the Civil War by "strengthening" it against potential European invaders and, thus, achieved a better utilitarian outcome (even went so far as to suggest the 600,000 dead to be possibly less than what a European country might do). The only limit utilitarianism puts on its rationalizations is the human imagination--very shaky ground, indeed. Every statist might call himself (and most do explicitly) a utilitarian.
I should also mention regarding Utilitarianism. It isn't a strong foundation with which to build a belief system. If you want to achieve "the most good for the most people" (I think it's better said as 'Justice' and 'Liberty'--absolute ideals), you can only achieve that through deontological Libertarianism. Utilitarianism is subject to all kinds of rationalizations, statist or otherwise. For example, I had a conversation yesterday with someone who said that Lincoln saved the Union through
However, I should say I find many problems with the conventionally understood God, not even getting into Judeo-Christianity. I find a lot of good sense in pantheism. There's a number of problems with the concept of creating from a void and thinking of God in terms of how Man views himself. Overall, though, I look at myself as Deist where I can come to subtely experience God through rational metaphysics. I call this Beauty. You're probably thinking in the back of your mind I'd make a great
Many products/ingredients we consume are a result of an interventionist government. For example, sugar; in high demand but think about the real reason HFCS is in everything.
Since obama is making healthcare a public concern, everyone's health becomes everyone's problem. The salt restrictions will be the first in a long line of regulations designed to keep people "healthy" and reduce the healthcare costs for the government.
Information is key. People need to know harmful effects of too much salt, rather than government telling food makers to put less salt. That will never work and it's too much power to the government.
The EPA study on secondhand smoke did not confidently (neither 99% nor 95% interval) correlate cancer with its exposure. Scientists rejected the move to a lower confidence interval, but the EPA wanted the "proof" even at the expense of truth.
You guys who take this "fact" at face value need to realize secondhand smoke has NOT been proven to cause cancer. You may wish to simply not be around it. But, don't be brainwashed by junk science.
I agree, the tyrants will go that far. For they are psychopaths. Psychopaths are drawn to power and money like a moth to a flame, having neither emotion nor empathy. Psychopaths make up one percent of the human population, yet are not human. They lie, manipulate, cheat and kill to get whatever they want. It is time for us to hunt what preys on us all.
I still can't reason why a drug addict has the right to expose me or anybody else to the byproduct of their vice. It is neither medicinal nor nutritional.
I hate smoking and I think it is a stupid habit and I don't want people smoking in my face. Many people have serious allergies to second hand smoke (as do I). Second hand smoke and first hand smoke is essentially the same thing, excepting the concentration.
On the other hand, smoking is YOUR RIGHT! You have the right to be stupid. All attempts to outlaw stupidity are doomed to failure.
I don't think arguing that you have a right is an effective technique. People disagree on the definition of right, where rights come from, etc.. I don't even buy the logical argument from first principals in favor of rights. It contains a clear non sequitur fallacy because you cannot derive an ought from an is.
I think it is more effective to argue against illegitimate rights, to say that people DON'T have a right to rule over you, because there's no logical argument that they do.
You nihilists may not admit it, but you carry with you almost as many presuppositions. No one is a blank tabula rasa. You couldn't make sense of the world if you didn't possess certain a priori principles.
Just because I don't think you can prove a right from first principals alone, doesn't mean I oppose arguments from first principals or presuppositions. If you don't think 2 plus 2 equals 5, I wouldn't assume you oppose using math.
Morals cannot be determined from first principals unless you add in a person's values. Then you can determine the preference that person should have in order to fulfill those values.
lol, so you nihilists have values for convenience's sake. Oh, how tragic. One cannot ever see the beauty and order of Nature from such a dysfunctional position.
Tell me, what values does your person possess in order to reject statist control yet not agree with Liberty? Because statist control simply inconveniences you? Existence and Nature must be dead to you.
The ought-is problem does not invalidate the existence of "oughts." Why do they exist in our speech?
if we're simply to take what a situation is as the final reality? Was it all a game in realizing that what is is what should be?
