Excellent response IMO, Caleb.

On Monday, August 25, 2014, Caleb James DeLisle <cjd@???> wrote:

> I seem to have -trol- err triggered a rather interesting discussion.
> It seems that there is no real *distributed* reputation based currency,
> just the Hirsch index, PageRank and a zillion different websites with
> their own walled garden reputation systems. Of course one must not forget
> Nanotube's own OTC. I have a feeling this is important and should be
> considered at some point in the future.
>
>
> On the topic of your mail Julia, the scenarios are quite interesting.
> Although with the assumption of absolute knowledge, these scenarios are
> very difficult to rectify, once one accepts that their knowledge is by
> definition incomplete and much of it is incorrect, their intractability
> becomes less threatening.
>
> In the Fritzl example, killing the children might have been possible, and
> perhaps it would have lead to a better result, but according to wikipedia,
> one of those very children proved Josef's undoing. Without her, the pain
> may have continued indefinitely and the world might never have learned
> the meaning of Austrian Paternalism. The key point is that since
> information is always scarce, decisions made on a rational basis will often
> be less utilitarian (which in this case means less "good") than decisions
> based at least partially on intuition.
>
> And one must not forget the Tao of Doing Nothing. Pushing a fat man onto
> the tracks would be mighty embarrassing if it should turn out that the
> trolley is not on the same track, or that the people tied down are manikins
> in a film shoot.
>
> My personal feeling is that there is no way to judge aggression
> objectively,
> it is based on intent, or even below intent, the emotions which give rise
> to an action. One who acts out of love and joy may do the exact same things
> as one who acts out of fear, but (in my opinion and I'm prepared to be hear
> evidence to the contrary) the morality of those actions is different.
>
>
> ``Be careful of absolutes. They may blow up in your face.''
>
> Good quote.
>
>
> On 08/25/2014 05:58 PM, Julia Tourianski wrote:
> > 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@???
> <javascript:;>> 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@??? <javascript:;>>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>