clothing may not be defined as a durable good, but it's certainly not a perishable good.
Okay so you're saying that minimum wage + government assistance is required, which concedes that minimum wage isn't sufficient.
No, your argument is that there's a need for a higher minimum wage because the current minimum wage isn't commensurate to the cost of living. I rebut this by not only arguing that your position lacks insight of other factors like welfare/entitlement programs which are available to minimum wage workers, but also even when calculating the salary of minimum wage workers, they make more than the cost of living you provided.
The solution to a substandard wage shouldn't be "well just work more." We got rid of overbearing work weeks for a reason. They're inhumane.
An average 43.5 hours a week is inhumane? That's 8 hours and 42 minutes a day.
If that's all you can presume, then your imagination needs a bit more work.
Take my counsel or leave it. It's of no consequence to me either way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It certainly does matter.Imagine that you invite a friend over to your house for an evening and then ask them to leave.About three months later, you find that they left a small mass of cells growing under your kitchen sink.Now this mass of cells is symbiotically connected to your electrical system and your water lines and has been eating small amounts of food from your cabinets, and you figure out pretty quickly that if you don't remove this thing, it's going to cost you a lot of money in supplies and it may even permanently change the shape of your house.
Perhaps the analogy requires a combination of both your cells and their cells which would then later form the symbiosis. And as I mentioned before, I am against abortion, but I do not contend against a woman's right to evacuate her womb. And while your description is apt, particular the nature of the symbiosis between parent and zygote/embryo/fetus, the symbiosis doesn't offer the zygote/fetus/embryo the right to coerce its mother. But that's not the subject of my contention. I'm saying that the fetus is its own distinct living being, and platitudes against this not only have little justification but are unnecessary. The mother's right over her womb is absolute.
It never takes long for someone to trot-out the old, "appeal to atrocity" argument.
Because your statement about rights is all-inclusive, even atrocities would be subject to this consensus. Do you disagree?
If you are a perfectly isolated society, then you can do whatever you can convince the group is best.
Rights are not about what one can do. There are laws against murder, but there are those who still murder because they "can." Rights are concepts which delineate a moral economy. You called it an atrocity for a reason. Can an atrocity reflect said moral economy by mere consensus?
CONSENSUS =/= 51%
consensus does not not equal 51%. And if my calculations are correct, my scenario conveyed a 91% majority.
For example, if the assaulted woman feels she has been treated unfairly, then she may flee the group, or cause direct harm to individuals within your group.
Careful now, your arguments are aligning with my own.
History teaches us that treating people atrociously usually ends badly.
Wouldn't that suggest that individuals enforce their own rights?
HOWEVER, If you are within the boundaries of a larger society, then you may have to explain your actions to the authorities.
How much of that large society's consensus is enough, then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I agree! I have provided my side. Your response (to the truth of A) is: no it isn't.
No. You provided your side, and I responded, no it isn't because reducing the cost of living would be the solution, rendering your argument about the necessity of higher minimum wage, which I also submitted prices out low-skilled workers, rebutted.
I disagree with that characterization of my argument. I provided actual, real numbers that demonstrate how, even in the best of circumstances, minimum wage fails to provide for such a life. You certainly can dismiss them as superficial, nothing I can do about that.
I characterized your numbers as superficial because you presume two things: recurring transportation costs, and recurring clothing costs. Furthermore, you also presumed recurring 3 figure health insurance cost, especially when there are government programs which offer it for much less. Now if we were to take your numbers, and compare them nominally in a year, the cost of living would be $14,820 and a salary with minimum wage would be $15,080 for an average 40 hour work week. And that includes your presumptions.
Now let's consider adding the average overtime, which is at an average of 3.5 hours per week and valued at time and a half, that adds $1,887.34 of income ($16,967.34.) If we negate your clothing expense and gauge them as a fixed yearly expense at four hundred dollars, the cost of living reduces to $14,620. If one were to apply for food stamps, we can eliminate the cost of food entirely, making the cost of living $12,220. If we substitute public transportation for a bicycle (of course this is contingent on the distance between one's home and desired destination) we can shave off another 900 dollars ($11, 320.)
