I'm not saying this to be a dick, but I can't understand many of your posts, so you may have dyslexia.
Or you post drunk a lot.
Guerillathon 2012.
New York rules its cool to look at kiddie porn
- Thread starter Scattered
- Start date
Or you post drunk a lot.
I'm curious to hear what you think.
Do you also think he committed an act of crime when he fap'ed, or looked?
What if he fap'ed but closed his eyes the entire time? Do you think the law should care about your personal interpretation of what's happening?
I speed type and don't proof every now and then i discliam that but over the last couple days it would be the ES Vicodin and anesthesia from having my teeth taken out yesterday hence why WF has also recieved alot of post from me yesterday and most likely today 
I've said it once I'll say it again you make a lot of valid points and then say something that just derails any thought of entertaining your train of thought
I've said it once I'll say it again you make a lot of valid points and then say something that just derails any thought of entertaining your train of thought
I won't answer it like that but my answer is if you put a child in any position that would be considered abuse (not going to argue what is abuse) it's a crime.
If you want to fap thinking about it or drawing anime as sick as that still is you technically haven't infringed on anyones rights that I am aware of and no crime has been committed.
That's ok with me. I am not looking for followers. Just signs of intelligent life.
I thought it was up to the individual to settle the dispute? Or at least could be up to the individual.
I think the dictionary definition of rational suffices. In a rational society, people should be able to resolve conflicts themselves. But people can't do that without acting irrationally, making a purely rational society dysfunctional and chaotic.
I think you're downplaying overwhelming emotion by calling it an exception. It's the dominating biological cause for irrationality in most people and it's something we're not even close to shaking as a species.
It's almost impossible because the government/state keeps criminal records tied in with things like your SSN, ID, etc. If there was no government to centralize these records the criminal could move to another state, cut his hair, and be a new person.
And as a side note (because I do consider myself to be an intellectually honest person), I notice that when I reply to your posts I don't like what I end up saying most of the time. That would indicate either a lack of understanding on some level, or just awkwardness in talking about a topic I'm not used to talking about. Is there a society that acts in the way you describe it? Are there any non-theoretical examples to look at?
I don't think this is true. With our consciousness and intelligence comes the ability to impartially determine what is "good" and what is "bad" for our species.
We have intelligence, and with intelligence comes reason. Is there any reason why something less profitable is more advantageous than something more profitable? It's a universal concept that exists with or without intelligence (and demonstrated by evolution), our intelligence gives us the ability to recognize it.
That's not why I think genocide is immoral. I think it's immoral because violence against innocent people is wrong.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg2yll0pgu0]How Science Can Determine Human Values - YouTube[/ame]
The individual can hire an agent, and use services.
I don't think it does, because I am talking about rationality in a scientific sense, not as popular language.
Can you post the definition you're using?
I'm not sure I understand this, but it's only an assertion afaict.
Can you substantiate it?
How much of the day are you overwhelmed by emotion?
So criminals can just change countries and they are home free?
Our current system creates the perception that things are as good as they can be, the only way they can be and that they are totally necessary.
In a free market for information, I suspect we would see a lot of innovation not unlike the innovation we see on the internet where information is concerned.
Also, in a free market, people could submit to DNA testing. That's going to be the norm in our society soon too. The state will actually slow down the adoption of that technology because it is susceptible to special interest groups, but certainly I think we can all see a future where we have unique biomarkers instead of keys and passports.
Elements of our society do it all the time.
I want to emphasize, the actual amount of theory (an often misused term) I talk about is small. I mostly talk about logical conclusions drawn from facts. That is, statements I make about the free market, or the consistency of ethics are usually coherent and consistent.
It's somewhat along the lines of, "you don't need to jump off a building to test if gravity works". You know how gravity works, you don't have to construct a theory every time you reference it.
Likewise, I know that freedom (ethical competition) will lead to a higher standard of living, and that peace (non-violence) is the only universally consistent ethical philosophy.
That's not theoretical, it's a priori true. You can prove those statements with discourse (which is ideal for forums).
To be honest, you really pissed me off awhile ago when you said that philosophy was a dead science or something along those lines.
Philosophy is essential because it is something we all use to interpret reality. Without a philosophy, there is no purpose to existence.
I have seen criticism of that science can interpret values video, but have not watched it myself. I intend to watch it today. If the premise is that empirical science can determine values, I am pretty sure it is wrong. Value is a psychological phenomenon. You can analyze the psyche, but you cannot make it empirical. (Cardine will disagree with this)
acting in your own self interest is not always rational not sure who told you that but you are wrong. . . example:Originally Posted by guerilla
Emotional != irrational.
Self interest is rational.
Logic is just congruence with the facts.
Perhaps you should do more reading into this subject. You're welcome to PM me about it.
If I rape someone because I was acting in my own self interest of wanting to get off that is not a rational action it is irrational of me to think I can do what I want and to further prove that acting in your own self interest can be irrational if anyone were to question if I should be punished for infringing on someone else's rights, my obvious self interest would lead me to tell you no I have done nothing wrong I was acting in my own self interest.
If you truly believe this, and want to apply it consistently then you're an anarchist.
intelligent people don't assume that they know everything the way you do. . . sorry. I have yet to meet one intelligent person who had all of life's answers, which you seem to think you have.
You don't even accept definitions out of a dictionary which is funny that you make your self the authority on what is right and what is wrong/acceptable.
