Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Monogamy and Private Property...

Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 5:27:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
... in perfect harmony.

I am beginning to feel that monogamy and private property are somewhat similar constructs. It's not a fully formulated idea, but perhaps it would be interesting...

In both, there is a sense of something being 'yours', it is 'your' car and 'your' partner, and they are exclusively yours. There is also the suggestion that it is rightfully yours: you put the effort in to get it, and you got there first, so it would be unfair for someone else to come later or 'work less' to gain access to it, and I think this is motivated mostly by jealousy. Look how 'jealous' (I think) everyone is of those who receive hand-outs or take tax

Furthermore, ferocious fear is provoked by the threat of its 'theft'. The embarrassing hyper-aggressive 'defensiveness' people have about the loss of their partner to someone else, I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice, is very similar to statements I have seen from many people, such as the political right of this very website, who are always keen to declare how they will be standing outside their property armed to the teeth to defend that property. 'Come near my _____ and I'll blow your darned head off!', the language is incredibly similar, as are the emotions behind it - fear and jealousy.

In essence what I think I am trying to say is that both are motivated not by reason, particularly, but by primitive negative emotions - for surely fear and jealousy are negative emotions, being forms of 'unhappiness'. Both constructs attempt to allay these emotions by saying 'Don't worry, this is yours, and it would be wrong for it to be taken away from you', but they also validate those emotions in saying that it would be wrong. If I understand the situation correctly, then I don't think these negative emotions ought to be validated in such a way.

If you are unsure what I am advocating, then I'll make it clear. I'm not saying people ought to have more than one partner, but that we should not understand relationships as things that ought to be monogamous, just as I am not saying everything ought to be shared, exactly, but that we should not consider objects as things that ought to be owned in the exclusive sense of 'private property'.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 6:09:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
According to your comparison, I should expect the same reaction when I ask an acquaintance to let me sleep on his couch for a night to what I would get if I asked him if he was up for a gangbang involving his wife.

This is a stupid prediction that will typically be wrong. Most people, especially in those countries where monogamy is most highly valued (traditionalist countries) don't have a strong objection to voluntarily sharing their property with a friend. Many of those countries have a standing custom of offering hospitality to strangers even (although this requires a standing custom of moderation and reluctance to impose to sustain itself as a practice).

Why is this? Because monogamy is emotionally driven, shaped by what caused reproduction of one's genes in the ancestral environment, but private property is RATIONALLY driven, shaped by what causes survival in the actual environment. People don't defend their property armed to the teeth against a friend asking for an occasional favor. They defend their property armed to the teeth against those who demand access with few or no limits, without having to ask permission each time-- who demand access DETRIMENTAL TO THE OWNER'S USE. If I share a dinner with a friend, I'm not much worse off- if I share everything equally with everyone, without limit, I can't walk over all the homeless people in my house, I don't have any food left for myself, and I'm probably dead within the month.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 8:11:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 6:09:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"According to your comparison, I should expect the same reaction when I ask an acquaintance to let me sleep on his couch for a night to what I would get if I asked him if he was up for a gangbang involving his wife"

That's a very unintelligent argument to make, since you're not at all considering the gravity of the situations. I'm arguing that in both situations similar negative emotions are at play, not whatever the hell you're saying I'm arguing. I mean seriously... would you expect identical reactions if you took his wife for an innocent lunch without his knowledge or took his prized car for a drive without his knowledge?

"This is a stupid prediction that will typically be wrong. Most people, especially in those countries where monogamy is most highly valued (traditionalist countries) don't have a strong objection to voluntarily sharing their property with a friend. Many of those countries have a standing custom of offering hospitality to strangers even (although this requires a standing custom of moderation and reluctance to impose to sustain itself as a practice)."

This is basically just a continuance of your previous confusion. I am not saying that people are going to react to 'violations of exclusivity' in an identical way, as people react differently when we are considering individual items of their property, so it wouldn't make any sense at all if we were to suggest the strength of someone's 'romantic exclusivity' must be identical to their 'property exclusivity' because these things don't exist as concrete, universally-applicable values.

"Why is this? Because monogamy is emotionally driven, shaped by what caused reproduction of one's genes in the ancestral environment, but private property is RATIONALLY driven, shaped by what causes survival in the actual environment. People don't defend their property armed to the teeth against a friend asking for an occasional favor."

There's no reason to value your survival more than reproduction. You could value your survival only instrumentally to reproduction. You seem to be suggesting that this would be irrational, which really doesn't make any sense unless you fancy constructing a system of 'rational values' for me.

"They defend their property armed to the teeth against those who demand access with few or no limits, without having to ask permission each time-- who demand access DETRIMENTAL TO THE OWNER'S USE" - now how exactly is this different from shooting someone who has managed to 'steal' my girlfriend away from me, in light of what we have previously established?

"if I share everything equally with everyone, without limit, I can't walk over all the homeless people in my house, I don't have any food left for myself, and I'm probably dead within the month" - As previously argued, I don't see why the 'emotional' desire to live is any different from the 'emotional' desire to be loved, so this doesn't fill me with any kind of horror. Also I like the way you conceive of everyone else as mindless parasites, lol. 'Reefer madness' is on a similar level of plausibility.

You've made this argument previously Ragnar...
1. I personally find starvation undesirable
2. Private property is the only thing preventing me from starving 'within a month'
Conclusion: Private property is morally justified in a way that is absolutely binding upon everyone.

It really doesn't follow, for the simple reason that something being personally undesirable to you doesn't mean that anyone else has to care.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 2:18:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 8:11:16 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:09:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"According to your comparison, I should expect the same reaction when I ask an acquaintance to let me sleep on his couch for a night to what I would get if I asked him if he was up for a gangbang involving his wife"

That's a very unintelligent argument to make, since you're not at all considering the gravity of the situations.
If by gravity you mean magnitude, it's approximately the same magnitude. In either case, we share something for a night.

I'm arguing that in both situations similar negative emotions are at play, not whatever the hell you're saying I'm arguing.
That's exactly what I said you were arguing, and exactly what I was disagreeing with. Similar emotions are not in play. IF THEY WERE, MOST PEOPLE WOULD NOT LET A FRIEND SLEEP ON THE COUCH. Those negative emotions would PUT A STOP TO IT.

I mean seriously... would you expect identical reactions if you took his wife for an innocent lunch without his knowledge or took his prized car for a drive without his knowledge?
Your analogy is less analogous than mine. A lunch isn't even part of the monogamy spectrum-- no mentally stable person believes in "monogamous eating." Clearly, however, a gangbang is EXACTLY an infraction of monogamy and nothing else.


"This is a stupid prediction that will typically be wrong. Most people, especially in those countries where monogamy is most highly valued (traditionalist countries) don't have a strong objection to voluntarily sharing their property with a friend. Many of those countries have a standing custom of offering hospitality to strangers even (although this requires a standing custom of moderation and reluctance to impose to sustain itself as a practice)."

This is basically just a continuance of your previous confusion. I am not saying that people are going to react to 'violations of exclusivity' in an identical way
WHY NOT? IF THEY HAVE THE SAME EMOTIONS, THE SAME STIMULI, THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME REACTION TO STIMULI.
If the reaction is different, THE MOTIVE IS DIFFERENT. I'm not confused, you are.

as people react differently when we are considering individual items of their property
But do they react differently whether you had intercourse with their wife or a blowjob? No. You are arguing against your point. You are arguing in favor of mine.

There's no reason to value your survival more than reproduction.
And yet most people do. Given that context, it is a rational choice to defend one's property. Even people who do not choose to reproduce however, are typically monogamous-- because it is not something they consciously chose, it's an emotional state they defaulted to. Now, I'm not saying monogamy is never a rational decision-- but it's rarely consciously chosen, emotions typically prevent thinking about it much.

"They defend their property armed to the teeth against those who demand access with few or no limits, without having to ask permission each time-- who demand access DETRIMENTAL TO THE OWNER'S USE" - now how exactly is this different from shooting someone who has managed to 'steal' my girlfriend away from me, in light of what we have previously established?
In a number of ways, but not important ones for our purpose-- most people aren't perfectly fine with their girlfriend having sex with someone else even when it is entirely obvious the girlfriend will continue to be available to have sex with them. Why? Because emotions. Unlike property, most people will lend a stranger a used newspaper, or lend a friend a car if they trust that friend to return it. (They wouldn't do it for a stranger only because any experience of the world shows that such trust in a stranger would be incredibly stupid, and anyone who would do that will soon find themselves without a car.

nth" - As previously argued, I don't see why the 'emotional' desire to live is any different from the 'emotional' desire to be loved
I think you're confusing where I'm drawing the distinction between emotions and rationality. The ACTION of defending property rights objectively promotes the goal of survival. Survival is not itself some objective imperative, it is simply commonly consciously chosen, and after it is chosen, one reasons out a means to it. Monogamy CAN work that way, but it usually DOESN'T. And when one is reasoning, one notices nothing about "love" even requires monogamy anyway.