Essentially, your numbers are superficial because the cost index is superficial. It doesn't consider enough variables, much less the government programs available which mitigates such costs--not that I would endorse such programs, but they are there.
I generally respond to the level of effort I am given. In this case: "No it isn't."
Your reading comprehension needs a bit more work--that or your approach. If that's all you read into my statement is "No it isn't," then all I can presume is that's all you were capable of reading, or all you were willing to read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What is the source of the raw material that they zygote utilizes?
It doesn't matter. No one disputes that the sperms cells fertilize ovum to create zygotes. Your argument is that the sperm cell lives just as much as any other cell, and that's true. My argument is that a zygote's having its own genome renders it a distinct being, as opposed to a sperm cell which merely extends its emitter's genome. Emitting sperm would be no different than chopping off one's own finger. (Surely that isn't in an infraction against its owner.) But if I were to coerce and chop off someone else's finger, that would be a violation.
Human rights are codified and enforced by human consensus.
So if 10 of my boys and I voted unanimously to rape a woman in our group, our consensus would dictate her "sovereign territory" as you put it?
And if you're going to argue that 11 people aren't enough to establish a consensus, then how many people would be enough?
Human rights are a manifestation of our human survival instinct.
And this means...?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'd say "bestowed" upon issuance of a birth certificate.
Who or what creates rights if not the "bestowers"? And if they can be bestowed, can they not be rescinded?
What is a human sperm made out of?Human cells.100% human cells.Is a human sperm alive?A human sperm can die, ipso-facto, it is alive if it isn't dead.I'm not really sure how much more I can try and simplify this.Please let me know if you have any questions.
Yes, but a zygote has its own distinct human genome, where as a sperm cell shares its genome with its emitter. You can then argue that the sperm cell is merely an extension of its emitter, much like a finger, or an internal organ. The same cannot be said for the zygote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
It doesn't really matter what you call it. It's basically "If A then B."
No, it's not. It's a conditional elliptical statement. Let's examine:
"Even if one were to argue that the minimum wage is meant to reflect the cost of living, the solution would then be to address the cost of living, rather than artificial nominal increases in wages (which price out low-skilled labor.)"
I'm not arguing the solution is a consequence of one's arguing the minimum wage reflects the cost of living. That as makes no sense grammitically or logically. The statement here can be expressed as,
"Even if one were to argue that the minimum wage is meant to reflect the cost of living, [I would argue] the solution would then be to address the cost of living, rather than artificial nominal increases in wages (which price out low-skilled labor.)"
My leaving out the subject, auxiliary, and verb, makes the statement elliptical. So the hypothetical you allege isn't the content, but the act of my response.
I can argue till I'm blue in the face that that logical connection (A > B) is true. At the end of the day you can just go "Well sure, but A isn't true anyway so it doesn't matter."
So then we argue over the truth of A. We may have to establish or reference some axioms, but I wouldn't presume that you're arguing the minimum wage's necessity is self-evident, right?
It's necessary for any debate or conversation to start with some shared premise. Regardless, I have substantiated that premise throughout this thread. If you have specific points you'd like to address, you are welcome to do so.
Actually, no you haven't. Your premises themselves are yet-to-be substantiated arguments. (e.g. cost of living where you used superficial numbers from Columbus Ohio.)
Ok, fair enough. But it doesn't change anything. If part of your argument is contingent on the minimum wage being insufficient then it all is, unless we're talking about two independent arguments.
Yes, there are independent arguments. One deals with the nominal increases in the wage, and the other deals with the cost of living. I argue that rather than risk pricing out low-skilled labor (those who work minimum wage jobs) and facilitating price inflation, we ought to consider reducing the cost of living where we can.
It's hypothetical because it is based on a premise you don't accept (that minimum wage is insufficient).
That's not how the hypothetical operates.
Then I guess we're done here. As stated I perfectly understand what you are saying. As it stands, I am unmoved. If you have nothing further to elaborate on or add to the conversation, I suppose that's it, then.
