sigh

...all I said was "you can't compare the objective reality of gravity to
human interaction and questions like right and wrong. "

Then I said there's flaws in Stef's work, AFTER Justus *assumed* I was
making an assertion that I was not making. "If by that you mean that ethics
are subjective, then I disagree in the strongest possible terms." Then the
soft name calling began, by Justus. This is quite clear.

In terms of me proving things I was assumed to claim, this has been covered
by many people. I don't need to regurgitate what should be
common knowledge. If you subscribe to such principles, you should know
their counter arguments, not demand them because of a flippant comment on a
mailing list.

on UPB
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=75

I can link dozens. But won't because life.

*Regarding non-agression. *If you know any of my work, I'm a publicly avid
promoter of the concept. But I also will admit it's not perfect
or objectively sensical. I do not deal in absolutes. The following is to
illustrate the grey matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case

1. If she knows her children are only born to be perpetually abused, would
killing them not have been the purest form of preventative non-agression?
No? Because they did not aggress against her first. But being a bystander
in Fritzl aggressing against them, is she not participating in that
aggression? What is the only moral thing to do? To kill Fritzl? But she
can't, so what's the next moral thing to do? To kill the children?
Death is surely better than years of torture? Universally preferable even?
How can you say without experience...and it would be a subjective
experience anyhow. Maybe torture is better than death. How can we know, if
we don't know death.
Following the non-aggression principle, in this case, may cause much
greater suffering than not. What is the moral thing to do? What do YOUR***
objective ethics say?

2.Woman and man at a bar. They may or may not be flirting...each may
interpret their interaction differently. Man grabs woman's ass. Woman
punches man in face.

Has there been a violation of the non-aggression principle? What if the
woman liked it or wanted it, but felt embarrassed of her urges due to the
public setting and retaliated in a way she felt redeemable. Or maybe she
was abused as a child and the act deeply hurt her. We can't know. So
who aggressed against who? Should the man have asked to grab her ass
first...well, that would contradict the entire concept of the mutual thrill
of ass grabbing.

3.What about indirect aggression, such as that of a well intentioned Queen?
Can we interpret her economic incompetence as a direct violence on the
child that starved due to the fact? Is her be-heading morally
justified...or universally preferable? Let's assert yes. Then what about
gun manufacturers and their indirect violence? Is the distinction in
voluntarism? No one elected the Queen, therefore her mere existence is
violence? But who chose to live in a world with weapons? And is not a Queen
just a human weapon? So the lack of choice in the existence of a Queen, and
the existence of a gun is one of the same. How do we reconcile this?
Perhaps with duality; you can use a gun to liberate yourself from the
Queen, via suicide, or murder.

But a gun is a tool, wielded by humans for their own purpose, therefore it
is not inherently violent. The Queen too is a tool for assertion of
dominance over the serf classes, so is she too not inherently violent? Who
do we behead? What weapons do we ban? Maybe it's the entire human network
of power that is aggressing against us? Then we can justify killing most
people. Or throw away indirect aggression altogether, and do not judge
Obama, or Bush, or Lenin, or Hitler, for anything they've indirectly done.

Maybe we need to exercise thought instead of just quoting information. I am
too guilty of this. Be careful of absolutes. They may blow up in your face.
I suggest trying to a navigate these ideas, instead of preaching for their
dis-proofs.












For the secrets and lies, my PGP key:
https://libbitcoin.dyne.org/julia_tourianski.pgp.asc


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Brian Hoffman <brian@???> wrote:

> If he let you just throw that grenade blowing up his statement stand then
> it wouldn't be a good debate and you just lost credibility by going on the
> offensive after he asked you to justify your rationale. You guys both seem
> to have gotten overly sensitive here but I'll agree with Justus. If you've
> got some point to make, why defer it unless it consists of name calling and
> soft reasoning.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 25, 2014, at 7:34 AM, Julia Tourianski <juliatourianski@???>
> wrote:
>
> Sorry Justus, I didn't intend to hit an emotional nerve with you. I'm
> going to wrap this up before it becomes too entertaining for the "undo crew"
>
> Besides, sometimes you have to allow a person to be right, because that's
> all they'll ever be.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For the secrets and lies, my PGP key:
> https://libbitcoin.dyne.org/julia_tourianski.pgp.asc
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@???>
> wrote:
>
>> On 08/25/2014 01:32 AM, Julia Tourianski wrote:
>> > "Prove it"
>> >
>> > Reminds me of a kid yelling on a playground when another kid disagrees
>> with him
>> >
>> > Haha
>>
>> I'm sorry you've gotten as as far as you have in life without anyone
>> ever telling you this before, and there's no way to sugar coat this, but
>> what you are doing here in the conversation is proving that you are
>> mentally stuck in that playground.
>>
>> It really is obligatory on the part of the person making positive claims
>> to prove them. Nobody gets to just make shit up, insult anyone who
>> properly asks for a rational justification and call what they are doing
>> thinking.
>>
>> > Feel free to pm me but I doubt either one of us will prove anything -
>> lucky for me, I don't deal in absolutist ideals
>>
>> Because of the major contraction in this sentence, I can translate that
>> into, "I won't listen to proofs, because I am unwilling or unable to
>> think."
>>
>> The reason I'm telling you this is because clearly nobody ever has
>> before. You should know that rational thinking is an option you can
>> pursue, but you won't be able to do that until you realize that you're
>> not already.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>