Finally, you feel the state's assertions are unfounded as well as the Classical Liberals'. So, do you debate ever stepping out of your home? Breathing in air? You may not have the right! Where does your skeptic draw the line? Or, again, is it all a matter of convenience, a kind of Nietzschean ethics. Again, I think you
nihilists miss the spontaneous order and beauty of Nature and Liberty by rejecting the mere existence of an ordered "ought." If I ever became a nihilist, I'd immediately become a parasite simply because it convenienced me (nevermind the inherent antagonism Nature presents to short-sighted parasitism).
Why are you addressing me as "you nihilists." I'm an individual. I disagree with every nihilist on many things.
I backpacked every year since I was 13. I was a biology major & have a master of arts degree in medical & biological illustration. I probably appreciate the beauty of nature more than you.
Some people do debate breathing air & subsequently commit suicide.
An ought is a preference. I never said they don't exist.
"what values does your person possess in order to reject statist control yet not agree with Liberty?"
I value human life and improving the quality of human life. Therefore I reject statism because it lowers the quality of human life & I embrace individual liberty because it enhances the quality of human life. In fact I embrace individual liberty enough to respect the unique values of each individual. You don't. What makes you think I reject liberty?
"I don't even buy the logical argument from first principals in favor of rights."
You don't believe in objective morality; thus, you are a nihilist.
In any event, you should read Rothbard's treatment of the natural law. It's where I come from. I don't think you can scientifically treat morality, but I nonetheless believe there is strong evidence for the existence of natural rights through rigorous thought experiments.
I read "The ethics of Liberty." I loved it but strongly disagreed with aspects like abortion. Rothbard aggressively criticized utilitarianism, yet used many utilitarian arguments. One main cause of statism is the habit of treating all human beings throughout history as if they have the same nature. I think natural law does this, & contradicts or at least ignores the subjective theory of value. Feel free to correct me.
Nintendomanwill would talk longer on this than me (teleological (teleology in a very narrow, means-to-an-end usage) libertarianism / utilitarianism vs deontological), but he and I are in complete agreement. It's easy to mistake deontological Libertarianism for utilitarianism. The pursuit of freedom for its own sake simply leads to "the most good for the most people." But, when you seek "the most good for the most people" directly as the end, you get statism. I don't think
it is mere coincidence Nature was constructed such that freedom produces more prosperity (even for the parasites / non-producers) and it is seen so widely as just and ethical. Some simply allude to this relationship as a happy fact that may or may not have a logical relationship. I disagree. I don't think it is an accident that knowledge is so dispersed (the sole reason statism fails ofc); God intended for us to be free. What would happen to individual identity and
existence if we really could be controlled from such a consolidated, central position? We necessarily couldn't exist in a system like that. One must stop viewing the world (this is very applicable in certain Scientific communities) as accidental chaos. I believe in cause and effect, not chaos. God doesn't play with dice as Einstein said.
Subjective theory of value doesn't necessitate relativistic reality, only subjectivist perception. Again, I don't disagree with
you that there are different perceptions based on the subject, but I disagree vehemently that there isn't a final, objective value (namely Liberty synonymous with Justice).
I don't believe in God. But I've never viewed the world as accidental chaos. Evolution is not chaos. It is an orderly process with predictable patterns.
I don't believe in initiating coercion under any circumstance, because from a utilitarian perspective it does not accomplish the ends I desire. The state only makes things worse, & violence turns public opinion against my cause.
We seem to agree on tactics, just not for the same reasons.
I'm fairly certain we are defining the word "value" differently. Because according to my definition, value is by definition subjective.
Can you clarify what you mean when you say liberty is an objective value? You probably do not believe every human being desires it, because there are many statists that don't. Do you mean liberty would be useful in satisfying the desires of all human beings whether they know it or not? Please define objective value.
Evolution can't be a belief system in and of itself. Robert Pirsig wrote about this. What's the purpose of the changes? Change for the sake of change? That's accidental chaos. The sun happens to burn out, species happen to change with no exogenous radiation, etc. Gravity and entropy move slowly and rhytmically entire galaxies all for pointless, random motion. How can someone believe that? If someone were to, they'd fall prey to what Descartes was warning of--
An accident does happen without purpose, so I would agree that accidents play a role in evolution. But chaos does not. Chaos is not a lack of purpose. It's a lack of order & predictability. In evolution, which adaptations survive & which don't is not a random process. It's orderly & predictable.
Species change with no exogenous radiation because meiosis, chromosomal crossover, & fertilization result in unique combinations of genetic material...