Just because you believe something doesn't mean everyone else is wrong bro
Try living off of your high horse.
You can't be a subjectivist and think you have all of the answers.
I can't make myself an authority, only other people can do that. The irony is that I am an authority to you because YOU gave me that status, not because I asked for it.
What is right and wrong isn't up to me. I just point out contradictions.
See, you're personalizing this, which isn't an argument. I don't care if you don't like me, or you think I am arrogant.
I only really care if you can prove me wrong because I would like to be proven wrong, it would teach me something new.
So can you prove something I have said is wrong, or are you just going to attack me personally?
tl;dr Don't be a shitposter, be a goodposter.
That's the problem though people point out a different viewpoint and you ALWAYS say no your wrong or prove it or define it even though they already have. . . that doesn't not make you smart or right or disproven that's why I stated just becuase you believe it doesn't mean the rest of us have.
When I say you make your self an authority I am saying that you except your truth and no one elses no one can appoint that to you except you!
You do not point out contradictions you state your opinion.
You are on a high horse because you refuse to except anything that you don't agree with that just a fact bro no personalization intended.
We can't prove you wrong because of your unwillingness to except an alternate conclusion than the one you already formed.
Lukep has changed my mind on several things and has expanded my view on politics among other things. I've grow on this forum on a personal level I don't see yourself being able to say the same, but then again I don't monitor every one of your post.
I have already stated my claim that yes view kiddie porn is illegal, that is why this story was written to show that New York has taken a different stance one the issue and you then asked why is it wrong if it doesn't infringe on other peoples rights (which it does the childs right to privacy but you don't think kids have rights or something not sure how you don't get this). . . . and as mention you will simply say something like no you are wrong which makes you think that you have not been proven wrong but any logical person can see the fallacy in your weak argument.
warning didn't proof not even a glance over tl:dr
But can the individual choose to resolve the conflict himself?
"Relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason."
What I'm saying is that there are millions of cases of people handling conflict resolution themselves irrationally. A rational society would be based on the premise that most humans would be able to resolve their own conflicts rationally.
It would kind of depend on what we mean by overwhelmed. I'm constantly feeling emotions all day, but typically they don't lead to irrational action from me.
Isn't that how things currently exist? Unless they're an extremely notorious killer.
I could see that.
Stop making me be more libertarian than I want to be.
My statement about philosophy was admittedly one out of...overwhelming emotion.
I do still think that the more we use science to deduce truths, the less we use philosophy. But saying that is a leap of faith in saying that reality is purely scientific.
We'll have to wait for advances in neuroscience to definitively say that. It's still a fresh field that's incredibly complex.
Agree with some of the above. However, you suggest that anarchy is a good replacement for a government. Yet, it hasn't been able to ever exist. Ever wondered why? Because it isn't practical. You think we'd all be better with all the power in the hands of a few corporations whose sole purpose is profit? Then those few corporations would eventually consolidate to form a monopoly. With the establishment of a monopoly, the free market system of governance will come to an end.
Maybe when you stop rejecting everything that's doesn't fit your construct, you'll see how it can't work in the real life.
Understand that it is OK for all humans to be wrong sometimes.
Edit: Do you think Sharia law is a great replacement for the government? Clear it up for all of us. No clever response please
False. You live in a developed country. You haven't seen people dieing off diseases and hunger (for lack of financial help). You haven't seen people dieing off violence. Much worse stuff I don't want to mention here for now
I don't think it has a future. We'll see
Way too obvious. Who doesn't know lol
False. It is apparent that you refuse to be challenged. You may not be psychologically ready to realize it. Clever responses, sticking in definitions, personal attacks, calling others retards and peasants, ignore lists and focusing more on coming off as superior instead of focusing on making something useful out of the topic.
I'm sure many others can term it better than myself but I see your medical issues or young age envious ideological (or religious) influences to be the reason behind this kind of reasoning you have. See what I mean?
Lol don't worry I'm not promoting myself.
You wanted to call me a peasant. I know this from experience because you like to call others peasants and retards when you get too depressed and can't make any sense.
True. I won't. Lets just say I'm an ordinary internet marketer. I do share almost anything privately with friends all the time.
Define: state of mind, act like, think like, doesn't matter
So it is your subjective opinion that I'm a peasant in terms of state of my mind.
So lets say, just because my views don't fit your construct, I am a peasant?
I'd say you are a peasant in terms of making sense. You are a peasant in terms of taking criticism. And in terms of consistency too but mate, I don't know whether you are a peasant financially or not.
Keep believing that if that helps reduce your stress, lol. I am not bothered.
Embrace it. The principle of non-aggression toward peaceful peoples is beautiful. As guerilla noted, however, the consequences of applying it consistently presents philosophical challenges for some.
A good, short read:
The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism by Walter Block
^ applying it consistently is not a problem. . . the fact that he presents certain behaviors as those of a libertarian (such "looking" at child porn) are in fact not consistant with libertarian beliefs.
I'm staying away from this topic for three reasons:
1. guerilla has done a fantastic job, and any contribution of mine would only dilute the power of his.
2. my time is better spent on other things today.
3. my superpowers - phenomenally good looks and jaw-dropping charm - only work in person. To that end, I already had this philosophical battle this morning with a friend at Starbucks. I lack guerilla's stamina to continue online.