Far be it from me to compel you to engage. A simple, "I don't want/intend to argue" would suffice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
No, it isn't (mere negation.)It is:
Me: "There is a need for a higher minimum wage right now."You "No, there isn't."What follows is a hypothetical scenario contingent upon a premise you don't accept
"What follows" is analogical reasoning, as well as an inductive counterargument using the minimum wage's strongest argument (cost of living.)
But since you don't accept the premise, there is no point in addressing the argument, is there?
You can attempt to substantiate your premise rather than presuppose that we must agree on/accept it first.
I spent the past 10 days going round and round with Christen and when we even got a modicum of concession or agreement, he disappears. At least he was arguing from premises he actually accepted. What's the point here? Let's say I spend the next 10 days arguing with you and, at the end of those 10 days, you agree with all of my conclusions.
To quote you:
It's all irrelevant
There is no point in arguing the consequences of it if you don't accept it. Any starting ground should start with shared premises.
Your premise can be accepted if its well-substantiated. I don't understand that reason you'd presume that it should be accepted beforehand.
How can part of it be sufficient but not all of it? Part of the minimum wage is less than the minimum wage. How can less than the minimum wage be enough to live off of, but all of the minimum wage not be enough to live off of? That is nonsensical.
You argued my following statement, which you allege came after a mere negation, was contingent on the minimum wage's being insufficient. And, I conceded that part of it was. The "part" is in reference to my following statements, not the minimum wage itself.
You tell me. You decided to respond to me. What is your end game.
To initiate you in a discussion over the necessity of a higher minimum wage, as you put it.
1. "Nuh uh."
False.
2. "Here is a hypothetical situation that amounts to nothing because I don't agree with the premise anyway."
Not "hypothetical." It's analogical. And once again, your position operates on expecting agreement rather than establishing agreement.
If you have anything to elaborate on that, please, do so at your convenience. You don't need my permission.
I wasn't asking permission. It was a courtesy extended to help explain any parts you may have not understood or parts which I may not have communicated well enough. But if no elaboration is necessary, then there is no reason to offer one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Rights, in your judgement then, are created when a government issues a birth certificate?Traditionally, citizenship (with its associated rights and legal protections) starts when a birth certificate is issued by the proper governing authority.
Created:
Posted in:
Morality's being objective depends on its premise; and there's only one objective premise: self-interest. We can then rationalize and argue that which best maximizes self-interest, and minimize infractions or violations of it. Hence, individualism is objective morality because it embodies the objective subjectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Part of what? You either reject the premise that minimum wage is sufficient or you don't.
You forgo a response because you allege my argument amounts to nothing more than a negation. I then contend that it wasn't mere negation and that reading it more comprehensively would make that clear. You offer that my argument is contingent on the minimum wage's not being sufficient, to which I concede a part of it is. I reciprocate, and offer to elaborate on the parts you deem necessary. You then render a conclusion in dichotomous fashion that a mere negation or affirmation suffices.
What's the end game, here?
What's the end game, here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No. If it were defensive, then disarming the missiles and/or rendering them useless would've been imperative. In other words, the Russians should've been aiming for the Turkish boarder. The Russians' placing missiles in Cuba was a threat of retaliation (revenge.)But isn't the second threat merely defensive (and thus morally pure)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is rather simple since it's chronological. Since the U.S. placed missiles on the Turkish border first, the U.S. "started" it. Now, if you're asking who "initiated aggression," they both did. And a simple analogy will suffice:In your opinion, who started it?
I'm the Turkish border soldiers. and I have a gun pointed at you. You, Russia, take this as a threat as you should. You manage to call your friend Cuba, and tell him to point a gun at my friend, the U.S. (The mention of these countries are for location, not necessarily affiliation.) What happened? Two threats have been initiated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Some of it, yes.The rest of your post is contingent on the minimum wage not being sufficient. Do you concede that?
On which part would you like me to elaborate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
#exposed
My thoughts exactly (except the hashtag. I don't subscribe to "twit" culture.)