You have to also understand the line of reasoning of many evolutionists--a change in environment causes certain species to die out while others survive. This is a very haphazard way of viewing change and cause and effect. They take the change in environment as being a closed experiment. The introduced change is exogenous and there is in no way a loop. This leap of faith ignores
why the change occurred. If you don't believe in accidental change, you believe there was a cause for the effect of a changed environment. What caused this cause? In the myriad of connections, does it loop back to the species effected by the change in environment? Evolution as presently understood is extremely simplified. Some people go so far as to misunderstand even Chaos Theory. Undecidable =/= random chaos; it does not become irrational. I strongly think
To believe in evolution does not mean you don't believe in other areas of study. Evolutionary biologists are well aware that animals effect their environment. We know beavers build dams.
"Chaos theory" We're using different definitions again. When you said chaos I assumed you meant without order or predictability. But now I'm guessing you're using it to mean something similar to the butterfly effect. I agree evolution can behave in that way over the long term.
you should think twice before rejecting metaphysics. What hope do you have to further understand reality and existence by only accepting logical positivism? You do simultaneously exist in the world you're trying to examine. This is coming from a future physicist by the way.)
Utilitarianism = all for the 'Greater Good' definitionally. It is collectivism and statism. There is no logical rejection of coercion of select individuals.
Logical positivism is just a combination of empiricism & rationalism. Just because I rely on these for confirming my interpretation of reality does not mean I deny that there are things I don't understand about the universe. When you start making conclusions without rationalism you yourself are planting the seed for chaos. A belief based on faith likely to be false, undermining our understanding of reality & resulting in a butterfly effect of it's own.
"There is no logical rejection of coercion of select individuals." I just gave you one earlier. Statism & the initiation of force does not improve the quality of life for human beings! You and I both know that. Violent movements alienate the public & result in ostracism.
The point is your whole paradigmic approach. "alienate the public" The "public" is a complete afterthought. Even moreso to some, it is synonymous with nonsense. "Social" Justice, "public" goods, etc. All are as nonsensical as 'moral' stones as Hayek wrote. They are not entities in themselves, but, rather, shorthands for a sum of individuals.
I think the term malicious God is a contradiction in terms. Omnipotence = Benevolence in my world. The being which creates
My point is Liberty is by definition the further realization of an individual's being. Freedom in a truer sense doesn't exist because of collectivist thinking (i.e. self-denial). Every instance of deferring to the collective is an instance of not asking or knowing what you yourself wants. Thus, liberty entails a deeper you coming into existence. By definition, every entity wants this. Someone who claims to
Let me ask you something. Imagine if a malicious God created us. And the true nature of all individuals was a tendency toward self-torture, violence, horrible pain & emotional suffering similar to the idea of hell. In such a situation, liberty would lead to immense human suffering. In such a scenario would you promote liberty as an objective value because it is our true metaphysical nature? If you say yes, you scare me. If you say no, you are a utilitarian.
all matter and the deep mechanisms connecting them (logic, causality, etc.) can't itself be victimized by morality. He created that, too, by definition.
want the state to run a part of their life is committing partial suicide (and is condemning themselves to temporary and partial Hell in the present; I do believe in immediately realizable Heavens and Hells, although I would call them nirvanic; this conversation itself is motivated by the desire for a deeper nirvana; Fear and Evil are themselves the absence of understanding) and is, thus, becoming less of an individual from which to even claim to have a value personally.
Freedom and Goodness are themselves derived from a deeper metaphysical marraige with reality, and I call them objective for that. This isn't ethics with the Scientific Method, but, rather, conclusions after employing all human faculties (like questioning why I seek meaning, a Heaven, and understanding and others around me do so as well; Why am I not labeled as insane in a world of irrational gibberish for expressing these sentiments and, instead, seen as a kindred spirit
to many? These quaint connections have true significance even if they're not scientific and that's where I derive their objectivity--Goodness is itself and not what I make of it.)
Why are we even having this debate if not for an objective solution? How many relativists, subjectivists, or solipsists technically win debates? It's like the statement by an anthropology professor, "there is no objective truth!," which is a contradiction and performative nonsense.