You've made this argument previously Ragnar...
1. I personally find starvation undesirable
2. Private property is the only thing preventing me from starving 'within a month'
Conclusion: Private property is morally justified in a way that is absolutely binding upon everyone.
I never said binding on everyone. Just those who choose to live.


It really doesn't follow, for the simple reason that something being personally undesirable to you doesn't mean that anyone else has to care.
Never said they had to. But they do care. You'll have a hard time finding people who genuinely want to starve. Especially since most of that select group... are already dead. From starvation. It's not a difficult feat.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 2:20:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I mean really, if you're going to argue against private property, "starvation isn't all that bad" is never going to be a good gameplan. You'll never convert anyone that way, at least not when you're talking about the potential convert being the one starving.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 3:26:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 2:18:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"If by gravity you mean magnitude, it's approximately the same magnitude. In either case, we share something for a night" - no, they're not the same magnitude, because the level of attachment is different. Stop it Rag, you ain't this dumb... I mean, you can use a computer, apparently.

"WHY NOT? IF THEY HAVE THE SAME EMOTIONS, THE SAME STIMULI, THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME REACTION TO STIMULI.
If the reaction is different" - I meant the 'magnitude' of the reaction will be different.

"Your analogy is less analogous than mine. A lunch isn't even part of the monogamy spectrum" + "But do they react differently whether you had intercourse with their wife or a blowjob?"- Do you never leave the house? Do you have any experience of human life at all? I somewhat suspected you would come out with this staggeringly out of touch response, but please just think for a second. Damn. You're just embarrassing yourself with this.

"most people aren't perfectly fine with their girlfriend having sex with someone else even when it is entirely obvious the girlfriend will continue to be available to have sex with them. Why? Because emotions. Unlike property, most people will lend a stranger a used newspaper, or lend a friend a car if they trust that friend to return it" - this is a continuation of your previously illustrated confusion and ignorance.

"The ACTION of defending property rights objectively promotes the goal of survival" - well, it might, but I'm sure jealous monogamy is thought to promote the goal of continuing that relationship. Why else would people behave like that?

"Never said they had to. But they do care. You'll have a hard time finding people who genuinely want to starve. Especially since most of that select group... are already dead. From starvation. It's not a difficult feat" + "I mean really, if you're going to argue against private property, "starvation isn't all that bad" is never going to be a good gameplan. You'll never convert anyone that way, at least not when you're talking about the potential convert being the one starving"

I'm attempting to make you understand that finding something personally undesirable does not make it a binding moral law. You have responded that my personal goal of survival means I must respect yours - this is a non sequitur.

Again and again you have made the argument that 1. in order to survive, you need private property 2. basically everyone wants to survive C. therefore everyone should respect everyone's property rights. I'm sure it seems incredibly valid to you but I really want to make this the last time I have to show you the flaws in this.

1. You don't need private property to survive, you need the materials necessary to sustain yourself, which does not in itself entail that you must have the normative right to own any of these things. Therefore, your argument can only be 'The *best* way...' here, which is a separate argument
2. Is not entirely true, but whatever.
C. The universality is a non-sequitur, since respecting the property of others is not contained within 'wanting to survive' unless it can be proven to always be against the interests of my survival to not respect private property - which is prima facie absurd.

Therefore, your argument only applies to individuals for whom the following is true:
1. I want to survive
2. The best way to survive is to respect your property
3. None of my other desires exceed that to survive which would lead me to ignore your claimed right to property.

Your argument has the effect of reducing the morality of property to a courtesy which I may or may not extend based on my desires and the effectiveness of certain actions in satisfying those desires, I think. Pretty obviously it seems that it's not going always going to be in my interests to extend such a courtesy, and as it is not a binding rule you have no right to prevent me from taking your 'property', since to do that would either be paternalism (This action isn't 'wrong', it just isn't in your best interests!) or aggression against me for not extending a courtesy which I am free not to extend.

This response has been rushed, but seriously, did you even think when you wrote yours?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 4:40:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 3:26:28 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 4/16/2014 2:18:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"If by gravity you mean magnitude, it's approximately the same magnitude. In either case, we share something for a night" - no, they're not the same magnitude, because the level of attachment is different.
The level of attachment is different? You mean, the rational considerations are the same but the emotions are different?

My god, it's almost like my whole argument is that that's where the difference is.

"WHY NOT? IF THEY HAVE THE SAME EMOTIONS, THE SAME STIMULI, THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME REACTION TO STIMULI.
If the reaction is different" - I meant the 'magnitude' of the reaction will be different.
Not just the magnitude. The direction.

"- Do you never leave the house? Do you have any experience of human life at all? I somewhat suspected you would come out with this staggeringly out of touch response, but please just think for a second. Damn. You're just embarrassing yourself with this.
That's not even remotely an argument. And if it were, I would use it against you.

this is a continuation of your previously illustrated confusion and ignorance.
Again, not above.

"The ACTION of defending property rights objectively promotes the goal of survival" - well, it might, but I'm sure jealous monogamy is thought to promote the goal of continuing that relationship. Why else would people behave like that?
OBVIOUSLY some other reason, because people who are jealous about infidelity so often END the relationship BECAUSE of the jealousy. Clearly, the goal is something other than relationship continuation.

I'm attempting to make you understand that finding something personally undesirable does not make it a binding moral law.
You seem under the delusion that morality is anything other than the rational consequences of the intersection between subjective goal and objective reality.

You have responded that my personal goal of survival means I must respect yours - this is a non sequitur.
No, it's praxeologically obvious among people who have the ability to kill each other. If I wish to live, and you wish to live, and we both are capable of acting detrimentally to one another's wish, it follows that we have an incentive to not do so unless the other also does, so as to cause said detrimental action to be less of a likely choice against us.

Your argument has the effect of reducing the morality of property to a courtesy which I may or may not extend based on my desires and the effectiveness of certain actions in satisfying those desires, I think.
You say this as though desire to survive is a wild variable. It's more nearly a constant in our sppecies.

and as it is not a binding rule you have no right to prevent me from taking your 'property', since to do that would either be paternalism (This action isn't 'wrong', it just isn't in your best interests!)
How can you have a concept of paternalism without a concept of property? That's a gross fallacy of the stolen concept.

but seriously, did you even think when you wrote yours?
I would ask you the same question.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 7:01:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 4:40:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Wait... what? I'm fairly certain your argument was that borrowing a man's toaster should be equal according to my haphazard ideas provoke the exact same reaction as l f*cking a man's wife. I responded that the level of attachment is different and so the reaction will likely be different... Just as kissing your wife's sister might not make her divorce you, but engaging in a year-long secret relationship probably will? And that is what I meant by 'Do you ever leave your house?' since you were definitely suggesting that it was impossible to breach exclusivity of a relationship without triggering an 'all-or-nothing' response. I was trying to leave you to figure that out since it was so plainly obvious and I didn't want to put you in the awkward position of having to agree with something I've said. Forgive me if I've misunderstood you.

"OBVIOUSLY some other reason, because people who are jealous about infidelity so often END the relationship BECAUSE of the jealousy. Clearly, the goal is something other than relationship continuation" is probably the only interesting thing you've said so far. Why didn't you open with this?

Thing is I'm not even sure why I said it, since what you said in the first place didn't actually make any sense. You were saying that survival is rational but monogamy isn't, right? I said that both desires are equally 'emotional', so I don't know why I was giving that example, since that was enough to refute you.

But anyway, why would jealous behaviour lead someone to end a relationship? Or why would 'protectively jealous' behaviour lead to the person exhibiting that behaviour to end the relationship? I suppose I would have to say that it's the result of the 'jealous' desire motivating the relationship, or a significant part of the motivation, to be someone's 'number one' or whatever, being shown to be not the case in the relationship, since presumably if you did not desire to be 'the most beloved of all' then it wouldn't bother you? Makes sense at the moment I guess.

"You seem under the delusion that morality is anything other than the rational consequences of the intersection between subjective goal and objective reality"

Oh, the delusion? I was under the impression that morality determines which actions are right and wrong, and since we know that beliefs are required to perform actions for which you are responsible, particularly the belief that you are justified in doing whatever you are doing, those beliefs, particularly that claim to justification, can be analysed, and if that justification is sound, it is a 'right' action, and if it is not, it is a 'wrong' action. Makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than the pragmatic considerations of courtesy you're discussing...

