"We know it's there, much like we have a feeling that there EXISTS
objective, absolute good and bad; but, we are not in a position to grasp
it. We can only reason our way closer. "

yup







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


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Josh Walker <josh@???> wrote:

> Indeed. Regarding #2, and indirectly , #1 as well, there is in my mind a
> necessary corollary to the NAP regarding defensive use of force, which is
> that you must use the minimum amount necessary. Your goal is always to
> enable de-escalation, as soon as the aggressor chooses to back off. Thus,
> true defense, not defense mutated into revenge.
>
> In the case of the ass-grabbing, the punch in the face is wholly
> unjustified because it was revenge, and aggression itself, not defensive in
> the slightest. The ass-grab was unwanted personal contact, but we can't
> know more until she says something like, "do not touch me." At that point,
> a good man apologizes for misunderstanding signals or whatever, and perhaps
> asks if there is something he can do to make up for his faux pas and
> the misunderstanding. A bad one will escalate.
>
> That's the universal truth, to me: good people never use violence unless
> they absolutely must, and then they do it with de-escalation as the goal,
> not punishment or retribution or whatever. Bad actors justify their
> excessive violence behind "preventing future wrongs" etc, but it is a
> façade for masking — even to their own consciousness at times — their
> desire for revenge.
>
> Obviously, without the ability to know thoughts and observe events outside
> of time, there are corner cases where things are muddy. I think, in such
> cases, we must err on the side of forgiveness and compassion, because I
> believe it is far worse to condemn a good actor than to allow a bad one to
> escape for a bit. Overreach turns good into bad (or rather, they defend
> against the unwarranted aggression of the system), and the system spirals
> into chaos.
>
> This being the opposite of our purpose as sentient life, I think,
> therefore bad. We are mysteriously Neo / spontaneous Order to the
> universe's Smith / entropy. One day we may know why, but not today. Which
> actually makes it a lot like gravity: We know it's there, much like we have
> a feeling that there EXISTS objective, absolute good and bad; but, we are
> not in a position to grasp it. We can only reason our way closer.
>
> Love (most of) you guys.
>
> —J
>
>
> On Monday, August 25, 2014, Julia Tourianski <juliatourianski@???>
> 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@???>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>