The level of attack on smokers IS outrageous. Now, I'm no smoker, and I don't particularly enjoy the smell, but I know I have the freedom to get away from a smoker or the smoke itself, and I believe in personal liberty. The funny thing is, ALCOHOL does way more damage to society than tobacco ever will. Drunk drivers kill thousands a year and get in all kinds of accidents. Some beat family members or do other crazy shit. Tobacco doesn't even come close! All tobacco does is "pollute" the air.
@whoo689 And of course cause lung cancer in a lot of folks who actually use it. As we all know, the secondhand smoke thing is total bullshit. It's obvious that was concocted because of politics, not any real science. I mean, if secondhand smoke was really so dangerous, why did the scientists and medical experts only start doing studies on this in the 90s and 2000s and talk about it? Surely they must've known it was dangerous for several decades if it was really so bad.
The ironic thing is that food producers started putting salt in their products BECAUSE of lacking health in Americans. You know, things like goiters arising from not getting enough sodium.
As I non-smoker and someone who really doesn't like others smoking in my face, I benefit from "public" establishments being smoke-free. However, I disagree with the notion that it's government's business to forbid it in private institutions such as restaurants, people's homes etc.
the Civil War by "strengthening" it against potential European invaders and, thus, achieved a better utilitarian outcome (even went so far as to suggest the 600,000 dead to be possibly less than what a European country might do). The only limit utilitarianism puts on its rationalizations is the human imagination--very shaky ground, indeed. Every statist might call himself (and most do explicitly) a utilitarian.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
I should also mention regarding Utilitarianism. It isn't a strong foundation with which to build a belief system. If you want to achieve "the most good for the most people" (I think it's better said as 'Justice' and 'Liberty'--absolute ideals), you can only achieve that through deontological Libertarianism. Utilitarianism is subject to all kinds of rationalizations, statist or otherwise. For example, I had a conversation yesterday with someone who said that Lincoln saved the Union through
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
cult leader, huh? lawl.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
However, I should say I find many problems with the conventionally understood God, not even getting into Judeo-Christianity. I find a lot of good sense in pantheism. There's a number of problems with the concept of creating from a void and thinking of God in terms of how Man views himself. Overall, though, I look at myself as Deist where I can come to subtely experience God through rational metaphysics. I call this Beauty. You're probably thinking in the back of your mind I'd make a great
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Many products/ingredients we consume are a result of an interventionist government. For example, sugar; in high demand but think about the real reason HFCS is in everything.
allmanjoy 1 year ago
Since obama is making healthcare a public concern, everyone's health becomes everyone's problem. The salt restrictions will be the first in a long line of regulations designed to keep people "healthy" and reduce the healthcare costs for the government.
Thill029 1 year ago
I don't salt bacon.
216trixie 1 year ago
Information is key. People need to know harmful effects of too much salt, rather than government telling food makers to put less salt. That will never work and it's too much power to the government.
cerebral200 1 year ago
I love salt...and pepper and paprika, garlic, sugar, sage, rosemary, sofran and a multitude of other spices.
Hey government, its my salt and I'll use it how I want to.
Bronk0Nagurski 1 year ago
I want salt right now! WHERES MY SALT?!
bodybuilder444444 1 year ago
After listening to this clip I went into my kitchen and ate some salt.
strongbadXCP 1 year ago 3
My great grandma had it right with her little jingle:
I heard a knocking at my door,
'twas just a little sin,
so I opened up the door a bit
and then all hell came in.
Replace "sin" with "government" and "hell" with.... well..."hell".
032125 1 year ago
give an inch and they take a yard. Government is force, and there is no limit.
Brantoc 1 year ago 17
@Brantoc
Make it a mile.
AustinW90 1 year ago
The EPA study on secondhand smoke did not confidently (neither 99% nor 95% interval) correlate cancer with its exposure. Scientists rejected the move to a lower confidence interval, but the EPA wanted the "proof" even at the expense of truth.
You guys who take this "fact" at face value need to realize secondhand smoke has NOT been proven to cause cancer. You may wish to simply not be around it. But, don't be brainwashed by junk science.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
You Know it !
fuckyouobama1 1 year ago
I agree, the tyrants will go that far. For they are psychopaths. Psychopaths are drawn to power and money like a moth to a flame, having neither emotion nor empathy. Psychopaths make up one percent of the human population, yet are not human. They lie, manipulate, cheat and kill to get whatever they want. It is time for us to hunt what preys on us all.