Enjoy your day, and your future debates, sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Enjoy your day, and your future debates, sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
My response wasn't a mere negation. (Perhaps the first sentence was. But there are more.) Read it more comprehensively.If you're only response amounts to "Nuh uh," then I have no response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That is a very scary state of mind you have,
A state of mind you've yet to make clear or substantiate.
I hope you do what you do in an obvious way and get caught some day.
Do you mean argue with a consistent logic rather than cryptic nonsense? Guilty as charged.
You have no grounds to preach to me, you are from the position of a morally devoid criminal wanting to get away with your crimes.
Enjoy your day, and your future debates, sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It is very sad that you are in this state of mind. I hope you get help before it's too late.
What is my state of mind?
You will notice in your utopia
Reasonable people do not presume "utopia." This is merely projection.
you can get your head cut off and at the same time your mother can be raped and everyone can laugh at it and cheer them on
Where are you getting that from? And how does any government prevent your hypothetical? Let's assume I have criminal intentions, and I go knock on my neighbor's door. She lets me in, where I'll proceed to decapitate her son and rape her on top of his deceased corpse. I then invite my boys to watch and cheer me on as I do it. Sure, I'll likely be arrested but that doesn't mean that the government prevented me from committing this horrible crime. It can only hold me post facto accountable. Legislation can serve as a deterrent, surely, but that ultimately is a warning. So essentially, even with government, "you can get your head cut off and at the same time your mother can be raped and everyone can laugh at it and cheer them on." Why are these platitudes argued as unique to anarchy? No idea.
all can do what they want when they want how they want.
And this creates a natural equilibrium. This doesn't much change the risk in engaging another person, i.e. initiation of aggression. If I attempt to rob someone's home, what stops them from fatally wounding me on their porch? Why would that be a risk I consider now, and not in anarchy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I honestly believe that if you are an anarchist you need mental health assistance.
Ad hominem, or false equivalence? Take your pick.
This is not at all mocking them, I promise you this because at some point in my life I was one.
So you were at one point in your life "in need of mental health assistance"?
If you honestly want to abolish all government, have unfettered freedom and absolutely no money or capitalist means of strategising society, you have reached a stage of severe delusion and depression.
You don't understand anarchy. Anarchy isn't a position against money or capitalist means; it's one against hegemonic centralization. But your points aren't really substantial; just of a levying of ad hominems.
If you believe in anarchy as an end-goal
I do.
you need to seek mental assistance from a professional before it's too late.
Never needed it.
I will like anyone, anarchist or not, to defend against this.
There isn't much to defend. You are clearly expressing an opinion, the sustenance of which cannot be falsified. Your OP is more a hit-piece than a facilitation of discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
No, there isn't. Even if one were to argue that the minimum wage is meant to reflect the cost of living, the solution would then be to address the cost of living, rather than artificial nominal increases in wages (which price out low-skilled labor.) Your logic is consistent with political narrative of addressing the national debt. Rather than find ways to reduce it, the solution is often argued to be taxation and bailouts.There is a need for a higher minimum wage right now. When the government has implemented your magical solutions and there isn't a need for a higher minimum wage, we can readdress the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think that the differences between men and women are all that complicated. And given that Male and Female are distinctions in sex, one can infer that the differences between men and women are primarily sexual, a la reproductive. Men have 525 billion sperm cells over their lifetimes while women have just 400 ovum. Their interaction is economical; hence, women are reasonably more selective and men less so. And because a woman's capacity to reproduce was far more scarce, her activity was naturally restricted (as with any scarce resource, the capacity for usus fructus and abusus are heavily regulated.) Furthermore, the neotenous physical characteristics of even adult females have associated them, perhaps relegated them, to children (i.e. "women and children.") The female psychological profile even is on par with that of child, especially as it concerns self-image, fear, embarrassment, and anxiety. My mention of this is contextualize the nonsensical feminist argument that women have historically been oppressed. By that same reasoning, one must admit that children are currently being "oppressed."