"it's praxeologically obvious" - p-p-p-praxiwhat? I thought that word was a joke!

"If I wish to live, and you wish to live, and we both are capable of acting detrimentally to one another's wish, it follows that we have an incentive to not do so unless the other also does, so as to cause said detrimental action to be less of a likely choice against us"

Wait, so if I want a rock, and you're acting detrimentally to that wish by claiming that only you can touch the rock, I'm being given incentive to bash you over the head with it? Or are you being given incentive to share it with me?

"How can you have a concept of paternalism without a concept of property? That's a gross fallacy of the stolen concept" I honestly don't know what you're trying to say. I always thought paternalism was saying 'You can't do this, because it would not be good for you'... uh, wheres' the property?

Oxford Dictionary: "[Paternalism is] The policy or practice on the part of people in authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to or otherwise dependent on them in their supposed interest"

Presumably you're talking about it like taxing you and spending it on something in your interests?

Oh, and as for that insult at the end, I'm honestly baffled at the number of bizarre assertions you've made. I don't quite understand that very last one about paternalism and property but still, it's adding to a rather substantial corpus. I don't think I would say such nasty things to you if you didn't come across as such an irredeemable creature without a shred of goodness inside you. The best you can do in terms of sympathy is tell me that it's in your praxeological interests to pretend that I own things, although 'pretend' isn't quite the right word for that since you seem to honestly believe that nonsense...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 10:45:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 7:01:53 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 4/16/2014 4:40:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Wait... what? I'm fairly certain your argument was that borrowing a man's toaster should be equal according to my haphazard ideas provoke the exact same reaction as l f*cking a man's wife.
I never actually said anything about toasters, but why wouldn't it be if the emotions involved in property and monogamy are the same?

I responded that the level of attachment is different
Because the emotional response is different.

and so the reaction will likely be different... Just as kissing your wife's sister might not make her divorce you, but engaging in a year-long secret relationship probably will?
We discussed a SINGLE NIGHT. That's RADICALLY at the low end of the quantitative scale. Any distinction you can draw is qualitative, and a qualitative distinction contradicts your point.

And that is what I meant by 'Do you ever leave your house?' since you were definitely suggesting that it was impossible to breach exclusivity of a relationship without triggering an 'all-or-nothing' response.
Which you have yet to contradict. Kissing your wife's sister isn't typically sexual behavior, and if it were, it will typically generate just such a panicky response.

"OBVIOUSLY some other reason, because people who are jealous about infidelity so often END the relationship BECAUSE of the jealousy. Clearly, the goal is something other than relationship continuation" is probably the only interesting thing you've said so far. Why didn't you open with this?
Because you didn't open with the idea that jealousy is about relationship continuation, and it would be an absurd straw man for me to predict it from you?


Thing is I'm not even sure why I said it, since what you said in the first place didn't actually make any sense. You were saying that survival is rational but monogamy isn't, right?
No, that's not what I said. I said property is the rational consequence of the chosen goal of survival. Monogamy is not typically a rational consequence of any chosen goal.

But anyway, why would jealous behaviour lead someone to end a relationship?
Ask them, not me. I was merely making the factual assertion that that in fact happens.

"You seem under the delusion that morality is anything other than the rational consequences of the intersection between subjective goal and objective reality"

Oh, the delusion? I was under the impression that morality determines which actions are right and wrong
That's like saying "Moisture determines whether you are wet or dry." True but vacuous. It tells us nothing we don't know. The questions are-- what do you mean by right and wrong, and why would anyone ever care?

nd since we know that beliefs are required to perform actions for which you are responsible, particularly the belief that you are justified in doing whatever you are doing, those beliefs, particularly that claim to justification, can be analysed, and if that justification is sound, it is a 'right' action, and if it is not, it is a 'wrong' action.
What justifications do you advance that I have not? Have I not provided a valid reason to perform an action?


"it's praxeologically obvious" - p-p-p-praxiwhat? I thought that word was a joke!
It's obvious if you think about why people do what they do.

Wait, so if I want a rock, and you're acting detrimentally to that wish by claiming that only you can touch the rock, I'm being given incentive to bash you over the head with it?
Gross, but not on net. Only by analyzing more fundamental choices can we get net incentives.

Or are you being given incentive to share it with me?
Where are you getting that idea?


"How can you have a concept of paternalism without a concept of property? That's a gross fallacy of the stolen concept" I honestly don't know what you're trying to say. I always thought paternalism was saying 'You can't do this, because it would not be good for you'... uh, wheres' the property?
Property is a claim on control of scarce things. Like... someone's decisions. A paternalistic demand is a demand of a property right on someone's decisions. It's not a rightful one, but it is such a claim.


Oxford Dictionary: "[Paternalism is] The policy or practice on the part of people in authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to or otherwise dependent on them in their supposed interest"
Authority is a form of property in decisions rather than things.

The best you can do in terms of sympathy is tell me that it's in your praxeological interests to pretend that I own things, although 'pretend' isn't quite the right word for that since you seem to honestly believe that nonsense...
It's mutually self-interested. You want to keep your computer, I want to keep mine. We don't want a war where we're smashing each other's computers to try to sell scrap. Given our respective goals, it is the right decision for both of us to refrain from starting that war. This applies in a general case to all our production, in fact.

If I meet someone who has no interest in keeping his production-- well, he probably won't live very long, and in the meantime, it's still in my interest to defend myself from him even if it's not in his interest to be nonaggressive. When I say "It's in your interests," I am implying you are not like him. I don't tend to speak to folks who are actually like him though, so it's a pretty safe assumption.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:35:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 10:45:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"I never actually said anything about toasters, but why wouldn't it be if the emotions involved in property and monogamy are the same?"

Because perhaps I don't care as much?

"Which you have yet to contradict. Kissing your wife's sister isn't typically sexual behavior, and if it were, it will typically generate just such a panicky response"

With tongue? Lol.

"No, that's not what I said. I said property is the rational consequence of the chosen goal of survival. Monogamy is not typically a rational consequence of any chosen goal."

I don't think it is. I think people are just like 'That's mine!'. I don't think they're doing it in order to survive.

"What justifications do you advance that I have not? Have I not provided a valid reason to perform an action?"

I've actually had this argument previously with you, you know. You need to be able to provide a positive justification before you act in any way, technically.

"Where are you getting that idea?"

Because we both have a wish to touch that rock, and since apparently we don't want to act detrimentally to each others wishes, we are going to come to an agreement to share the rock, I presume?

"Property is a claim on control of scarce things. Like... someone's decisions. A paternalistic demand is a demand of a property right on someone's decisions. It's not a rightful one, but it is such a claim" + "Authority is a form of property in decisions rather than things"

Lol, you can say it like that if you want, or you can say 'Property is a form of authority in things rather than decisions', which makes a hell of a lot more sense.

"It's mutually self-interested. You want to keep your computer, I want to keep mine. We don't want a war where we're smashing each other's computers to try to sell scrap. Given our respective goals, it is the right decision for both of us to refrain from starting that war. This applies in a general case to all our production, in fact.

If I meet someone who has no interest in keeping his production-- well, he probably won't live very long, and in the meantime, it's still in my interest to defend myself from him even if it's not in his interest to be nonaggressive. When I say "It's in your interests," I am implying you are not like him. I don't tend to speak to folks who are actually like him though, so it's a pretty safe assumption"

But... what gives you the right to withhold 'your' computer from me?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 4:42:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 11:35:36 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 4/16/2014 10:45:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"I never actually said anything about toasters, but why wouldn't it be if the emotions involved in property and monogamy are the same?"

Because perhaps I don't care as much?
I.e. not same emotions.


"Which you have yet to contradict. Kissing your wife's sister isn't typically sexual behavior, and if it were, it will typically generate just such a panicky response"

With tongue? Lol.
That was a detail you didn't add before... and will generate just such a panicky response in the vast majority of cases.


"No, that's not what I said. I said property is the rational consequence of the chosen goal of survival. Monogamy is not typically a rational consequence of any chosen goal."

I don't think it is. I think people are just like 'That's mine!'. I don't think they're doing it in order to survive.
Why would anyone ever share then? Emotions demonstrably point the other direction.

"What justifications do you advance that I have not? Have I not provided a valid reason to perform an action?"

I've actually had this argument previously with you, you know. You need to be able to provide a positive justification before you act in any way, technically.
No, I merely need a motive. I do not have to think it moral before I act, and many choose to do things they think immoral.


"Where are you getting that idea?"