ZullGostnu2 1 year ago
I still can't reason why a drug addict has the right to expose me or anybody else to the byproduct of their vice. It is neither medicinal nor nutritional.
allmanjoy 1 year ago
Should I point out that salt is a natural antidepressant?
herne 1 year ago
I hate smoking and I think it is a stupid habit and I don't want people smoking in my face. Many people have serious allergies to second hand smoke (as do I). Second hand smoke and first hand smoke is essentially the same thing, excepting the concentration.
On the other hand, smoking is YOUR RIGHT! You have the right to be stupid. All attempts to outlaw stupidity are doomed to failure.
XCritonX 1 year ago 3
@XCritonX,
I don't think arguing that you have a right is an effective technique. People disagree on the definition of right, where rights come from, etc.. I don't even buy the logical argument from first principals in favor of rights. It contains a clear non sequitur fallacy because you cannot derive an ought from an is.
I think it is more effective to argue against illegitimate rights, to say that people DON'T have a right to rule over you, because there's no logical argument that they do.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate There is logic in what you say.
XCritonX 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
You nihilists may not admit it, but you carry with you almost as many presuppositions. No one is a blank tabula rasa. You couldn't make sense of the world if you didn't possess certain a priori principles.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago 5
@selfrealizedexile,
Just because I don't think you can prove a right from first principals alone, doesn't mean I oppose arguments from first principals or presuppositions. If you don't think 2 plus 2 equals 5, I wouldn't assume you oppose using math.
Morals cannot be determined from first principals unless you add in a person's values. Then you can determine the preference that person should have in order to fulfill those values.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
lol, so you nihilists have values for convenience's sake. Oh, how tragic. One cannot ever see the beauty and order of Nature from such a dysfunctional position.
Tell me, what values does your person possess in order to reject statist control yet not agree with Liberty? Because statist control simply inconveniences you? Existence and Nature must be dead to you.
The ought-is problem does not invalidate the existence of "oughts." Why do they exist in our speech?
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
if we're simply to take what a situation is as the final reality? Was it all a game in realizing that what is is what should be?
Finally, you feel the state's assertions are unfounded as well as the Classical Liberals'. So, do you debate ever stepping out of your home? Breathing in air? You may not have the right! Where does your skeptic draw the line? Or, again, is it all a matter of convenience, a kind of Nietzschean ethics. Again, I think you
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
nihilists miss the spontaneous order and beauty of Nature and Liberty by rejecting the mere existence of an ordered "ought." If I ever became a nihilist, I'd immediately become a parasite simply because it convenienced me (nevermind the inherent antagonism Nature presents to short-sighted parasitism).
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Comment removed
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile,
1 of 2
Why are you addressing me as "you nihilists." I'm an individual. I disagree with every nihilist on many things.
I backpacked every year since I was 13. I was a biology major & have a master of arts degree in medical & biological illustration. I probably appreciate the beauty of nature more than you.
Some people do debate breathing air & subsequently commit suicide.
An ought is a preference. I never said they don't exist.
My ethics are just as strong as yours.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile,
2 of 2
You asked...
"what values does your person possess in order to reject statist control yet not agree with Liberty?"
I value human life and improving the quality of human life. Therefore I reject statism because it lowers the quality of human life & I embrace individual liberty because it enhances the quality of human life. In fact I embrace individual liberty enough to respect the unique values of each individual. You don't. What makes you think I reject liberty?
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
"I don't even buy the logical argument from first principals in favor of rights."
You don't believe in objective morality; thus, you are a nihilist.
In any event, you should read Rothbard's treatment of the natural law. It's where I come from. I don't think you can scientifically treat morality, but I nonetheless believe there is strong evidence for the existence of natural rights through rigorous thought experiments.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile,
I'm a nihilist, but I do not fit your stereotype.