Adult females, like children, have been the beneficiaries of their counterparts' labor. Sure, this meant men had plenary authority, but as any parent would tell you, this authority presumes plenary liability. And that was the case. A man did not just have authority over the woman but he was responsible for her. Feminist sought to extract themselves from the yolk of this "oppression" by condemning the sex-based pretext and replacing it with an age-based one. Hence, feminism has no consistent logic. Its end is primarily emotional, which is facilitated by state subsidization (taxes paid predominantly by men.)
What is equality really, if not a morass of unresolvable nebulous emotions? I'll believe in "equality" when a wine-drinking, pregnant 12 year-old female teleiophile can run for president without the aforestatsd attributes being an issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I consider a veiled threat (perceived threat) an initiation of violence.
I concur if and only if the threat is immediately tied or embodied in the initiation of aggression. If it's anything like your earlier examples, then I would disagree.
Someone pointing a gun in my face is an explicit threat.
I agree. In the case with Tommy and Henry from Goodfellas, it's clear they're joking around, so Henry used discretion.
Someone showing up at my home at strange hours with a gun strapped to their hip is a veiled (implicit) threat.
What if it's a sibling or a friend? I'm not suggesting that a sibling or friend can't threaten you, but would it change your approach?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What part of that scene illustrates a threat of any sort?Try this one, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E84VqqCPI7w
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is a simple matter of Standards-of-Evidence.
This is tautological; in any discussion of moral framework, the arguments are clearly normative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In practice, does this "property right" provide an implicit right-to-privacy?
No. Only the property right is sustained. Take this for an example: my neighbor is an attractive woman. Our bedroom windows face each other. I happen to walk by said window when she's undressing in her bedroom. She notices my gaze and states, "you're violating my 'privacy'." She would be wrong. I am on my property and pointing my eyes in a particular direction. I have not violated anything--i.e. impaired her capacity to usus fructus and abusus. My staring merely makes her (understandably) uncomfortable. Now, as the bearer of the property right to her home and presumably the contents within it, she has every right to shut her blinds and/or curtains. She however cannot compel me to redirect my gaze as an extension of her "right to privacy." If I do comply, it's a courtesy, not of an extension of her right.
Violence.
Toward him? Where in that statement did he insinuate violence?
Not personally.
Then it's not a threat at all. The statement of intention to initiate physical harm is neither immediately tied nor embodied in the initiation of aggression.
Unknown.
Then it's not a threat at all. The statement of intention to initiate physical harm is neither immediately tied nor embodied in the initiation of aggression.
The apparently spontaneous personal interest and the direct reference to jury duty.
So?
Intimidate.
Intimidate with what exactly? Battery? Murder? Tax Fraud?
You're extending merely the reputation of Eugenne and arguing that his words are threatening without any solid connection. (While that makes for good drama, it doesn't necessarily convey anything.) Now if Eugene were to have encountered Danny and shot a man in front of him and afterwards stated "this man didn't do the 'right thing'" then Danny can presume he was threatened because he can then associate "the right thing" as a statement of intention to initiate aggression since the statement of "the right thing" is immediately tied and embodied in the initiation of aggression (the shooting of the aforementioned individual.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no way for you to know what your neighbor is doing on their private real-estate-territory without violating their personal-privacy.
Really? What if I've been to the house, as well as the basement, and seen it? Where in my scenario did I ever state that he was hiding the bomb? Or that he never invited anyone over to his home?
Does your "individualism" include personal-privacy protection?
Why are you scare-quoting individualism? And no, it does not. Privacy is a euphemism for property right. Under it's current colloquial expression, I contend one can pay attention to whatever one pleases. But I cannot (ought not) violate a property right without moral accountability.
If a person, who has a reputation for violence, shows up unexpectedly and demonstrates they have personal knowledge of and a particular interest in you and or your loved ones, this can reasonably be interpreted as a credible implicit threat.
So if a professional Boxer told me the same thing, it would be an implicit threat? And an implicit threat of what? You haven't answered the questions I posed earlier.