Because we both have a wish to touch that rock, and since apparently we don't want to act detrimentally to each others wishes, we are going to come to an agreement to share the rock, I presume?
You assume the rock is capable of being shared and is as such our desire. If we both want rocks to touch, we are better served by obtaining separate rocks and agreeing to keep them separate. In a way that incentivizes third parties to also observe the separation.
Scarcity is a fact of reality, your presumption here is not compatible with scarcity, therefore your presumption is factually wrong.


"Property is a claim on control of scarce things. Like... someone's decisions. A paternalistic demand is a demand of a property right on someone's decisions. It's not a rightful one, but it is such a claim" + "Authority is a form of property in decisions rather than things"

Lol, you can say it like that if you want, or you can say 'Property is a form of authority in things rather than decisions', which makes a hell of a lot more sense.
They make relatively equal amounts of sense, except that the need for food is much more fundamental than the need for company, and when we stop excepting that from the equation, clearly stating property as the more fundamental concept in the hierarchy makes sense.


But... what gives you the right to withhold 'your' computer from me?
You are speaking of right as a positive thing again. Remember, the term "Right" in my discourse refers to mutual limits on social action, rationally prescribed by mutual goals. "Rights" are things you don't f*** with, not licenses to do a thing. Liberty, not restriction, is assumed the default case.

What makes it rational for me to observe your positive conception of "right," given my goals? What makes it rational for anyone else given theirs?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 5:10:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 4:42:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"I.e. not same emotions" - Not caring as much sort of implies the same emotions are involved, no?

"Why would anyone ever share then? Emotions demonstrably point the other direction"

So, you're saying sharing is emotional now? I don't even know what you're trying to say.

"No, I merely need a motive. I do not have to think it moral before I act, and many choose to do things they think immoral"

But not things that you think you ought not do, lol.

"You assume the rock is capable of being shared and is as such our desire. If we both want rocks to touch, we are better served by obtaining separate rocks and agreeing to keep them separate. In a way that incentivizes third parties to also observe the separation.
Scarcity is a fact of reality, your presumption here is not compatible with scarcity, therefore your presumption is factually wrong."

Well, you see, if the material conditions I want overlap with the material conditions you want, then we're in the same situation as with the rock, aren't we? Plus, who gets to keep the first rock and who has to go get the second one? Your solution to the fact that we both want something is to tell

"They make relatively equal amounts of sense, except that the need for food is much more fundamental than the need for company, and when we stop excepting that from the equation, clearly stating property as the more fundamental concept in the hierarchy makes sense"

So what is it about needing food that allows you to claim a normative right over physical objects? Also, what you're saying is perverse. Saying 'You may not have this' is an exertion of authority in the form of property. The hierarchy comes before the property. I understand what you're saying, which is why I said it 'made sense' or whatever, but it confuses the relationship between the two.

"You are speaking of right as a positive thing again. Remember, the term "Right" in my discourse refers to mutual limits on social action, rationally prescribed by mutual goals. "Rights" are things you don't f*** with, not licenses to do a thing. Liberty, not restriction, is assumed the default case.

What makes it rational for me to observe your positive conception of "right," given my goals? What makes it rational for anyone else given theirs?"

The fact that you assume you're allowed to do whatever you want is not a logical argument but a statement of an assumption you've made.

My argument here is basically just applying the burden of proof to the belief that your action is justified, which is a positive claim. If you act in a certain way, you must have believed that you were justified in acting that way. That is a positive claim you have made, or a positive belief that you have chosen to believe in. Can you please outline your justification? It's the same damn argument you probably use against God. 'You want me to believe in God? Prove why I should'. Right now you're the Christian telling me that you can believe whatever you want without justification in flagrant ignorance of the burden of proof.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 7:21:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 5:10:22 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 4/17/2014 4:42:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"I.e. not same emotions" - Not caring as much sort of implies the same emotions are involved, no?
No. They're emotions. You have a different response because of a qualitative difference. You don't do emotion math.


"Why would anyone ever share then? Emotions demonstrably point the other direction"

So, you're saying sharing is emotional now?
I'm saying there are definitely emotional drives to share. Even I feel them, and I'm well known for low empathy around here.

"No, I merely need a motive. I do not have to think it moral before I act, and many choose to do things they think immoral"

But not things that you think you ought not do, lol.
I don't do so. But I can. And some do.

Well, you see, if the material conditions I want overlap with the material conditions you want, then we're in the same situation as with the rock, aren't we?
Hoobadawoobada?

Plus, who gets to keep the first rock and who has to go get the second one?
The guy who got the first rock first keeps the first rock.

Your solution to the fact that we both want something is to tell
Hoobadawoobada?'


"They make relatively equal amounts of sense, except that the need for food is much more fundamental than the need for company, and when we stop excepting that from the equation, clearly stating property as the more fundamental concept in the hierarchy makes sense"

So what is it about needing food that allows you to claim a normative right over physical objects?
I already said this-- the need is mutual, and our natures make the appropriate treatment reciprocal.

Also, what you're saying is perverse. Saying 'You may not have this' is an exertion of authority in the form of property.
It's an assertion of violence, not of "authority."

The hierarchy comes before the property
You didn't understand the word hierarchy in that sentence. I was speaking of conceptual hierarchy, not social hierarchy. I.e., there is a hierarchy of idea derivation, in which property is derived from scarcity, mutual destructive ability, and mutual need; and then the concept of authority (i.e. abstract property) is derived from the lines drawn for concrete, material property.

The fact that you assume you're allowed to do whatever you want is not a logical argument but a statement of an assumption you've made.
It's a statement of reality. Until someone acts to disallow me, any action is allowed to me, save that which violates the laws of physics or identity.


My argument here is basically just applying the burden of proof to the belief that your action is justified
The action requires motive. I provided motive. Now you have to prove that there's a reason for me to stop, or to be stopped.

Right now you're the Christian telling me that you can believe whatever you want without justification in flagrant ignorance of the burden of proof.
I hope no Christian would ever make the argument "They can believe whatever they want." Beliefs are brain states to be caused by evidence. But in a place where you notice you can act, and notice no particular limits, there is no reason to conclude limits.

According to you, what is the justification for eating? Why do you sit before the computer, fully nourished? Since apparently you have to justify it to people. What nonsense. I need no justification for existence, I cannot justify outside the context of my own existence-- my existence is the purpose, from which I derive any standards.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 9:50:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 7:21:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

You say you don't do "emotion math", but if I am more attached to X than I am Y, is that not a quantitative difference?

"I'm saying there are definitely emotional drives to share. Even I feel them, and I'm well known for low empathy around here"

I presume by that you mean exclusively your penis, right? I mean you're the kind of guy who would take the 'pass' out of 'puff, puff, pass'. I know, I'm hilarious.

"I don't do so. But I can. And some do" - You're going to have to elaborate on how it's possible to decide to act in a way that you believe is not the way you should act. I mean, if that's true, then you really aren't responsible for your actions at all, so it that what you're saying?

"The guy who got the first rock first keeps the first rock" - Why?

"I already said this-- the need is mutual, and our natures make the appropriate treatment reciprocal" - Yes, but it's impossible for us both to own the same object, so cannot be reciprocal, no? If we both want to have sex, we can cooperate to achieve that end, but we cannot cooperatively exclude each other from the same thing.

"It's an assertion of violence, not of "authority."" - I don't think it is, I mean, most people understand property as a normative right, which is to say that the threat is not 'violence' but 'immorality', where the immorality is understood to be a rejection of a certain imposition of authority.

"You didn't understand the word hierarchy in that sentence. I was speaking of conceptual hierarchy, not social hierarchy. I.e., there is a hierarchy of idea derivation, in which property is derived from scarcity, mutual destructive ability, and mutual need; and then the concept of authority (i.e. abstract property) is derived from the lines drawn for concrete, material property"

Right... I am not familiar with such a hierarchy, so you'll have to excuse me. In any case, I see property as a specific application of the general principle of authority, which is the right to control others, rather than the right to control others being a specific application of the general principle of the right to exclusive use of an object... I don't think it's entailed in exerting control over someone that you own them, but I think it is entailed that you are exerting control over someone to exclude them from the use of an object.

"The action requires motive. I provided motive. Now you have to prove that there's a reason for me to stop, or to be stopped" - so you would agree that your actions are not justified but merely motivated? Not justified being the same as unjust...

"I hope no Christian would ever make the argument "They can believe whatever they want." Beliefs are brain states to be caused by evidence. But in a place where you notice you can act, and notice no particular limits, there is no reason to conclude limits.