I read "The ethics of Liberty." I loved it but strongly disagreed with aspects like abortion. Rothbard aggressively criticized utilitarianism, yet used many utilitarian arguments. One main cause of statism is the habit of treating all human beings throughout history as if they have the same nature. I think natural law does this, & contradicts or at least ignores the subjective theory of value. Feel free to correct me.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
Nintendomanwill would talk longer on this than me (teleological (teleology in a very narrow, means-to-an-end usage) libertarianism / utilitarianism vs deontological), but he and I are in complete agreement. It's easy to mistake deontological Libertarianism for utilitarianism. The pursuit of freedom for its own sake simply leads to "the most good for the most people." But, when you seek "the most good for the most people" directly as the end, you get statism. I don't think
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
it is mere coincidence Nature was constructed such that freedom produces more prosperity (even for the parasites / non-producers) and it is seen so widely as just and ethical. Some simply allude to this relationship as a happy fact that may or may not have a logical relationship. I disagree. I don't think it is an accident that knowledge is so dispersed (the sole reason statism fails ofc); God intended for us to be free. What would happen to individual identity and
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
existence if we really could be controlled from such a consolidated, central position? We necessarily couldn't exist in a system like that. One must stop viewing the world (this is very applicable in certain Scientific communities) as accidental chaos. I believe in cause and effect, not chaos. God doesn't play with dice as Einstein said.
Subjective theory of value doesn't necessitate relativistic reality, only subjectivist perception. Again, I don't disagree with
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
you that there are different perceptions based on the subject, but I disagree vehemently that there isn't a final, objective value (namely Liberty synonymous with Justice).
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile,
1 of 2
I don't believe in God. But I've never viewed the world as accidental chaos. Evolution is not chaos. It is an orderly process with predictable patterns.
I don't believe in initiating coercion under any circumstance, because from a utilitarian perspective it does not accomplish the ends I desire. The state only makes things worse, & violence turns public opinion against my cause.
We seem to agree on tactics, just not for the same reasons.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile,
2 of 2
I'm fairly certain we are defining the word "value" differently. Because according to my definition, value is by definition subjective.
Can you clarify what you mean when you say liberty is an objective value? You probably do not believe every human being desires it, because there are many statists that don't. Do you mean liberty would be useful in satisfying the desires of all human beings whether they know it or not? Please define objective value.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
Evolution can't be a belief system in and of itself. Robert Pirsig wrote about this. What's the purpose of the changes? Change for the sake of change? That's accidental chaos. The sun happens to burn out, species happen to change with no exogenous radiation, etc. Gravity and entropy move slowly and rhytmically entire galaxies all for pointless, random motion. How can someone believe that? If someone were to, they'd fall prey to what Descartes was warning of--
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Comment removed
truthadvocate 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@selfrealizedexile
1 of many
An accident does happen without purpose, so I would agree that accidents play a role in evolution. But chaos does not. Chaos is not a lack of purpose. It's a lack of order & predictability. In evolution, which adaptations survive & which don't is not a random process. It's orderly & predictable.
Species change with no exogenous radiation because meiosis, chromosomal crossover, & fertilization result in unique combinations of genetic material...
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
believing your models to be reality themselves.
You have to also understand the line of reasoning of many evolutionists--a change in environment causes certain species to die out while others survive. This is a very haphazard way of viewing change and cause and effect. They take the change in environment as being a closed experiment. The introduced change is exogenous and there is in no way a loop. This leap of faith ignores
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
why the change occurred. If you don't believe in accidental change, you believe there was a cause for the effect of a changed environment. What caused this cause? In the myriad of connections, does it loop back to the species effected by the change in environment? Evolution as presently understood is extremely simplified. Some people go so far as to misunderstand even Chaos Theory. Undecidable =/= random chaos; it does not become irrational. I strongly think
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile,
2 of many
To believe in evolution does not mean you don't believe in other areas of study. Evolutionary biologists are well aware that animals effect their environment. We know beavers build dams.
"Chaos theory" We're using different definitions again. When you said chaos I assumed you meant without order or predictability. But now I'm guessing you're using it to mean something similar to the butterfly effect. I agree evolution can behave in that way over the long term.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
you should think twice before rejecting metaphysics. What hope do you have to further understand reality and existence by only accepting logical positivism? You do simultaneously exist in the world you're trying to examine. This is coming from a future physicist by the way.)
Utilitarianism = all for the 'Greater Good' definitionally. It is collectivism and statism. There is no logical rejection of coercion of select individuals.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Comment removed
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile,
3 of many
Logical positivism is just a combination of empiricism & rationalism. Just because I rely on these for confirming my interpretation of reality does not mean I deny that there are things I don't understand about the universe. When you start making conclusions without rationalism you yourself are planting the seed for chaos. A belief based on faith likely to be false, undermining our understanding of reality & resulting in a butterfly effect of it's own.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile,
4 of many
"There is no logical rejection of coercion of select individuals." I just gave you one earlier. Statism & the initiation of force does not improve the quality of life for human beings! You and I both know that. Violent movements alienate the public & result in ostracism.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
The point is your whole paradigmic approach. "alienate the public" The "public" is a complete afterthought. Even moreso to some, it is synonymous with nonsense. "Social" Justice, "public" goods, etc. All are as nonsensical as 'moral' stones as Hayek wrote. They are not entities in themselves, but, rather, shorthands for a sum of individuals.
I think the term malicious God is a contradiction in terms. Omnipotence = Benevolence in my world. The being which creates
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
My point is Liberty is by definition the further realization of an individual's being. Freedom in a truer sense doesn't exist because of collectivist thinking (i.e. self-denial). Every instance of deferring to the collective is an instance of not asking or knowing what you yourself wants. Thus, liberty entails a deeper you coming into existence. By definition, every entity wants this. Someone who claims to
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile,
5 of many
Let me ask you something. Imagine if a malicious God created us. And the true nature of all individuals was a tendency toward self-torture, violence, horrible pain & emotional suffering similar to the idea of hell. In such a situation, liberty would lead to immense human suffering. In such a scenario would you promote liberty as an objective value because it is our true metaphysical nature? If you say yes, you scare me. If you say no, you are a utilitarian.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
all matter and the deep mechanisms connecting them (logic, causality, etc.) can't itself be victimized by morality. He created that, too, by definition.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
want the state to run a part of their life is committing partial suicide (and is condemning themselves to temporary and partial Hell in the present; I do believe in immediately realizable Heavens and Hells, although I would call them nirvanic; this conversation itself is motivated by the desire for a deeper nirvana; Fear and Evil are themselves the absence of understanding) and is, thus, becoming less of an individual from which to even claim to have a value personally.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
Freedom and Goodness are themselves derived from a deeper metaphysical marraige with reality, and I call them objective for that. This isn't ethics with the Scientific Method, but, rather, conclusions after employing all human faculties (like questioning why I seek meaning, a Heaven, and understanding and others around me do so as well; Why am I not labeled as insane in a world of irrational gibberish for expressing these sentiments and, instead, seen as a kindred spirit
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@truthadvocate
to many? These quaint connections have true significance even if they're not scientific and that's where I derive their objectivity--Goodness is itself and not what I make of it.)
Why are we even having this debate if not for an objective solution? How many relativists, subjectivists, or solipsists technically win debates? It's like the statement by an anthropology professor, "there is no objective truth!," which is a contradiction and performative nonsense.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
The level of attack on smokers IS outrageous. Now, I'm no smoker, and I don't particularly enjoy the smell, but I know I have the freedom to get away from a smoker or the smoke itself, and I believe in personal liberty. The funny thing is, ALCOHOL does way more damage to society than tobacco ever will. Drunk drivers kill thousands a year and get in all kinds of accidents. Some beat family members or do other crazy shit. Tobacco doesn't even come close! All tobacco does is "pollute" the air.
whoo689 1 year ago 2
@whoo689 And of course cause lung cancer in a lot of folks who actually use it. As we all know, the secondhand smoke thing is total bullshit. It's obvious that was concocted because of politics, not any real science. I mean, if secondhand smoke was really so dangerous, why did the scientists and medical experts only start doing studies on this in the 90s and 2000s and talk about it? Surely they must've known it was dangerous for several decades if it was really so bad.
whoo689 1 year ago
The ironic thing is that food producers started putting salt in their products BECAUSE of lacking health in Americans. You know, things like goiters arising from not getting enough sodium.
whoo689 1 year ago
nanny state
ladysweetsky 1 year ago
As I non-smoker and someone who really doesn't like others smoking in my face, I benefit from "public" establishments being smoke-free. However, I disagree with the notion that it's government's business to forbid it in private institutions such as restaurants, people's homes etc.
rumco 1 year ago 3
@rumco 100% agreed
Krampfarsch 1 year ago
True talk.
boxant 1 year ago 2
Walter E Williams is the Man.
americanbandwidth 1 year ago 2