The key difference between the mafia threat and the insurance salesman is that only the mafia threat demonstrated personal knowledge of and a particular interest in the individual in question.
This doesn't matter; one doesn't need personal knowledge or "interest" in a particular individual. And honestly, there isn't much difference between our examples. My example played on lexical semantics; your example may in fact convey a threat, but that clip alone, doesn't constitute much. How does Danny know Eugenne? Has he ever witness a violent act by Eugenne? Were those words ever associated with Eugenne's violent acts? Where in Eugenne's statement can his intention be deciphered? What is Eugenne intending to do?
[And just for the sake of your knowledge, I've never watched "The Sopranos."]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This scenario is beyond your epistemological limits.
How is that beyond my epistemological limits?
This is a veiled threat - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTFV78kON9o
Or he may be trying to sell him insurance: Jury Duty (watch to the 13:00 mark)
In your example, where in that coded message do you believe the threat is being made? Where is the statement of intention? And exactly what is he threatening?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
So trade in my "Bugatti' for a "Ford Sienta"? No thank you.The overall idea is that rather then having a gun buyback program, where the government gives cash for guns they want to see off the streets and offer market value for them, to instead use a gun exchange program. In this program, people who own guns that the US or the public has, for whatever reason, decided they dont want out on the streets, can bring in those guns and trade them for different guns and ammunition, where the exchange is in their favor and is still optional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We've been through this:
What about implicit threats? What about perceived threats? Are "pre-emptive strikes" legitimate responses to implicit threats, or are they naked "acts of aggression"?
I'll use examples:1. My neighbor has an armed bomb in his basement that can take out a city block; up until the moment the bomb explodes, my neighbor has done me no harm. However, if that bomb were to detonate, there's no question that I would be affected.2. A person points a firearm at me. The person states that he intends to kill me. Up until the moment he discharges his weapon, he has done me no harm. However, if that firearm were to discharge, there's no question that I would be affected.The threat must be immediately tied and embodied in the initiation of aggression.
Being rude in an of itself doesn't constitute a threat of aggression (initiation and/or act of physical harm); And veiled threat? In what context? A veiled threat is oxymoronic--if it's "veiled" then which intention is my threat "stating"? Give an example you believe fits my description.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@3RU7AL:
The corporations funnel money into a shell company registered as a CHARITY.These are con-artists.The legislators they sucker into thinking they've got great ideas that will appeal to their voters are morons.
Your interpretation of the video you cited was that these legislators were "suckered," rather than legislators and lobbyists using the Charity as a front to exchange legislation for money? Why do you assume that these legislators are oblivious rather than complicit?
Think of it this way:
A man is married to a woman who'd eventually cheat on him and have an affair. Who's the con-artist? The woman who made a commitment to the man and later shirked it, or her partner who has no obligation to the man, and his role was that he wined and dined man #1's wife and sold her on the idea of the affair?
@secularmerlin:
I am not responsible for your wellbeing but that does not justify me shooting you.
You are if I threaten you with harm. Once I initiate aggression, your obligation is to end the aggression or the threat thereof. It isn't your responsibility to gauge how your actions will affect me, especially if you're placed under duress. If I initiate any sort of physical conflict particularly aggression, I automatically risk my person even my life in an altercation. That is a prospect I must consider; and if I proceed, then the liability of that prospect befalls me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please watch this, [LINK]
So once again, who's putting on the con? The legislators who presume to represent their base, or the lobbyists who represent their companies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
@secularmerlin:
There is world of difference between shouldering responsibility for someone's wellbeing and being justified in shooting them and I just don't think shooting an unaarmed person is ever justified. They are unarmed.
What is this "world's difference"?
@3RU7AL:
Good point. You must establish legal-standing (ostensibly by violating the mother's privacy, and by extension, the privacy of all mothers).
So then why must she leave the child, as you pointed out earlier, at a "medical facility"? If she were to have a home birth, couldn't she just leave the child there and exercise her right to privacy by doing nothing?
It could also be considered a suicide if, under Athias' hypothetical moral standard, "the aggressor ('the big guy') is responsible for any and all defensive actions taken against them".