According to you, what is the justification for eating? Why do you sit before the computer, fully nourished? Since apparently you have to justify it to people. What nonsense. I need no justification for existence, I cannot justify outside the context of my own existence-- my existence is the purpose, from which I derive any standards"

Well, they do, I mean I've seen believers say "I can believe whatever I want until you can provide evidence against my beliefs", which essentially means that 'If no one else existed, any belief of mine would be justifiably held, such as '1+1 = 463461'. Of course, they're asking for somekind of scientific study disproving God...

To make it clear, I am arguing not that the physical actions themselves are unjustified or prohibited, but that the beliefs behind them may not be justified - so I'm not saying that you ought to be able to notice that beating someone to death with a living human baby is 'wrong', but that the belief that beating someone to death etc. is unjustified, i.e. wrong. It's pretty crucial, I think... It's just like Nietzsche said: "There are no moral phenomena at all, only a moral interpretation of phenomena..." unless I misunderstood that, which would be embarrassing.

Also crucial is that you and I do not have to justify our actions (or our beliefs that such actions are justified) "to people", but to ourselves, for the same reason that it would be illegitimate to believe that if there was no one else around we could believe all sorts of crazy things, such as obvious mathematical falsehoods. I don't really want to go into how I think I can justify eating this chocolate since that would just distract the conversation.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 11:09:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 9:50:04 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 4/18/2014 7:21:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

You say you don't do "emotion math", but if I am more attached to X than I am Y, is that not a quantitative difference?

One monogamists don't do. They don't think it's okay to have a main squeeze and lesser flings. Monogamist emotions are qualitative. My statements were inside the context of monogamy.


"I'm saying there are definitely emotional drives to share. Even I feel them, and I'm well known for low empathy around here"

I presume by that you mean exclusively your penis, right?
Um, no, I mean property. Now, my penis is one of the few I ACT on.

I mean you're the kind of guy who would take the 'pass' out of 'puff, puff, pass'. I know, I'm hilarious.
Hard to say empirically, never smoked. Only time I was handed a joint, I handed it back without a puff.


"I don't do so. But I can. And some do" - You're going to have to elaborate on how it's possible to decide to act in a way that you believe is not the way you should act. I mean, if that's true, then you really aren't responsible for your actions at all, so it that what you're saying?
One is entirely responsible for a decision to do what they think they ought not do.

Erryday, in this very context, monogamists of the most religious sort go to meet their lovers, while believing it's something they ought not do.


"The guy who got the first rock first keeps the first rock" - Why?
Because any other hypothetical form of resolution leads to no way to predict whether the fruit of your labor will be denied. Predictably keeping the fruits of one's labor if one does not give or trade them away, as you'll recall, was the point of the exercise.


Yes, but it's impossible for us both to own the same object
That is indeed the whole point of the exercise, yes.

so cannot be reciprocal
No. By reciprocal I mean it applies for me in relation to your property and applies for you in relation to mine-- we both have the same relationship to one another's property in the context of our own property.

"It's an assertion of violence, not of "authority."" - I don't think it is, I mean, most people understand property as a normative right, which is to say that the threat is not 'violence'
All threats of physical force are violent, justified or otherwise. I prohibit only initiation of force.

"You didn't understand the word hierarchy in that sentence. I was speaking of conceptual hierarchy, not social hierarchy. I.e., there is a hierarchy of idea derivation, in which property is derived from scarcity, mutual destructive ability, and mutual need; and then the concept of authority (i.e. abstract property) is derived from the lines drawn for concrete, material property"

Right... I am not familiar with such a hierarchy, so you'll have to excuse me. In any case, I see property as a specific application of the general principle of authority,
What general principle? Anything someone tells you to do you should do? That's not a principle capable of consistency. If you wish to declare that there is a general principle of authority, you will have to tell me who you believe has authority over whom, underived from the violation of some other principle by the second party, and why, and why the hell I would ever have reason to follow such a principle.

"The action requires motive. I provided motive. Now you have to prove that there's a reason for me to stop, or to be stopped" - so you would agree that your actions are not justified but merely motivated? Not justified being the same as unjust...
They require no justification unless there is justification to stop them. I don't justify every time I eat a muffin. There's no reason not to. I need a justification only if I'm doing something that conflicts with some principle I have. Say I have a motive to kill someone. Okay, but I have principles based on other motives that tell me not to-- what is the justification? I.e., why does the principle not apply, why will killing someone not harm that motive?

Well, they do, I mean I've seen believers say "I can believe whatever I want until you can provide evidence against my beliefs",
You meet the dumbest variety of Christians.

I don't really want to go into how I think I can justify eating this chocolate since that would just distract the conversation.
Clearly, yes, proving that your standards are feasible by showing that you yourself somehow live up to them is a mere distraction from the question of whether I should adopt your standards. Yes, whether it's even possible to live up to a set of standards, don't worry about that, just leap forth blindly. I should accept your standards on faith, no, and immediately drop everything that I can't "justify" in some undefined way. If I starve while trying to figure out just what the hell you mean, what of it?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 1:25:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 2:18:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2014 8:11:16 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:09:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"According to your comparison, I should expect the same reaction when I ask an acquaintance to let me sleep on his couch for a night to what I would get if I asked him if he was up for a gangbang involving his wife"

That's a very unintelligent argument to make, since you're not at all considering the gravity of the situations.
If by gravity you mean magnitude, it's approximately the same magnitude. In either case, we share something for a night.

This isn't magnitude. Magnitude is about quantitative analysis. What you're mentioning is a quality, that of sharing something for a night. Similar magnitude would be determined by how much you valued that couch and if you placed the same value on that couch as you did your wife...in which case you probably wouldn't let anyone touch your couch, let alone sleep on it for the night.

This is basically just a continuance of your previous confusion. I am not saying that people are going to react to 'violations of exclusivity' in an identical way
WHY NOT? IF THEY HAVE THE SAME EMOTIONS, THE SAME STIMULI, THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME REACTION TO STIMULI.
If the reaction is different, THE MOTIVE IS DIFFERENT. I'm not confused, you are.

I find it ironic how emotional the one arguing for the rationality of property rights is getting over the issue of property rights.

As it is, I've held the views of the OP for a very, very long time.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 1:28:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 11:09:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"One monogamists don't do. They don't think it's okay to have a main squeeze and lesser flings. Monogamist emotions are qualitative. My statements were inside the context of monogamy"

Right, but anyway, 'minor' and 'major' breaches of the exclusivity are possible, negating the ridiculous point you've been trying to make that it's impossible to make your partner jealous without him or her separating from you. I mean, the most jealous partner would, I guess, demand absolute exclusivity, i.e. would lock you in a basement so that your only time spent interacting with people is with her, right? Sounds like what is permitted by property, to me... My contention is basically that not only are private property and monogamy concepts without 'objective' justification, and therefore completely unable to tell me how anyone ought to behave, but also 'undesirable', or 'weak', as they appear to be jealous corruptions of the 'healthy' desires to interact with the world, since they demand 'exclusivity'. I'm assuming jealousy is a bad or illegitimate feeling, but it doesn't seem to difficult to argue for.

"Um, no, I mean property. Now, my penis is one of the few I ACT on" + "Hard [you mean, like your penis?] to say empirically, never smoked. Only time I was handed a joint, I handed it back without a puff"

Both of those comments were a joke - 'The only thing you'd be willing to share is your penis / You're so greedy that you'd be incapable of taking part in such a universal act of sharing', you know? Hah. I'm actually surprised you didn't take a knife out and cut a couple of centimetres off the joint to sell later.

"One is entirely responsible for a decision to do what they think they ought not do.

Erryday, in this very context, monogamists of the most religious sort go to meet their lovers, while believing it's something they ought not do"

You can't abuse 'erryday' manners of speaking to make a point... If conscious thought processes are the cause of actions for which we are responsible, then it follows that we must act in the way that we believe we ought to act at the time of acting. If not, the conclusion I make about what I ought to do is completely irrelevant to how I behave, which means I am not responsible for how 'I behave', which is a contradiction in terms.

"Because any other hypothetical form of resolution leads to no way to predict whether the fruit of your labor will be denied. Predictably keeping the fruits of one's labor if one does not give or trade them away, as you'll recall, was the point of the exercise"

Define 'the fruit of your labour'.

"By reciprocal I mean it applies for me in relation to your property and applies for you in relation to mine-- we both have the same relationship to one another's property in the context of our own property"

Yes, but this is not a cooperative agreement, this is a reactionary exchange of claims to authority over each other, is it not? If you're going to prohibit me from accessing 'the fruit if your labour', whatever the hell that is, then I'm going to do the same to you. The reciprocity is a violent one.

"All threats of physical force are violent, justified or otherwise. I prohibit only initiation of force" - yes, but what I'm saying is that property is a normative right of authority where the consequence of its violation is, primarily, that you have committed an immoral act, not that you will face violence.

"What general principle? Anything someone tells you to do you should do? That's not a principle capable of consistency. If you wish to declare that there is a general principle of authority, you will have to tell me who you believe has authority over whom, underived from the violation of some other principle by the second party, and why, and why the hell I would ever have reason to follow such a principle"

I honestly have no idea what you think I just said. Did you think I was proposing to you a general moral principle which I think you ought not to follow? Uh, nope.

What I was trying to say is that 'You may not access this, because I own it' is a specific example of the more general species of statements 'You may not do X, because I have authority'. Authority can be derived from all kinds of things. The government today derives its right to tell me I can't do things because it has authority, because it has been approved of by a 'democratic' process. The monarchy a few hundred years ago would tell me I cannot, or indeed, must do, something because he has authority given to him by God to tell me what to do. You would in all of these situations, apparently, claim that I am, or my decision (???) is 'owned' by such institutions, but the idea of owning the right to make certain decisions seems to distort what 'property' means beyond any reasonable interpretation of it. Rather than say 'Political authority is the claim that certain institutions may own as property the decision-making capabilities of others', it seems to make more sense to say 'Property is the claim that individuals may justly claim authority over 'the fruit of their labour'. I guess it doesn't make that much of a difference, but whatever.

"They require no justification..." - So, you assert that beliefs do not require justification in order to be justly held, which is a contradiction, but rather they need to be 'disproved' by someone else; you then rather ironically berate certain theists for believing this.

"Clearly, yes, proving that your standards are feasible by showing that you yourself somehow live up to them is a mere distraction from the question of whether I should adopt your standards. Yes, whether it's even possible to live up to a set of standards, don't worry about that, just leap forth blindly. I should accept your standards on faith, no, and immediately drop everything that I can't "justify" in some undefined way. If I starve while trying to figure out just what the hell you mean, what of it?"

I don't think I should have to build structures to replace those that I have torn down in order to convince you that they were justly dismantled. To refer to the God debate again - you don't need to explain the Universe in order to reject a certain explanation of it. I honestly don't see why it matters what justification I think can be created if you do not accept the foundations I would try to build upon, so until then I don't feel any need to speak on the matter. Maybe I haven't got it right there, but I don't want you to use that as an argument against what I'm trying to tell you know.

Do you think I'm on some kind of zealous quest to starve you somehow? You should know that's not what my kind of people are about... "Bread, it is bread that the Revolution needs!". If starvation is what you're afraid of, then that's pretty dumb since apparently we produce 1.5 times enough food anyway, and that's with the inefficiencies of capitalism.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com...]
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 1:29:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm actually currently engaged in a debate about the utility of polyamory and polygamy, and at least a little bit of my argumentation is along the lines of the OP. The parable of the long spoons essentially is a parable against jealousy and envy and how the path to heaven involves sharing...so why not share your spouse as well?

Still, I conclude that polyamory and polygamy are unsustainable due to scarcity constraints, and so the parable is untenable and ultimately something else has to take its place.

It will be interesting to see what my opponent does. Indeed very interesting, lol.

http://www.debate.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 4:23:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 1:25:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/16/2014 2:18:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2014 8:11:16 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:09:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"According to your comparison, I should expect the same reaction when I ask an acquaintance to let me sleep on his couch for a night to what I would get if I asked him if he was up for a gangbang involving his wife"

That's a very unintelligent argument to make, since you're not at all considering the gravity of the situations.
If by gravity you mean magnitude, it's approximately the same magnitude. In either case, we share something for a night.

This isn't magnitude. Magnitude is about quantitative analysis. What you're mentioning is a quality, that of sharing something for a night.
"A night" is a quantity of time.

Similar magnitude would be determined by how much you valued that couch and if you placed the same value on that couch as you did your wife...in which case you probably wouldn't let anyone touch your couch, let alone sleep on it for the night.
Artists value their work, some more than their spouse. They share their art with the world. And many of those are monogamists. Why? They see a qualitative difference.

I find it ironic how emotional the one arguing for the rationality of property rights is getting over the issue of property rights.
Actually, I'm getting emotional over stupidity. I do that sometimes.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 4:24:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 1:29:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Still, I conclude that polyamory and polygamy are unsustainable due to scarcity constraints
I wouldn't say so. They were sustained for thousands of years. Scarcity no more prevents them then it does a vacation timeshare.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 4:27:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 4:23:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/19/2014 1:25:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/16/2014 2:18:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/15/2014 8:11:16 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:09:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"According to your comparison, I should expect the same reaction when I ask an acquaintance to let me sleep on his couch for a night to what I would get if I asked him if he was up for a gangbang involving his wife"

That's a very unintelligent argument to make, since you're not at all considering the gravity of the situations.
If by gravity you mean magnitude, it's approximately the same magnitude. In either case, we share something for a night.

This isn't magnitude. Magnitude is about quantitative analysis. What you're mentioning is a quality, that of sharing something for a night.
"A night" is a quantity of time.

Aye, but it does not measure the "gravity" or "magnitude of value" placed upon that night.

Similar magnitude would be determined by how much you valued that couch and if you placed the same value on that couch as you did your wife...in which case you probably wouldn't let anyone touch your couch, let alone sleep on it for the night.
Artists value their work, some more than their spouse. They share their art with the world. And many of those are monogamists. Why? They see a qualitative difference.

They don't let people touch their art, nor do they let them sleep on it.

By the analogy you're making here, you're "sharing" your wife every time she leaves your house.

I find it ironic how emotional the one arguing for the rationality of property rights is getting over the issue of property rights.
Actually, I'm getting emotional over stupidity. I do that sometimes.

I do too, lol.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 4:29:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 4:24:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/19/2014 1:29:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Still, I conclude that polyamory and polygamy are unsustainable due to scarcity constraints
I wouldn't say so. They were sustained for thousands of years. Scarcity no more prevents them then it does a vacation timeshare.

lol, if every woman in the world had 10 children, we would very, very soon hit a ceiling of resource constraints.

In the circumstances you're talking about (ancient times when there weren't that many people), sure, maybe so. Then again, IMHO this puts the whole Biblical parable of Sodom and Gomorrah in another light...perhaps what the Bible was referring to was a Malthusian dilemma that was caused by a culture of sexual freedom in those cities that destroyed them, i.e. metaphorically turned to salt.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 4:42:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 1:28:01 PM, Wocambs wrote:
Right, but anyway, 'minor' and 'major' breaches of the exclusivity are possible, negating the ridiculous point you've been trying to make that it's impossible to make your partner jealous without him or her separating from you.
Except in exceptional cases, it pretty much is.

I mean, the most jealous partner would, I guess, demand absolute exclusivity, i.e. would lock you in a basement so that your only time spent interacting with people is with her, right?
Or, you know, demand exclusivity in some particular subject matter-- i.e. sex-- i.e. because again, monogamy is qualitative.

"Hard [you mean, like your penis?]
That would be equivocation.

You can't abuse 'erryday' manners of speaking to make a point... If conscious thought processes are the cause of actions for which we are responsible, then it follows that we must act in the way that we believe we ought to act at the time of acting.
No, that conclusion does not follow from that premise. Bet you couldn't formalize the argument to show otherwise ^_^.

If not, the conclusion I make about what I ought to do is completely irrelevant to how I behave, which means I am not responsible for how 'I behave'
Nonsense. You chose to make it irrelevant, it wasn't thrust upon you to do so. You could have determined it in accordance with your thoughts about ought-- you chose not to.

"Because any other hypothetical form of resolution leads to no way to predict whether the fruit of your labor will be denied. Predictably keeping the fruits of one's labor if one does not give or trade them away, as you'll recall, was the point of the exercise"

Define 'the fruit of your labour'.
The value that exists as a result of your labor, and did not exist before it.


"By reciprocal I mean it applies for me in relation to your property and applies for you in relation to mine-- we both have the same relationship to one another's property in the context of our own property"

Yes, but this is not a cooperative agreement, this is a reactionary exchange of claims to authority over each other, is it not?
It is not something you can choose to be true or not true, if that's what you mean. It exists the moment you chose your goal in a world in which multiple rational beings exist.

"All threats of physical force are violent, justified or otherwise. I prohibit only initiation of force" - yes, but what I'm saying is that property is a normative right of authority where the consequence of its violation is, primarily, that you have committed an immoral act, not that you will face violence.
"The consequence is that you have committed an immoral act" is a concept error It's moral or immoral because of the rationally expected consequences.

I honestly have no idea what you think I just said. Did you think I was proposing to you a general moral principle which I think you ought not to follow? Uh, nope.
You said, in sum, that there was some "principle of authority" and that property was some particular case of it. . Did you mean some nonmoral principle, somelaw of nature?


What I was trying to say is that 'You may not access this, because I own it' is a specific example of the more general species of statements 'You may not do X, because I have authority'.
That's not a principle, or anything objective to reality. You're reifying rhetorical categorizations into supposed philosophical ones.

"They require no justification..." - So, you assert that beliefs do not require justification
No, I was speaking of actions, not beliefs.

I don't think I should have to build structures to replace those that I have torn down in order to convince you that they were justly dismantled.
You need to build a conceptual structure in which there can be such a thing as "just dismantling" for one. And you need to actually tear it down for another.

To refer to the God debate again - you don't need to explain the Universe in order to reject a certain explanation of it.
But you need to explain some epistemological conception that has requirements that the explanation of God does not meet. And it only does you any good if you motivate people to adopt that epistemology.

I honestly don't see why it matters what justification I think can be created if you do not accept the foundations I would try to build upon, so until then I don't feel any need to speak on the matter. Maybe I haven't got it right there, but I don't want you to use that as an argument against what I'm trying to tell you know.
When it comes to continuing my existence, I'm not concerned with what you WANT.


Do you think I'm on some kind of zealous quest to starve you somehow?
You seem to be trying to convince me to starve myself. I don't know with what zeal.

You should know that's not what my kind of people are about... "Bread, it is bread that the Revolution needs!".
I wasn't even aware you were a goddamned communist, nor was that important to the discussion. The "Starvation" was a matter of metaethics, not politics.

If starvation is what you're afraid of, then that's pretty dumb since apparently we produce 1.5 times enough food anyway, and that's with the inefficiencies of capitalism.
I think you mean with the efficiencies of capitalism. Do you KNOW how many people were starved under malevolent central planners? Not, again, that that's the starvation I was talking about earlier.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 5:30:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 4:29:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/19/2014 4:24:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/19/2014 1:29:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Still, I conclude that polyamory and polygamy are unsustainable due to scarcity constraints
I wouldn't say so. They were sustained for thousands of years. Scarcity no more prevents them then it does a vacation timeshare.

lol, if every woman in the world had 10 children, we would very, very soon hit a ceiling of resource constraints.
Polygamy in a gender-balanced, affluent population would probably reduce birth rates.


In the circumstances you're talking about (ancient times when there weren't that many people), sure, maybe so. Then again, IMHO this puts the whole Biblical parable of Sodom and Gomorrah in another light...perhaps what the Bible was referring to was a Malthusian dilemma that was caused by a culture of sexual freedom in those cities that destroyed them, i.e. metaphorically turned to salt.
Um... if the practices of Sodom and Gomorrah were being fruitful and multiplying, the Bible would be written differently. Like, maybe sweep them under the rug.

Also, there's not really much in the way of evidence that either city ever existed.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 5:50:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 5:30:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/19/2014 4:29:35 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/19/2014 4:24:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/19/2014 1:29:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Still, I conclude that polyamory and polygamy are unsustainable due to scarcity constraints
I wouldn't say so. They were sustained for thousands of years. Scarcity no more prevents them then it does a vacation timeshare.

lol, if every woman in the world had 10 children, we would very, very soon hit a ceiling of resource constraints.
Polygamy in a gender-balanced, affluent population would probably reduce birth rates.

A decline in birth rate would only occur due to the constraints of scarcity. If you were affluent enough to support one child, why not have another? Or 4? Or 10?

In the debate, I used 10 as a number because my opponent pointed out biological limitations that placed optimal child-birthing for women at once every 3 years, so puberty-menopause would comfortably accommodate for 10 children birthed by every woman.

In the circumstances you're talking about (ancient times when there weren't that many people), sure, maybe so. Then again, IMHO this puts the whole Biblical parable of Sodom and Gomorrah in another light...perhaps what the Bible was referring to was a Malthusian dilemma that was caused by a culture of sexual freedom in those cities that destroyed them, i.e. metaphorically turned to salt.
Um... if the practices of Sodom and Gomorrah were being fruitful and multiplying, the Bible would be written differently. Like, maybe sweep them under the rug.

Also, there's not really much in the way of evidence that either city ever existed.

Sodom and Gomorrah is a parable that conveys a story about "sexual deviance", which entailed the people essentially fvcking anything that moved. That's consistent with what the parable of the long spoons would advocate when applied to sexual relations. It's all in my debate, more sex and more intimacy would result in more "parents" to help with child-rearing. It would create a virtuous cycle until scarcity became a problem, and once it did, the entire system would collapse and you'd probably face an extinction event.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 5:53:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 4:42:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"Except in exceptional cases, it pretty much is" - What evidence could I present that would falsify this? Genuine question. I mean, will anecdotes be enough? Will I have to look up studies? Lol.

"Or, you know, demand exclusivity in some particular subject matter-- i.e. sex-- i.e. because again, monogamy is qualitative" - I guess, but the most jealous / protective partner would have the greatest fear of you interacting in a way that would breach such exclusivity. Never seen anyone tell their partners not to spend so much time with a certain friend, etc.?

"No, that conclusion does not follow from that premise. Bet you couldn't formalize the argument to show otherwise ^_^"

Challenge accepted...
1. I am responsible for my actions
2. Responsibility for something is causing that something to occur
3. I may at any time act in a way in which I do not want to act
Therefore my desire to act in a certain way is not the ultimate cause of my actions
Therefore, human responsibility is derived from something other than our own thoughts

You're telling me you agree with that? You say "You could have determined it in accordance with your thoughts about ought-- you chose not to" - but what exactly is the different between 'I ought to do this' and 'I want to do this'?

"The value that exists as a result of your labor, and did not exist before it" - Value is subjective, isn't it? And what is 'my labour'?

"It is not something you can choose to be true or not true, if that's what you mean. It exists the moment you chose your goal in a world in which multiple rational beings exist" - Permanent exclusivity certainly does not, only use, which is remarkably different from ownership.

""The consequence is that you have committed an immoral act" is a concept error It's moral or immoral because of the rationally expected consequences" - Well, according t you, but I'm pretty sure that property is argued by most people to be a 'natural right' and therefore a form of authority not based on consequences or violence.

"You said, in sum, that there was some "principle of authority" and that property was some particular case of it. . Did you mean some nonmoral principle, somelaw of nature?" + "That's not a principle, or anything objective to reality. You're reifying rhetorical categorizations into supposed philosophical ones"

It's very strange how you interrupt me mid-point to make a response. I'll try rephrasing it again. Property is normally understood as the right to the 'fruit of one's labour'. Authority is normally understood as the right to dictate to someone what they may and may not do, and indeed what they must do. Therefore, to claim that you can 'own' the decisions of others, while understandable, is a bastardisation of 'property', whereas deeming property to be an instance of 'telling someone what they may and may not do' in regards to the fruit of one's own labour is accurate. Perhaps instead of 'principle' I should have said 'concept'.

"No, I was speaking of actions, not beliefs" - Implies that just actions are not caused by just beliefs, which seems just a little queer to me.

"You need to build a conceptual structure in which there can be such a thing as "just dismantling" for one. And you need to actually tear it down for another"

If it doesn't meet the burden of proof, don't believe it. That's my hammer.

"But you need to explain some epistemological conception that has requirements that the explanation of God does not meet. And it only does you any good if you motivate people to adopt that epistemology"

So you reject the burden of proof?

"When it comes to continuing my existence, I'm not concerned with what you WANT"

Seems like a bit of an unrelated issue... A bit like how it is completely irrelevant what I believe when we're analysing positive claims that you are making. To my understanding the only real positive claim I'm making is that you we are responsible for our actions.

"I wasn't even aware you were a goddamned communist, nor was that important to the discussion. The "Starvation" was a matter of metaethics, not politics" + "I think you mean with the efficiencies of capitalism. Do you KNOW how many people were starved under malevolent central planners? Not, again, that that's the starvation I was talking about earlier"

I was just making a joke based on the fact that you're continually obsessing about starvation like a jealous lover while the political ideologies I associate with have typically emphasised the need to eliminate starvation. Kinda funny how you talk about central planning when it's fairly clear that Stalin would have me killed, I guess, for writing what I am here. Let's please not get into politics, you clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when it comes to left political philosophy.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 8:45:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 5:50:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

A decline in birth rate would only occur due to the constraints of scarcity. If you were affluent enough to support one child, why not have another? Or 4? Or 10?
In the real, empirical, world: Real, empirical affluent people have fewer children. Real, empirical Europe and Japan are below replacement birth rate. Real, empirical US population growth is driven by the immigrant population. How you gonna find time to raise lots of chilluns in the big city? In the third world, OTOH, you are believed to need more kids to handle the farm or whatever. In some parts of it, they have to be sons.
Basically, scarcity and birth rate are positively, not negatively, correlated, at least under the conditions in the real world.

In the debate, I used 10 as a number because my opponent pointed out biological limitations that placed optimal child-birthing for women at once every 3 years, so puberty-menopause would comfortably accommodate for 10 children birthed by every woman.
Um. Even assuming real, empirical women thought like you think they do. You realize at around 40 years of age for the woman the probability of mental disability for the child goes up substantially?

Sodom and Gomorrah is a parable that conveys a story about "sexual deviance", which entailed the people essentially fvcking anything that moved.
And, you know, not directing it toward procreation, having male temple prostitutes, maybe threatening to mass gang rape Lot...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 8:56:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 8:45:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/19/2014 5:50:02 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

A decline in birth rate would only occur due to the constraints of scarcity. If you were affluent enough to support one child, why not have another? Or 4? Or 10?
In the real, empirical, world: Real, empirical affluent people have fewer children. Real, empirical Europe and Japan are below replacement birth rate. Real, empirical US population growth is driven by the immigrant population. How you gonna find time to raise lots of chilluns in the big city? In the third world, OTOH, you are believed to need more kids to handle the farm or whatever. In some parts of it, they have to be sons.
Basically, scarcity and birth rate are positively, not negatively, correlated, at least under the conditions in the real world.

No, what you call "affluence" is still bound by scarcity. One major reason why birth rates are low is because the cost of raising a kid are astronomical.

The rural family you bring up is actually a case of plenty, as there's so much farmland that you need more kids to work the fields.

With more parents comes more people that would have time to raise the children.

In the debate, I used 10 as a number because my opponent pointed out biological limitations that placed optimal child-birthing for women at once every 3 years, so puberty-menopause would comfortably accommodate for 10 children birthed by every woman.
Um. Even assuming real, empirical women thought like you think they do. You realize at around 40 years of age for the woman the probability of mental disability for the child goes up substantially?

It goes up for men too. 14-44 is 10 children. May as well start them young since a society this sexually liberated would probably not have any qualms about pedophilia either.

Sodom and Gomorrah is a parable that conveys a story about "sexual deviance", which entailed the people essentially fvcking anything that moved.
And, you know, not directing it toward procreation, having male temple prostitutes, maybe threatening to mass gang rape Lot...

Intimacy creates bonds that facilitate shared responsibilities.

There wouldn't be prostitution if everyone's sharing.

You can't rape the willing. There's more than enough to go around.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 9:30:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 5:53:29 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 4/19/2014 4:42:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"Except in exceptional cases, it pretty much is" - What evidence could I present that would falsify this?
If it's true, I predict a large, randomly selected sample of persons in the United States who discovered their SO having an adulterous one-night stand will have a similar divorce rate to a likewise large randomly selected sample of persons in the United States who discovered their SO having an adulterous long-term affair. If it's false, this study would find a substantial difference in divorce rates between the two groups.

I don't think any such study has ever been performed.

"Or, you know, demand exclusivity in some particular subject matter-- i.e. sex-- i.e. because again, monogamy is qualitative" - I guess, but the most jealous / protective partner would have the greatest fear of you interacting in a way that would breach such exclusivity. Never seen anyone tell their partners not to spend so much time with a certain friend, etc.?
A certain friend of the opposite sex from said partner. For obvious reasons. Irrational reasons, but obvious reasons.


"No, that conclusion does not follow from that premise. Bet you couldn't formalize the argument to show otherwise ^_^"

Challenge accepted...
1. I am responsible for my actions
2. Responsibility for something is causing that something to occur
3. I may at any time act in a way in which I do not want to act
Therefore my desire to act in a certain way is not the ultimate cause of my actions
Therefore, human responsibility is derived from something other than our own thoughts
You changed it. You went from "Think you ought not to" to "Do not want to."


You're telling me you agree with that? You say "You could have determined it in accordance with your thoughts about ought-- you chose not to" - but what exactly is the different between 'I ought to do this' and 'I want to do this'?

An obvious one.

In the words of Trent Reznor:
"I know it's not the right thing
And I know it's not the good thing
But kinda I want to...

...Kinda I want to maybe, just for tonight.
We can pretend it's all right."

The difference is between what emotions tell you to do now, and what your thoughts say will lead to the best long term fulfillment of your values (if you prefer, the best sum of long term emotional responses).


"The value that exists as a result of your labor, and did not exist before it" - Value is subjective, isn't it?
Goals are. Values that serve them aren't necessarily.

And what is 'my labour'?
The process by which your actions created the value.

To concretize: You are a farmer. Before you were a farmer, there was tall, dry grass here. You have plowed, seeded. Now there is a wheat field.

Permanent exclusivity certainly does not, only use, which is remarkably different from ownership.
Scarcity exists even before you choose goals, let alone after.


Well, according t you, but I'm pretty sure that property is argued by most people to be a 'natural right' and therefore a form of authority not based on consequences or violence.
"Natural rights" is a content-empty phrase.

It's very strange how you interrupt me mid-point to make a response. I'll try rephrasing it again. Property is normally understood as the right to the 'fruit of one's labour'. Authority is normally understood as the right to dictate to someone what they may and may not do, and indeed what they must do.
I've never heard of anyone with the understanding that we have the "Right" to tell people what to do, phrased like that. Tell me, which documents, listing out the rights of humans, list this one?
I've heard of people who believe that the population as a whole has such a right, or the monarch-- but private property can't be derived from those notions, it is OPPOSED to those notions. It only allows telling people what to do as a remedy for their attempt to do so first in violation of your rights, not as the right itself.

"No, I was speaking of actions, not beliefs" - Implies that just actions are not caused by just beliefs, which seems just a little queer to me.
Implies that every action has to have a justice-value, which seems extraordinarily queer to me.


"You need to build a conceptual structure in which there can be such a thing as "just dismantling" for one. And you need to actually tear it down for another"

If it doesn't meet the burden of proof, don't believe it. That's my hammer.
What burden of proof?
Does your statement meet this burden of proof?
What's a hammer?
Prove you should wield this hammer.

So you reject the burden of proof?
Reject WHAT burden of proof?


"When it comes to continuing my existence, I'm not concerned with what you WANT"

Seems like a bit of an unrelated issue...
Then why did you bring up what you want?

To my understanding the only real positive claim I'm making is that you we are responsible for our actions.
Even if that were grammatical, you've made a helluva lot more positive claims than that.

Let's please not get into politics, you clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when it comes to left political philosophy.
You cannot derive that merely from my lack of knowledge about what particular breed of communist YOU are.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 9:43:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 8:56:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
No, what you call "affluence" is still bound by scarcity. One major reason why birth rates are low is because the cost of raising a kid are astronomical.
And the richer you are, the more that's true, since part of the fee for a kid is time investment. The more you're paid, the more opportunity cost that is.


The rural family you bring up is actually a case of plenty, as there's so much farmland that you need more kids to work the fields.
If you met the people I wasn't talking about, you wouldn't think they have "plenty."


With more parents comes more people that would have time to raise the children.
If you're speaking of them distributing the time, that's still a low birth rate. The parent-time per child still is what it is, regardless of whether the parents do so in monogamous couples or group marriages. The birth rate for the purposes of population change is measured in children/adult, not children/marriage. If children/marriage increases and adults/marriage increases by the same proportion, you have no change in children/adult.

Um. Even assuming real, empirical women thought like you think they do. You realize at around 40 years of age for the woman the probability of mental disability for the child goes up substantially?

It goes up for men too. 14-44 is 10 children. May as well start them young since a society this sexually liberated would probably not have any qualms about pedophilia either.
I have no moral qualm to pedophilia, but that doesn't mean I'd encourage a 14 year old to procreate. Or a 44 year old. Or a 42 year old, or a 16 year old, or an 18 year old. 20 only rarely. Remember, this is an affluent, highly technical society-- one needs a lot of time to build up job skills. And holy crap what woman in an affluent country would give up that much of her scarce time to pregnancy? Keeping in mind the whole "liberated" thing.

Intimacy creates bonds that facilitate shared responsibilities.
Hoobadawoobada?

There wouldn't be prostitution if everyone's sharing.
Well, I was just saying historically, that's what allegedly happened in Sodom and Gomorrah. Temple prostitution was pretty widespread in the urban classical Mediterranean, really.


You can't rape the willing. There's more than enough to go around.
What? Lot wasn't willing to be sodomized, allegedly.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.