Another sophistic argument. Suicide is the act itself; the responsibility under my proposed moral standard is moral accountability/liability.
Are you familiar with Voluntarism?
Yes.
It is also a major contributor to OPPRESSION.
It also contributes to low self-esteem, lying, drinking, cheating, bullying, etc. but none of the aforestated informs the context of this discussion. It wouldn't be unreasonable to presume that fear is a component in self-defense. The extent of said fear need not inform the one who's the "bigger scaredy-cat."
That's public knowledge.How does that mesh with your "individualism" moral framework?Are some people "more" individual than others?
That was a joke.
The law should be logically coherent and fair (no respector of specific person's or entities).
So who's the real "con-artist"? The corporations are neither hiding nor are they tricking public officials into passing laws. They're not doing anything overtly illegal; so who's putting on the con? They or the entity which claims to represent the interests of the people over whom it presides?
Isn't that the essence of campaign contributions? When one donates to a campaign, whether it be one dollar, five dollars, 10, etc. are they too not paying to see a legislator pass law that benefits their own interests? Should campain contributions end?
The law should be logically coherent and fair (no respector of specific person's or entities).
The law should be independent from government arbitration? So then who or what determines law?
What about implicit threats? What about perceived threats? Are "pre-emptive strikes" legitimate responses to implicit threats, or are they naked "acts of aggression"?
I'll use examples:
1. My neighbor has an armed bomb in his basement that can take out a city block; up until the moment the bomb explodes, my neighbor has done me no harm. However, if that bomb were to detonate, there's no question that I would be affected.
2. A person points a firearm at me. The person states that he intends to kill me. Up until the moment he discharges his weapon, he has done me no harm. However, if that firearm were to discharge, there's no question that I would be affected.
The threat must be immediately tied and embodied in the initiation of aggression.
And furthermore, doesn't the law itself derive its legitimacy through threat of force?
So then, what can you infer from every regulation being codified with the threat of (lethal) force?
Is your "individualism" logically-compatible with a legal framework?
Bingo. No, it isn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
An applicable definition of sacrifice courtesy of Merriam-webster..."a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something elseb : something given up or lost"A child is clearly being given up. A child is clearly being destroyed for the sake of not having to deal with it.
Fair enough. As long as that's the operant definition, and not, for example "ritualistic murder" as the contraction implies, then I'll accept your description.
I didn't say sex creates an obligation, you did, and then you asked if in vitro fertilization creates an obligation, as if anyone who would go through such a thing would have an abortion to begin with(if someone would, they are sick in the head).
I did. And you attempted to inform it by stating that if one didn't want to have a baby, they shouldn't have sex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I believe that The United States in particular(really, the country I am most familiar with)has a very unhealthy and immoral(or amoral?) attitude towards sex, and abortion, like so many other things, is a very ineffective bandaid to grapple with a society given over to sexual immorality. I say it is ineffective because sexual immorality is not seen as the issue, but pregnancy itself.Sexual immorality will in the long term destroy society if there isn't a widescale revolt against it.
Other than characterizing the sexual behavior as "immoral," (instead I would characterize it as dysfunction or destructive) I in fact agree with you. (It's one of the reasons I am personally against abortion.) The only difference is, I sustain that the solution should be subscribed by willful individuals not prescribed by legal force.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It's not child-sacrifice. To whom would you suggest they're being sacrificed?Lets get it straight. We are talking about child sacrifice. I don't need a legal justification for finding it abominable.
And you're correct in that you don't need legal justification to sustain a perspective. I'm not challenging that. I'm challenging the statement that sex creates an obligation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How can anything be considered illegal when you have con-artists writing their own laws?
How are they con-artists?
This legislation is clearly in conflict with the function of a peaceful and civil society.
Peaceful society? Doesn't/Shouldn't the state arbitrate the standards which bring about a peaceful society?
Does your "individualism" encourage people to shoot everyone they're afraid of with impunity?
No, only those who'd initiate aggression (or threat thereof) which necessitates and effective end.
Created: