Aristophanes: This is your case for it being a non issue that you want to 'manipulate" people? Because it is part of evolution? You are then an extreme social darwinist, no?
My case is that it's a universal human trait and that it's inevitable to some degree in everyone because that's what our brains are programmed to do: think about the organism in which they exist first.
It would be foolish from my perspective to disregard that truth just because it might be unsettling to some people. I embrace it and try to figure out how to live with it rather than change it. I don't think it can be changed.
Social darwinism obviously makes no sense. Selection isn't done at the societal level or even the individual level, but rather at the genetic level. But I do believe that the people who do extremely well in a society do so because the interplay between their genes and their environment ultimately yields a human that functions better than others in their given environment.
This isn't to say that that process is right or wrong, it's simply inevitable. Some people will always do better than others. Equality of material possession, moral consideration or general adaptiveness is unlikely, some people will always be at the top. If I could choose I'd like to be at the top but I will settle for somewhere in the middle.
It would be foolish from my perspective to disregard that truth
What process of logic did you ______ that "truth" from?
Fill in the blank for me.
Social darwinism obviously makes no sense.
You are so full of contradictions it is not even worth it. You do not even know the implications for the things you say from paragraph to paragraph. You're a sociopath and not even worth conversing with. Go rape some people while you hold up traditional values of authoritarianism.
Aristophanes: So, you are what, casing the mises forums? Ask around a bit and you will find otherwise. What society do you live in? The land of the free? The one with the declaration of independence as its founding philosophy? The one with the Statue of Liberty as its prime symbol?
What society do you live in? The land of the free? The one with the declaration of independence as its founding philosophy? The one with the Statue of Liberty as its prime symbol?
The land of the free is a rhetorical self delusion as is the national fondness for symbols like the statue of liberty. They're ways of assuring ourselves (self deception) that we're free when we're really not and haven't been for a very long time. What's ironic is that many of the same people who wrote the declaration of independence with all its wonderful prose about inalienable individual rights and equality then turned right around and made another government. First in the Articles of Confederation which many found lacking in just ten years!! and then in the Constitution which is a far more centralized document than the Articles were.
People may talk about freedom but they're empty words mostly. I don't see a real desire for freedom, I see a desire for varying degrees of slavery couched in language about freedom. It's funny how ignorant humans can be about themselves.
Aristophanes: Two posts from you is all it took. We all notice. Especially in the case of bankers, lawyers, and politicians...you are not living in reality.
Do you think every single banker or lawyer or politician is a sociopath? What about every other profession? How would you know the difference? On this forum I've run into a lot of moralizing but this is the internet. In real life I think I fit right in with my society.
Aristophanes: Yeah, kowing that Ted Bundy and yourself have virtually identical personalities is no big deal.
Doubtful even if I were a sociopath. Ted Bundy was an extreme example.
Aristophanes: What process of logic did you ______ that "truth" from? Fill in the blank for me.
I'm not incapable of logic, I just see no reason to study it extensively.
If I'm inconsistent to some degree than it doesn't really bother me. I use this forum as practice that's about it.
Aristophanes: You are so full of contradictions it is not even worth it. You do not even know the implications for the things you say from paragraph to paragraph.
Lol irony. How do I know that you're not full of contradictions? Passing judgment on me and then maybe going out to take advantage of little girls because hey...they gave consent right? Save your holier than thou routine I don't buy it internet scum.
Aristophanes: You're a sociopath and not even worth conversing with. Go rape some people while you hold up traditional values of authoritarianism.
You're an unpersuasive libertarian drone and I never really had much interest in conversing with you to begin with. You're a temporary form of entertainment and you're not that entertaining. Go preach freedom to people who don't care for it.
Anyways this thread bores me. I'm going to go read some of my new books.
Gotlucky or Aristophanes or whoever you can have the last word.
I've said what I have to say for now.
Aristophanes: What process of logic did you ______ that "truth" from? Fill in the blank for me. I'm not incapable of logic, I just see no reason to study it extensively.
This is hilarious. You cannot even fill in the blank. How can you know if anything is true if you do not understand logic? You see no reason because you think you are smart enough to know innatley, grammar. But, grammar is not logic.
How do I know that you're not full of contradictions?
You have not pointed any out.
Passing judgment on me and then maybe going out to take advantage of little girls because hey...they gave consent right? Save your holier than thou routine I don't buy it internet scum.
I don't even get it. You are now accusing me of behaving like you and Ted Bundy. This is another example of why you need logic. You are saying illogical things, they are called non sequiturs...
Aristophanes: You're a sociopath and not even worth conversing with. Go rape some people while you hold up traditional values of authoritarianism. You're an unpersuasive libertarian drone and I never really had much interest in conversing with you to begin with. You're a temporary form of entertainment and you're not that entertaining.
You're an unpersuasive libertarian drone and I never really had much interest in conversing with you to begin with. You're a temporary form of entertainment and you're not that entertaining.
What does my libertarianism have to do with your psychology?
We are not "temporary entertainment" for you as you have thousands of posts.
Go preach freedom to people who don't care for it.
I think you are here casing the arguments against what your pipe dreams of control and minpulation stand for. YOU are at the mises forums. I am not on some Skinner-esque, Mussolini value forum. Just another contradiction in your logic (or lack of it).
Are you aware of logical fallacies? There are several in your last post. You need logic.
Anyways this thread bores me. I'm going to go read some of my new books. Gotlucky or Aristophanes or whoever you can have the last word. I've said what I have to say for now.
More sociopathic reasoning.
@ Aristophanes
Fortunately for all of us bloomj doesn't even understand the very subject he is focusing on, that being psychology, psychology certainly doesn't favor authoritarianism. (It has consistently shown that authority corrupts even normal empathetic people. Authority and sociopathic characteristics together, most people in positions of authority exhibit sociopathic characteristics by the way, is a recipe for disaster.) Psychology is in fact the reason I am a market anarchist. With his current mindset he will fail at effectively manipulating and/or persuading people. (His natural inclination is to resort to external forms of motivation such as simply threatening people in order to get them to comply. This is not a good way of getting things done in the long term. As we market anarchist/anarcho-capitalists/crackpot libertarians are well aware of.)
bloomj31: Well I'm not advocating using a time machine to go back in time to enforce these rules, so how is your observation relevant to the discussion of how one ought to think about the legal age of consent in the present and in the future?
Well I'm not advocating using a time machine to go back in time to enforce these rules, so how is your observation relevant to the discussion of how one ought to think about the legal age of consent in the present and in the future?
Perhaps you should reread what I wrote, but for your benefit, I will requote the most crucial section:
gotlucky: I am pointing out the absurdity of the idea that people cannot consent to sex before age 25.
I am pointing out the absurdity of the idea that people cannot consent to sex before age 25.
Actually, I'll just go ahead and requote the next section too:
gotlucky: People can consent to anything at any age if they agree to it. We are talking about legal consent. And if legal consent and actual consent don't line up, then you are just talking gibberish. You are saying to someone that they can't actually consent when they have already demonstrated that they can.
People can consent to anything at any age if they agree to it. We are talking about legal consent. And if legal consent and actual consent don't line up, then you are just talking gibberish. You are saying to someone that they can't actually consent when they have already demonstrated that they can.
The point of legal consent is to highlight whether or not a person's consent is recognized legally. In other words, if a man slips a woman a date rape drug, and then he proceeds to have sex with her, it doesn't matter if she gives consent (if there is a window of time before she passes out), because if she decides to press charges, it can be said that her "consent" was not legal. In other words, the man aggressed against her and acted against her will.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that two 14 year olds have consensual sex with each other and that they are in a state where the age of consent is 16. Saying that they did not consent is ridiculous - they just had consensual sex. To say otherwise is to say that they did not act consensually. In other words, it is to say that they did not give permission and that they used force against each other. But they most certainly did not.
There is also another key distinction between drugs and not having a fully developed brain. The one alters the mind whereas the other does not. A woman who is dateraped has an altered mind. It is entirely possible that she would not have given any possible consent she might have been able to give had her mind not been forcibly altered (we are assuming, again, that she was able to consent just before passing out). But two 14 year olds or two 20 year olds do not have altered minds. Maybe they will regret their actions later and maybe they won't. But their minds were not altered. Their consent was actually consent.
What you are arguing is that their consent should not be treated as consent legally. And I understand that there are many people who are of this opinion. But it is logically absurd to say that they have not really consented when they have demonstrated that they already have.
bloomj31: I'm saying that for people under a certain age there seems to me to be little reason to trust in their ability to make decisions for themselves and that their values and choices needn't necessarily be given any serious consideration in legal matters where consent is an issue. EDIT: It seems entirely reasonable to me to believe that a person with an underdeveloped brain could come to vastly different conclusions if they actually had a fully developed brain, particularly when the issue involves inter-temporal decision making. So I think there's good reason for the law to be heavily disinclined to consider the will of a minor (which it generally seems to be,) particularly a minor under a certain age, which it comes to questions of consent. I want the law to reflect that idea at least to some degree (and it does.)
I'm saying that for people under a certain age there seems to me to be little reason to trust in their ability to make decisions for themselves and that their values and choices needn't necessarily be given any serious consideration in legal matters where consent is an issue. EDIT: It seems entirely reasonable to me to believe that a person with an underdeveloped brain could come to vastly different conclusions if they actually had a fully developed brain, particularly when the issue involves inter-temporal decision making. So I think there's good reason for the law to be heavily disinclined to consider the will of a minor (which it generally seems to be,) particularly a minor under a certain age, which it comes to questions of consent.
I want the law to reflect that idea at least to some degree (and it does.)
Okay. You are just spouting off logically absurd statements. People who are under 25 make decisions for themselves all the fucking time. It really doesn't matter if you don't trust that people under 25 can make decisions for themselves, because they do in fact make decisions for themselves. Furthermore, value is subjective. Just because you disagree with someone else's decision doesn't make your belief right. What if the person actually making the decision is right and you are wrong? Huh? Did that thought ever cross your mind? No. I'm certain it hasn't.
bloomj31: An individual's ability to vocalize or otherwise demonstrate a "yes" or "no" shouldn't be the guiding criterion (and it's not currently) in deciding whether or not to treat their will as legally relevant. The guiding criterion should be (and usually is) whether or not the people in charge (the state) have any reason to believe the individual in question understood the choice they were making at the time, EDIT: at least to the degree that they find satisfactory. Because this is an arbitrary evaluation there will be discrepancies between where different states place their respective bars which is one of the reasons why statutory rape laws vary from state to state.
An individual's ability to vocalize or otherwise demonstrate a "yes" or "no" shouldn't be the guiding criterion (and it's not currently) in deciding whether or not to treat their will as legally relevant. The guiding criterion should be (and usually is) whether or not the people in charge (the state) have any reason to believe the individual in question understood the choice they were making at the time, EDIT: at least to the degree that they find satisfactory.
Because this is an arbitrary evaluation there will be discrepancies between where different states place their respective bars which is one of the reasons why statutory rape laws vary from state to state.
Nice try at the verbal sleight of hand there. "An individual's ability to vocalize or otherwise demonstrate a 'yes' or 'no'" = consent. An individual's ability to consent should not be the guiding criterion for whether or not their consent was legal? It should be the first question asked in any legal matter! Did the person actually consent? Then you can start talking about whether or not their consent was legally binding. If two 13 year olds consent to having sex with each other, then they have consented. To say otherwise is to imply that they did not give each other permission to have sex; in other words, that they used force. But clearly they did not.
You. Need. Logic. Badly.
bloomj31: Why? EDIT: I'm re-reading this statement over and over and something bothers me about the use of the word "properly." It's not that people with fully developed brains will necessarily consider consequences perfectly or properly it's that they're at least working with a full deck from the start. They're not impaired in the same way that people without a fully developed brain or people under the influence are. Their decisions are based on a fully functioning, fully developed system rather than a partially developed or otherwise impaired one. This is the crucial distinction. Impairedness also would seem to exist on a spectrum. So an 18 year old male may have a far more developed brain than he did at 12 but he's still got a ways to go before his brain is fully developed at (let's say for the sake of argument) 25. In the same way, someone passing out from alcohol use is more impaired than someone who's just a little tipsy. Both are impaired but to different degrees.
Why? EDIT: I'm re-reading this statement over and over and something bothers me about the use of the word "properly." It's not that people with fully developed brains will necessarily consider consequences perfectly or properly it's that they're at least working with a full deck from the start. They're not impaired in the same way that people without a fully developed brain or people under the influence are. Their decisions are based on a fully functioning, fully developed system rather than a partially developed or otherwise impaired one. This is the crucial distinction. Impairedness also would seem to exist on a spectrum. So an 18 year old male may have a far more developed brain than he did at 12 but he's still got a ways to go before his brain is fully developed at (let's say for the sake of argument) 25. In the same way, someone passing out from alcohol use is more impaired than someone who's just a little tipsy. Both are impaired but to different degrees.
This is the danger of people making statements about things they don't understand. Not having a fully developed brain != impaired. Logic. You need it. For someone to be impaired, there needs to be a comparison. Impaired compared to what? A 12 year old is not impaired for not having a fully developed brain because his future self has not existed yet. If a 12 year old plays soccer and bumps his head, you could then state whether or not he is impaired.
From wiktionary:
Adjective impaired Rendered less effective
Adjective
impaired
People like to say "hearing impaired" for someone who is deaf, but they are using it metaphorically (unless the person was not born deaf). If the person was born deaf, that person's natural state is to be deaf. A 12 year old is a 12 year old and has yet to be 25.
You really need logic.
bloomj31: Well I don't take orders from you. My statements about God are only meaningless to people who don't believe in what I believe in. I doubt that if you felt that same way that I do about God that you'd find statements about what God thinks meaningless.
Well I don't take orders from you.
My statements about God are only meaningless to people who don't believe in what I believe in. I doubt that if you felt that same way that I do about God that you'd find statements about what God thinks meaningless.
My goodness. I'm gonna break this down for you:
There are certain things we can reason from this set of premises. One of them is that my beliefs could actually be what God believes. Another is that both you and God could believe the same things. But guess what? You have no way of knowing because you have asserted that you have no way of knowing what God does or does not believe.
You.
Need.
To.
Study.
Logic.
Even if you only studied categorical syllogisms. You don't even have to study symbolic logic, but boy would that greatly help you. Just study it even a little. Seriously. So many of your statements are just nonsense. Literally. There is no sense to be made from them. It's amazing.
Gotlucky: For the sake of argument, let's assume that two 14 year olds have consensual sex with each other and that they are in a state where the age of consent is 16. Saying that they did not consent is ridiculous - they just had consensual sex. To say otherwise is to say that they did not act consensually. In other words, it is to say that they did not give permission and that they used force against each other. But they most certainly did not.
They may have at the time demonstrated an ability to say "yes" or "no" but I see no reason why the law should honor their will or assume that they were in a condition to be able to comprehend the nature of the choice. There's no reason why the law should acknowledge what they said at the time if there's no reason to believe they possessed the cognitive capacity to understand the decision at the time. I have seen no reason to think a 14 or 16 year old understands what they are they're consenting to, especially when it involves sex. They're cognitively impaired individuals.
Gotlucky: There is also another key distinction between drugs and not having a fully developed brain. The one alters the mind whereas the other does not.
What is the "mind?" Do you think it's somehow separate from the brain? It's just an output of the brain. Drugs alter the output of the brain. So does having an undeveloped brain. In both cases the actors are functionally impaired.
Gotlucky: A woman who is dateraped has an altered mind. It is entirely possible that she would not have given any possible consent she might have been able to give had her mind not been forcibly altered (we are assuming, again, that she was able to consent just before passing out).
Another way of saying this is that her brain was working differently than it would have otherwise been had she not been impaired. If she was drugged during the time of the incident then she was not acting with full cognitive capacity and therefore wasn't fully cognizant of her choices. Therefore she couldn't have given legal consent. The same can be said of someone working with an underdeveloped brain.
Gotlucky: But two 14 year olds or two 20 year olds do not have altered minds. Maybe they will regret their actions later and maybe they won't. But their minds were not altered. Their consent was actually consent.
Again you talk about mind and brain as if they were separate. The mind is a product of the brain. Therefore having an altered mind means having an altered brain and having an altered brain means having an altered mind. There is no fundamental distinction between brain and mind they are the exact same thing. If consent is given under a state of impairedness, it's not common practice and I see no reason personally, for the law to acknowledge the consent as a meaningful expression of the will of the actor.
Gotlucky: What you are arguing is that their consent should not be treated as consent legally. And I understand that there are many people who are of this opinion. But it is logically absurd to say that they have not really consented when they have demonstrated that they already have.
They have demonstrated the ability to say yes or no not the cognitive capacity to understand the meaning of the choice. For their "consent" to be treated legally I think there needs to be reason to suspect that they made the choice with the cognitive capacity to understand it which they couldn't possibly have. Therefore their verbal "consent" should not be treated as consent legally.
Gotlucky: People who are under 25 make decisions for themselves all the fucking time. It really doesn't matter if you don't trust that people under 25 can make decisions for themselves, because they do in fact make decisions for themselves.
Yes they make decisions for themselves but they do so with an impaired brain. Luckily not all of them end up killing themselves or having children out of wedlock or whatever. My parents are largely responsible for keeping me under control until I started to get to the point where I could manage my own life by myself. I'm glad they looked out for me and didn't honor my decisions when they were based on poor reasoning and youthful stupidity.
Gotlucky: Just because you disagree with someone else's decision doesn't make your belief right. What if the person actually making the decision is right and you are wrong? Huh? Did that thought ever cross your mind? No. I'm certain it hasn't.
I'd rather act and be proven wrong than do nothing and be proven right.
Gotlucky: It should be the first question asked in any legal matter! Did the person actually consent?
No. The first question should be "what condition were they in at the time?" If they were in the condition of being mentally incompetent for reason of youthful cognitive underdevelopment then it really doesn't matter what wishes they might've expressed at the time.
Gotlucky: If two 13 year olds consent to having sex with each other, then they have consented. To say otherwise is to imply that they did not give each other permission to have sex; in other words, that they used force. But clearly they did not.
No it's to say that they acted while fundamentally impaired by their own undeveloped equipment. They may have vocalized consent but they did so while under a state of partial impairedness. There's no reason to honor their wishes.
Gotlucky: You. Need. Logic. Badly.
I think you need to study case law badly. Go look at some statutory rape cases, see what the legal questions were and how consent among minors is treated. Then you'll understand how outdated your idea of legal age for consent has become.
Gotlucky: For someone to be impaired, there needs to be a comparison. Impaired compared to what?
Compared to the brain of someone who's 25.
Gotlucky: A 12 year old is not impaired for not having a fully developed brain because his future self has not existed yet. If a 12 year old plays soccer and bumps his head, you could then state whether or not he is impaired.
The stages of brain development are well documented. His future self doesn't need to exist to know that his 25 year old self will have a far more developed frontal lobe than his 12 year old self unless he suffers from severe retardation or brain damage. He's acting while impaired at 12.
Gotlucky: People like to say "hearing impaired" for someone who is deaf, but they are using it metaphorically (unless the person was not born deaf). If the person was born deaf, that person's natural state is to be deaf.
I believe deafness is a consequence of physiological and/or cognitive abnormalities. Sometimes people are born deaf but it's still an abnormality. I'm not well studied in cases of deafness but I know sensory perception is a function of the brain. I know that someone who cannot see may have a problem at any number of feedback points between the neurons in the brain that decode visual information, the modules that render visual images in the eyes and the pathways in between. The brain's normal state includes capabilities for processing sound and visual images, any number of deformities or abnormalities can result in hearing loss or blindness. It's still not a normal natural state, it's a biological equipment malfunction.
Gotlucky: There are certain things we can reason from this set of premises. One of them is that my beliefs could actually be what God believes. Another is that both you and God could believe the same things. But guess what? You have no way of knowing because you have asserted that you have no way of knowing what God does or does not believe.
I understand that. But I believe that I do know what God believes just that I can't substantiate the claim. I act on faith and the conviction that I am right.
Gotlucky: Even if you only studied categorical syllogisms. You don't even have to study symbolic logic, but boy would that greatly help you. Just study it even a little. Seriously. So many of your statements are just nonsense. Literally. There is no sense to be made from them. It's amazing.
I'll maybe get around to studying logic eventually. I'm more concerned with other things right now. I can always learn how to better structure the ideas later. First things first, I need to understand the law and then the science. It's not like I actually gain anything from studying logic at this point, convincing a bunch of libertarians about stuff wouldn't net me much anyways.
We could argue about this nonsense forever but you will not change my mind and I doubt I will change yours. I think I'm done with this subject for now. I feel satisfied knowing that crazy dudes like you have no influence over the law and that the law reflects my philosophy more than it reflects yours, at least in my state. You can feel the satisfaction of knowing that in your imaginary free society that you might be able to legally fuck all the 12 year olds who'd agree to such a thing and that the Mises drones are all in favor of finding out what would happen. You get the last word again. Later.
Oh yeah, one more thing, sexual repression has been shown to cause all sorts of problems such as perversion and violence. So bloom in your world people would actually be more perverted and violent than they are now. Not that you care.
Guess you had more to say after all, eh, bloomj?
bloomj31: They may have at the time demonstrated an ability to say "yes" or "no" but I see no reason why the law should honor their will or assume that they were in a condition to be able to comprehend the nature of the choice. There's no reason why the law should acknowledge what they said at the time if there's no reason to believe they possessed the cognitive capacity to understand the decision at the time. I have seen no reason to think a 14 or 16 year old understands what they are they're consenting to, especially when it involves sex. They're cognitively impaired individuals.
There you go again with that bullshit.
bloomj31: What is the "mind?" Do you think it's somehow separate from the brain? It's just an output of the brain. Drugs alter the output of the brain. So does having an undeveloped brain. In both cases the actors are functionally impaired.
Ah, I see the problem here.
Have.
Not.
Studied.
Did you really just say that an undeveloped brain is altered? Holy shit. Do you know the meanings of the words you even use?
bloomj31: Another way of saying this is that her brain was working differently than it would have otherwise been had she not been impaired. If she was drugged during the time of the incident then she was not acting with full cognitive capacity and therefore wasn't fully cognizant of her choices. Therefore she couldn't have given legal consent. The same can be said of someone working with an underdeveloped brain.
The same can not be said of a person with an underdeveloped brain. You need to study logic.
bloomj31: Again you talk about mind and brain as if they were separate. The mind is a product of the brain. Therefore having an altered mind means having an altered brain and having an altered brain means having an altered mind. There is no fundamental distinction between brain and mind they are the exact same thing. If consent is given under a state of impairedness, it's not common practice and I see no reason personally, for the law to acknowledge the consent as a meaningful expression of the will of the actor.
First of all, they are not the exact same thing. The brain is the physical organ, and the mind is what you are aware of. The mind requires the brain. The brain does not require a mind. Second of all, you need to study logic.
bloomj31: They have demonstrated the ability to say yes or no not the cognitive capacity to understand the meaning of the choice. For their "consent" to be treated legally I think there needs to be reason to suspect that they made the choice with the cognitive capacity to understand it which they couldn't possibly have. Therefore their verbal "consent" should not be treated as consent legally.
Okay, again you are trying some verbal sleight of hand. They consented. You cannot change this fact by calling it an "ability to say yes or no". Your problem with their consent is that you believe they do not have the capacity to understand all the possible consequences of their consent. Nobody fulfills this requirement. And of course, your "therefore" is a non sequitur. It does not follow that because someone cannot understand all the possible consequences of any given action that they must not be allowed to consent legally.
You. Need. To. Study. Logic.
bloomj31: Yes they make decisions for themselves but they do so with an impaired brain. Luckily not all of them end up killing themselves or having children out of wedlock or whatever. My parents are largely responsible for keeping me under control until I started to get to the point where I could manage my own life by myself. I'm glad they looked out for me and didn't honor my decisions when they were based on poor reasoning and youthful stupidity.
Ok. That's wonderful that you would have made all sorts of stupid decisions, in your opinion. But guess what? Being under 25 does not mean that you have an impaired brain.
bloomj31: I'd rather act and be proven wrong than do nothing and be proven right.
Yes. I know you are a psycho. I'd rather let 10 guilty men go free than imprison an innocent man, but you'd rather imprison all 11 and be done with it.
bloomj31: No. The first question should be "what condition were they in at the time?" If they were in the condition of being mentally incompetent for reason of youthful cognitive underdevelopment then it really doesn't matter what wishes they might've expressed at the time.
No. The first question is whether or not someone consents. You don't go around saying, "Well, what condition was that woman in before she was raped? Oh, she wasn't drunk or stoned? Okay, well did she consent? No?"
It's assbackwards man. You ask if she consented first, then if yes, then you find out what condition she was in.
bloomj31: No it's to say that they acted while fundamentally impaired by their own undeveloped equipment. They may have vocalized consent but they did so while under a state of partial impairedness. There's no reason to honor their wishes.
There you go again with not understanding the word impaired. I provided the definition of impaired in my previous post. "Impaired" means "rendered less effective". Maybe the problem is you don't know what "rendered" means.
bloomj31: I think you need to study case law badly. Go look at some statutory rape cases, see what the legal questions were and how consent among minors is treated. Then you'll understand how outdated your idea of legal age for consent has become.
Oh boy. I don't believe for a minute that you ever went to school to study law. Case law is precedent law. It was statutory law that raised the age of consent, not case law. Read the wikipedia links I provided earlier in the thread about the age of consent. That you don't know the difference between case law and statutory law is quite telling.
It's unbelievable how ignorant you are. I mean, how do you claim to study law and not know the difference between case law and statutory law? Holy shit.
bloomj31: Compared to the brain of someone who's 25.
No. You cannot compare a 12 year old to a separate person and claim one is impaired. The 12 year old is not impaired. The word you are trying to use in incompetent. But you keep using impaired. After the definition was provided. Holy shit.
bloomj31: The stages of brain development are well documented. His future self doesn't need to exist to know that his 25 year old self will have a far more developed frontal lobe than his 12 year old self unless he suffers from severe retardation or brain damage. He's acting while impaired at 12.
More problems with logic here. The 12 year old cannot be "rendered less effective" than his yet-to-exist 25 year old self. I'm not going to bother providing a definition of "rendered". I still have enough faith in you for you to do the legwork yourself.
bloomj31: I believe deafness is a consequence of physiological and/or cognitive abnormalities. Sometimes people are born deaf but it's still an abnormality. I'm not well studied in cases of deafness but I know sensory perception is a function of the brain. I know that someone who cannot see may have a problem at any number of feedback points between the neurons in the brain that decode visual information, the modules that render visual images in the eyes and the pathways in between. The brain's normal state includes capabilities for processing sound and visual images, any number of deformities or abnormalities can result in hearing loss or blindness. It's still not a normal natural state, it's a biological equipment malfunction.
Holy shit. Do you know what "normal" and "abnormal" mean? I did not say that a person born deaf was normal. I said that it could be claimed that it was his natural state to be deaf. Obviously, since the majority of people are not deaf, this would not be normal. But I never claimed that it was.
Just go study logic.
bloomj31: I understand that. But I believe that I do know what God believes just that I can't substantiate the claim. I act on faith and the conviction that I am right.
So now you claim that you do know what God believes? This is contrary to what you have claimed in the past. But certainly there is no way for you to substantiate this claim. Furthermore, now that you have changed your mind, how do you know what God believes?
bloomj31: I'll maybe get around to studying logic eventually. I'm more concerned with other things right now. I can always learn how to better structure the ideas later. First things first, I need to understand the law and then the science. It's not like I actually gain anything from studying logic at this point, convincing a bunch of libertarians about stuff wouldn't net me much anyways.
Lmao. Logic is the tool to understanding things. You cannot understand anything without sufficient logic. The problem here is that you don't have the sufficient reasoning skills to even understand law, as demonstrated by your complete ignorance regarding the difference between case law and statutory law.
bloomj31: We could argue about this nonsense forever but you will not change my mind and I doubt I will change yours. I think I'm done with this subject for now. I feel satisfied knowing that crazy dudes like you have no influence over the law and that the law reflects my philosophy more than it reflects yours, at least in my state. You can feel the satisfaction of knowing that in your imaginary free society that you might be able to legally fuck all the 12 year olds who'd agree to such a thing and that the Mises drones are all in favor of finding out what would happen. You get the last word again. Later.
Lmao. I think your feelings are hurt. I don't think my penis could fit in a 12 year old even if I wanted it to. I'm just that big.
Context clues, don't act like you aren't aware of them. "Altered" may not be the right word, but an undeveloped brain is less able to make judgements than a developed one.
Resorting to semantic points doesn't help anyone.
Ah, I see the problem here. You. Have. Not. Studied. Logic.
Neither have you.
Anyway, you guys want to fuck twelve year olds you can move to Thailand, but this thread is still fucking wierd.
Gotlucky: Yes. I know you are a psycho. I'd rather let 10 guilty men go free than imprison an innocent man, but you'd rather imprison all 11 and be done with it.
That's because you're a weak man and a fool.
But what a wonderful way to bring this whole stupidly disgusting conversation with libertarians back around to the OP. This right here is why I hate libertarianism, it leads supposedly morally principled people to the point of absurd retardation.
10 men guilty of what?
On second thought I don't care. You make the most compelling argument against libertarianism for me. I needn't say anything.
bloomj31: That's because you're a weak man and a fool.
Ah, yes. The word fool. Someone with poor judgement or little intelligence. Reason is the only tool man has to make sense of the world around him. And you actively don't want to improve this tool, which is especially sad considering how terrible you are at using it.
So if I'm a fool, what does that say about you?
bloomj31: But what a wonderful way to bring this whole stupidly disgusting conversation with libertarians back around to the OP. This right here is why I hate libertarianism, it leads supposedly morally principled people to the point of absurd retardation. 10 men guilty of what?
It doesn't matter. You think it's okay to imprison innocent people. And you claim you aren't a psychopath.
bloomj31: On second thought I don't care. You make the most compelling argument against libertarianism for me. I needn't say anything.
Okay. If you really don't care, stop responding to people on this forum. Otherwise, it's just more posturing from you.
troll19: Context clues, don't act like you aren't aware of them. "Altered" may not be the right word, but an undeveloped brain is less able to make judgements than a developed one. Resorting to semantic points doesn't help anyone.
Ceteribus paribus, it is true. However, all things are not equal. And it is a non sequitur to state that because a brain is not yet fully developed, then that person cannot be said to consent.
If you bothered to read the thread, troll19, then you would have noticed that I gave bloomj31 ample opportunity to fix his use of words. I even provided a definition. bloomj31 chose not to do that. On top of his willing ignorance, he has demonstrated that he is also lazy. I see no reason to pull my punches with someone who has no desire to actually improve their arguments or improve their understanding of the world.
troll19: Neither have you.
Well, actually I have. Philosophy was neither my major nor minor in college, but I was fortunate enough to have been able to take courses in logic while attending college. You are someone who should probably brush up on your deductive reasoning skills. You have demonstrated in other threads plenty that you do not understand deductive logic.
troll19: Anyway, you guys want to fuck twelve year olds you can move to Thailand, but this thread is still fucking wierd.
Reported for trolling.
Philosophy was neither my major nor minor in college, but I was fortunate enough to have been able to take courses in logic while attending college.
If taking a few courses counts as studying logic, okay. But trying to get Bloom's personal word choice to match yours is not getting us anywhere.
You are someone who should probably brush up on your deductive reasoning skills. You have demonstrated in other threads plenty that you do not understand deductive logic.
Suuure.
If you bothered to read the thread, troll19, then you would have noticed that I gave bloomj31 ample opportunity to fix his use of words. I even provided a definition.
Okay, but it's still a semantic point. You know what he means, so attack the meaning.
I never said I was an expert in logic, only that I have studied it. So yes, taking courses in logic counts as studying logic.
I don't need bloomj31 to match my word choice. But he actively doesn't try to explain his meaning and he completely ignored the fact that I even introduced a definition. For all I know, he approved of my definition and still believed what he was saying.
No, I do not know what he means. He continued to use impaired in the same manner even after I provided a definition. Furthermore, from what he wrote, it really sounded like he considers people under the age of 25 impaired as I defined it. It is not true. Perhaps incompetent would be a better word, but he continued to use impaired. So, I am left to think that he really believes that 12 year olds have been "rendered less effective", or to provide the meaning of rendered (something that bloomj31 doesn't seem to understand either), it should read as "caused to be less effective".
bloomj31 has stated that he is happy to remain ignorant. I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding definitions when he has stated he does not wish to improve his understanding.
Gotlucky: Reason is the only tool man has to make sense of the world around him. And you actively don't want to improve this tool, which is especially sad considering how terrible you are at using it.
Man has evolved many tools for making sense of the world, many of which he doesn't have much if any rational control over. In fact your sensory perception is a tool that you use just to perceive the physical world around you and it has been developed over thousands of years and continues to function without your rational choice. Your ability to understand language, your ability to empathize with other people, your ability to process and recall information, your ability to form moral judgments, your sexual desires, your desire for food and water etc etc etc. All processes mostly or completely out of your control. You think you use reason to make sense of the world, I think you mainly just use reason to make sense of your brain.
I do not need to develop just my reason but also my understanding of how little a role pure reason plays in my actions and the actions of others, how much there is going on behind the curtain so to speak. Only then can I actually understand human behavior.
You think you're in control, I think your brain just tells you you are. You're just a dog being wagged by his tail and then rationalizing it to make sense.
Gotlucky: So if I'm a fool, what does that say about you?
That I am wise for realizing the limits of human reason?
Gotlucky: It doesn't matter. You think it's okay to imprison innocent people. And you claim you aren't a psychopath.
And you claim you're a rational man and that perhaps that people like me should take you seriously. Who's going to take you seriously if you say things like this?
If I had to choose between letting ten convicted murderers free just to free one man serving a two month sentence for something he didn't do, I'd gladly keep the innocent man in jail along with the convincted murderers. What non-libertarian wouldn't?
I am possibly below average on the empathy scale but I think sociopathy has to be contextualized. In my society I'm considered perfectly normal. In your free society I'd be considered sociopathic, but maybe that's a good sign. Maybe I should take it as a compliment that libertarians perceive me as being sociopathic. It would be far more upsetting if libertarians thought I was one of them when I know I'm not.
Gotlucky: Okay. If you really don't care, stop responding to people on this forum. Otherwise, it's just more posturing from you.
I usually don't respond to threads. I often just read them and shake my head. Every now and then something bothers me enough to post but usually I just let you guys do your thing. You often make better arguments against yourselves than I ever could. I've accumulated quite a few posts but I've been coming here for a while now. Almost two and a half years I think.
But look I'll be honest. I struggle with taking every thought I have and then translating them exactly as they exist in my mind onto paper. I read a lot of stuff and my brain is constantly making all sorts of connections but then I find sorting and translating them difficult. I find myself typing out skeletons of posts and then fleshing them out over time. It is what it is.
I HAVE FOUND THIS THREAD TO BE amusing...
Tis all.
@ Mustang
Semantics is actually pretty important if you think about it. Using the wrong word can lead to all kinds of confusion that could have been avoided if the proper word was used. Even if you ignore the semantics of the issue that still doesn't change the fact that bloom is wrong. People with fully devoloped brains, such as bloom, still have shown that they aren't fully capable of making rational decisions. He appeals to God while admitting there is no evidence of God's existence, not only that but he appeals to the morals of a God who commits heinous acts in the Old Testament. Empirical evidence has shown that societies that are sexually repressed are more perverted and violent and yet he continues to hold his irrational beliefs. A irrational person will rarely make good decisions, the whole point that bloom is getting at is that teenagers can't make good decisions, by his same standards he should also be considered incompetent and incapable of giving consent.
I can't believe you would defend a conservative. And you dare call yourself a leftist. LOL
Is that how you came to this conclusion? Are you just rationalizing?
NonAntiAnarchist: Is that how you came to this conclusion? Are you just rationalizing?
An interesting question. I'm probably rationally making sense of a concept my brain has generated for me. All I can do is supply my brain with information and find out what sort of conclusions it generates for me and then try to make sense of them rationally.
Serpentis-Lucis: People with fully devoloped brains, such as bloom, still have shown that they aren't fully capable of making rational decisions. He appeals to God while admitting there is no evidence of God's existence, not only that but he appeals to the morals of a God who commits heinous acts in the Old Testament. Empirical evidence has shown that societies that are sexually repressed are more perverted and violent and yet he continues to hold his irrational beliefs. A irrational person will rarely make good decisions, the whole point that bloom is getting at is that teenagers can't make good decisions, by his same standards he should also be considered incompetent and incapable of giving consent.
People with fully devoloped brains, such as bloom, still have shown that they aren't fully capable of making rational decisions. He appeals to God while admitting there is no evidence of God's existence, not only that but he appeals to the morals of a God who commits heinous acts in the Old Testament. Empirical evidence has shown that societies that are sexually repressed are more perverted and violent and yet he continues to hold his irrational beliefs. A irrational person will rarely make good decisions, the whole point that bloom is getting at is that teenagers can't make good decisions, by his same standards he should also be considered incompetent and incapable of giving consent.
Well at the point I'm at (26) I likely have a fully developed brain. If the decisions my brain generates at this point don't match my desired ends then I cannot say that I was using an underdeveloped or otherwise impaired system at the time.
I'm at the age where I have no way and no grounds for claiming I wasn't legally responsible for my choices unless I was intoxicated at the time or under extreme duress or whatever.
I may be incompetent but it's unlikely to be because my brain is underdeveloped, which is the problem children have.
And I'm not saying, by the way, that I necessarily have to see the age of consent at 25. I'm not a moral idealist I can handle compromise and there are other factors to consider, such as practical ones like what leads to aggression. I can understand why that would be a concern. I can stand deviation from my ideal, but 12 is simply too low. 18 is common nowadays. I can live that.
I appeal to God because I do believe there is a God but I just can't prove it. All any man can do is kill me. An unpleasant outcome but ultimately death is inevitable anyways.
Taking a break. Be back later.
Furthermore, from what he wrote, it really sounded like he considers people under the age of 25 impaired as I defined it.
Okay.
He seems to have dropped this point, so I don't know if that still matters.
But I think you actually are understanding his meaning correctly, and he is saying that people under 25 are impaired. In fact, to some degree, I think he's right, because car insurance for under-25's is way higher. So it may be a stupid point if that leads to saying no one under 25 should be fucking, but explain to him why it's stupid.
Empirical evidence has shown that societies that are sexually repressed are more perverted and violent and yet he continues to hold his irrational beliefs
Tru dat. Tru dat. No disagreement there, I'm the biggest perv on this board.
@ Bloom
The problem is that you make a valid point but you are making the case for a far more significant precedent. Justification for not allowing the consent of a person with a under developed brain is that the person isn't fully able to make good decisions, but even a large number of adults can't make good decisions, so you must then conclude that they too aren't able to give consent. See the problem?
I'm glad you aren't set on 25. In my opinion it depends on the person, not their age. At the age of 14 I was already able to make better decisions than most of the adult members of my family. (Not sure if I should find that funny or sad.) There are 15 year olds who are more intelligent than 30 year olds, 16 year olds who are smarter than 50 year olds, etc. etc.
Bloom already admitted you guys are just his 'entertainment', ie: he's trolling you. Let it go.
bloomj31: Man has evolved many tools for making sense of the world, many of which he doesn't have much if any rational control over. In fact your sensory perception is a tool that you use just to perceive the physical world around you and it has been developed over thousands of years and continues to function without your rational choice. Your ability to understand language, your ability to empathize with other people, your ability to process and recall information, your ability to form moral judgments, your sexual desires, your desire for food and water etc etc etc. All processes mostly or completely out of your control. You think you use reason to make sense of the world, I think you mainly just use reason to make sense of your brain.
No. Your senses are used to perceive the world, and reason is the tool to make sense of it.
bloomj31: I do not need to develop just my reason but also my understanding of how little a role pure reason plays in my actions and the actions of others, how much there is going on behind the curtain so to speak. Only then can I actually understand human behavior.
Your ignorance is astounding.
bloomj31: You think you're in control, I think your brain just tells you you are. You're just a dog being wagged by his tail and then rationalizing it to make sense.
In control of what? I am my mind. My mind is a result of my brain. What is it you think I'm claiming to be in control of?
bloomj31: That I am wise for realizing the limits of human reason?
LMAO. No, dude, you are not wise. Do you know what the word philosophy means? It means "love of wisdom". Do you realize that philosophers study logic? The study of logic is one of the key aspect to being a philosopher. Recognizing that you are ignorant is all well and good, but choosing to remain ignorant does not make you wise. Participating in debates about subjects while not understanding logic does not make you wise. Purposely engaging in debate while purposely remaining ignorant about logic makes you a fool. A willfully ignorant fool.
bloomj31: And you claim you're a rational man and that perhaps that people like me should take you seriously. Who's going to take you seriously if you say things like this? If I had to choose between letting ten convicted murderers free just to free one man serving a two month sentence for something he didn't do, I'd gladly keep the innocent man in jail along with the convincted murderers. What non-libertarian wouldn't? I am possibly below average on the empathy scale but I think sociopathy has to be contextualized. In my society I'm considered perfectly normal. In your free society I'd be considered sociopathic, but maybe that's a good sign. Maybe I should take it as a compliment that libertarians perceive me as being sociopathic. It would be far more upsetting if libertarians thought I was one of them when I know I'm not.
Presumably all the men are accused of similar crimes. In other words, they could all be accused of murder or of theft or trespass or whatever. You've never heard that saying before? And you claim to study the law...
bloomj31: I usually don't respond to threads. I often just read them and shake my head. Every now and then something bothers me enough to post but usually I just let you guys do your thing. You often make better arguments against yourselves than I ever could. I've accumulated quite a few posts but I've been coming here for a while now. Almost two and a half years I think. But look I'll be honest. I struggle with taking every thought I have and then translating them exactly as they exist in my mind onto paper. I read a lot of stuff and my brain is constantly making all sorts of connections but then I find sorting and translating them difficult. I find myself typing out skeletons of posts and then fleshing them out over time. It is what it is.
Well it's quite amusing that you would say my arguments are used against me, as you have never actually done that before. Anyway, at least I can put a sound argument together, whereas you cannot.
Car insurance is higher for males under 25 because they get into more accidents, statistically speaking. Not every male under 25 will get into an accident, and plenty of people who fall into the category non-male-under-25 get into accidents too. Insurance companies don't care why, they only care about what tends to be the case.
Regardless, people under 25 are not impaired and then suddenly healed at age 25 (or whenever their brains fully develop). It is just not the definition of impaired. bloomj31 has decided to remain ignorant on the issue, and until he wishes to improve his understanding, I'm not going to bother guessing which words he should be using and then debating him on the resulting points.
I dunno. I would have just dropped it, but at the same time bloom could have been more clear and decisive.
Also, reported for pedophilia.
Bloom reported for christfaggotry.
Is that fair?
Gotlucky: reason is the tool to make sense of it.
Well how does your brain convert sensory data into data that you can even reason about?
And what sorts of psychological mechanisms are involved in the "reasoning" process? Do you consciously control them?
Take for instance when your brain is asked to compare the value of 1 innocent man versus 10 guilty ones.
How do you even understand the numbers 1 and 10? What's going on that allows you to conceptualize numbers?
Why do you assign value to man at all? What's going on in your brain that allows you to do that?
How does guilt or innocence mean anything to you? Why do you assign so much more value to freeing innocent men than imprisoning guilty ones? How is your brain even able to make that sort of calculation?
Do you think the process you call your mind is responsible or for all these abilities or even totally involved in how they function?
EDIT: I forgot about this one, occurred to me when I was reading something else. What happens when those mechanisms malfunction? What can cause them to malfunction?
I don't know the answers to all these questions yet, but I can tell you I've found many answers for them in the field of cognitive neuroscience and they're not based on rationalist philosophy.
Gotlucky: In control of what? I am my mind. My mind is a result of my brain. What is it you think I'm claiming to be in control of?
You are indeed your mind, but your mind is only one process going on in your brain.
I can't be sure, but you seem to think you're in control of all the cognitive processes that generate your mind, of all the cognitive processes involved in your mind's use of reason and perhaps all the processes occurring at the time your brain is generating your consciousness.
So what is it that you think you're actually in control of?
Gotlucky: Presumably all the men are accused of similar crimes. In other words, they could all be accused of murder or of theft or trespass or whatever.
Ok, how about 100 for 1?
1,000 for 1? 10,000 for 1? Would the trade ever be worth it to you?
Gotlucky: The study of logic is one of the key aspect to being a philosopher. Recognizing that you are ignorant is all well and good, but choosing to remain ignorant does not make you wise. Participating in debates about subjects while not understanding logic does not make you wise. Purposely engaging in debate while purposely remaining ignorant about logic makes you a fool. A willfully ignorant fool.
Well when I get time I'll study logic. Right now I don't think it's of great importance. I'd rather understand and then learn to convince than try to convince without first understanding.
Thus I find evo psych far more interesting right now. I may not be able to structure all the ideas into strong arguments yet but I feel absolutely sure that the key to understanding human action isn't logic or reason, it's understanding what else is going on in the brain.
Gotlucky: Anyway, at least I can put a sound argument together, whereas you cannot.
Perhaps you can construct arguments better than I can, at least on paper. But you also don't seem interested in learning about things that might make you have to reconsider your arguments or maybe even your entire worldview. I've rarely seen you comment on anything outside the wheelhouse of Mises or Rothbard.
Mises died in 1975, Rothbard in 1995. They didn't have access to the kind of science we do now. Why rely on them for answers?
Tell you what, I'll buy and read whatever books on logic you want me to if you'll look into evolutionary psychology and/or cognitive neuroscience.
bloomj31: Well how does your brain convert sensory data into data that you can even reason about? And what sorts of psychological mechanisms are involved in the "reasoning" process? Do you consciously control them? Take for instance when your brain is asked to compare the value of 1 innocent man versus 10 guilty ones. How do you even understand the numbers 1 and 10? What's going on that allows you to conceptualize numbers? Why do you assign value to man at all? What's going on in your brain that allows you to do that? How does guilt or innocence mean anything to you? Why do you assign so much more value to freeing innocent men than guilty ones? Do you think the process you call your mind is responsible for all these abilities? I don't know the answers to all these questions yet, but I can tell you I've found many answers for them in the field of cognitive neuroscience and they're not based on rationalist philosophy.
How does guilt or innocence mean anything to you? Why do you assign so much more value to freeing innocent men than guilty ones?
Do you think the process you call your mind is responsible for all these abilities?
This is why you need to study logic, even if it is basic logic. Many of these things are just premises. Most people value the Golden Rule to some extent, and that is why it is found in some form in every culture. Not everyone starts with the same premises, and, for the most part, people don't have control as to what premises they start with, as they are just values. Some of these values can be influenced over the course of someone's life, but ultimately, most people don't change their values much. They can only understand the implications of these values.
I value man because I do, ceteris paribus. I don't need a reason. Sure, evolutionary psychology might be able to provide a reason as to why most people value reciprocity (the golden rule), but ultimately the why is not relevant to the function of the premise. Someone either values the golden rule and uses it as a premise, or one does not. Certain conclusions can be derived from certain premises. Using the golden rule as a premise leads to certain conclusions. Edited in bold: Adding other [relevant] premises will most likely change the conclusions.
bloomj31: I can't be sure, but you seem to think you're in control of all the cognitive processes that generate your mind, of all the cognitive processes involved in your mind's use of reason and perhaps all the processes occurring at the time your brain is generating your consciousness.
I don't know why you think I believe these things, as I never claimed it to be the case. The mind is a result of certain processes. The mind, which is certain processes (or their result, whatever) causes certain things to happen. I do not cause my mind to exist. I am my mind. I cannot cause myself to exist.
bloomj31: So what is it that you think you're actually in control of?
My mind controls the voluntary functions of my body. Remember, the mind is certain processes. My brain controls everything through the nervous system, both voluntary and involuntary. Or purposeful and reflexive. Whatever you want to call it. My mind is the part that controls the purposeful and voluntary aspects of myself. That's as best as I can describe it, as I have not had to describe it before.
bloomj31: Ok, how about 100 for 1? 1,000 for 1? 10,000 for 1? Would the trade ever be worth it to you?
Blackstone's formulation typically has to do with either imprisonment or execution. And to me, it is not worth it to imprison or execute innocent men. I agree with the John Adams quote from that article:
It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, "whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection," and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.
I could not find a source for that quote, though I agree with it anyway. However, here is a link that does have John Adams opinion about the importance of innocence and it has the same point.
bloomj31: Well when I get time I'll study logic. Right now I don't think it's of great importance. I'd rather understand and then learn to convince than try to convince without first understanding. Thus I find evo psych far more interesting right now. I may not be able to structure all the ideas into strong arguments yet but I feel absolutely sure that the key to understanding human action isn't logic or reason, it's understanding what else is going on in the brain.
You cannot understand what you are reading without logic. You have had a lot of non sequiturs in your arguments, so I really suggest that you study some basic logic so that you can improve the likelyhood of actually understanding what it is you are reading.
bloomj31: Perhaps you can construct arguments better than I can, at least on paper. But you also don't seem interested in learning about things that might make you have to reconsider your arguments or maybe even your entire worldview. I've rarely seen you comment on anything outside the wheelhouse of Mises or Rothbard.
I rarely quote Mises, as I have not read much of his work. I do quote Rothbard somewhat frequently, despite the fact that I actually do not subscribe to natural rights theory. But the reason I quote Rothbard is because of the kinds of threads I typically take part in. I'm not about to start quoting Rousseau on anarchism and customary law, nor am I about to start quoting Antonin Scalia on anarchism and customary law. Neither have ever really given it any thought, and so they have little, if anything, to say about it.
Furthermore, I have reconsidered my worldview many times in my life. I used to be a conservative, and then I found Rothbard and quickly converted to be a Natural Law and Rights libertarian. But within the last year or so I have ditched that, though I think that Rothbard is correct on most things, even if I don't agree with him exactly as to why.
So I've had 3 major worldviews so far in my life, and perhaps it will change some more, but probably only to refine what I already believe instead of wholly rejecting it for something else.
bloomj31: Mises died in 1975, Rothbard in 1995. They didn't have access to the kind of science we do now. Why rely on them for answers?
So what? Why most people value the golden rule is immaterial to its function as a premise. It is probably very interesting to read and study why most people value reciprocity as opposed to not valuing it. But it is irrelevant to its function as a premise. Rothbard uses Natural Law as his premise, and I reject it. I use the golden rule. It doesn't matter to me why I or other humans might have evolved to value the golden rule. I do value it and it is my premise.
bloomj31: Tell you what, I'll buy and read whatever books on logic you want me to if you'll look into evolutionary psychology and/or cognitive neuroscience.
Someday I'm sure I will read more into these subjects. My girlfriend is still in college as a biology and neuropsychology double major, and she talks about this stuff with me. Rather, it is probably more accurate to say that she talks this stuff at me. For now, I'm more interested in fleshing out my ideas on the nature of law and other things libertarian before I venture out into other fields. This is a hobby after all, and I don't have the time to study everything.
But logic is the key to understanding everything. You don't have to be an expert at it, but some basic logic will go a long way.
mustang19:I dunno. I would have just dropped it, but at the same time bloom could have been more clear and decisive. Also, reported for pedophilia. Bloom reported for christfaggotry. Is that fair?
Assuming you're being honest here - which I think is quite a stretch - do you expect this to intimidate anyone?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
mustang19:Context clues, don't act like you aren't aware of them. "Altered" may not be the right word, but an undeveloped brain is less able to make judgements than a developed one. Resorting to semantic points doesn't help anyone.
What do you think constitutes "developed"? What do you think constitutes "fully able to make judgements"? It sounds like you're trying to sneak in subjective value judgements and pass them off as objective. Of course, I'm not surprised that you would do that.
mustang19:Neither have you.
Yes, I believe he has. Furthermore, I believe he's studied logic more than you have, regardless of what you say (since I have no reason to trust you).
mustang19:Anyway, you guys want to fuck twelve year olds you can move to Thailand, but this thread is still fucking wierd.
Quite a strawman you've erected there. It constitutes a red herring, an ad hominem, and the "love it or leave it" argument. Regardless, who cares if you think this thread is "fucking wierd [sic]"? What effect do you expect that to have on anyone else here?
bloomj31:That's because you're a weak man and a fool.
Do you really expect GotLucky to be intimidated by this? I don't see any other point in you saying the above. It sounds to me like you're getting desperate. Go cry me a river.
bloomj31:You think you're in control, I think your brain just tells you you are. You're just a dog being wagged by his tail and then rationalizing it to make sense.
In that case, you're just as much a dog being wagged by his tail and then rationalizing it to make sense as the rest of us are. That you're apparently avoiding this point means that you're trying to make GotLucky believe that he's not in control, but others (possibly including you) are in control. Good luck with that.
Oh by the way, Bloom, as we discussed privately before, I consider myself a determinist, yet I've found a definition of "free will" (and hence "control") that can be reconciled with determinism. As I recall, you tried to sidestep that entire issue by trying to maneuver me into telling you what I fear.
Autolykos: Do you really expect GotLucky to be intimidated by this? I don't see any other point in you saying the above. It sounds to me like you're getting desperate. Go cry me a river.
I think in an environment such as this any moral sentiment one might be inclined to express is unlikely to intimidate anyone. We're all safe behind our computers and our anonymity (though I suppose I'm slightly less anonymous than he is or you are.) Still I'm just one man. I was simply expressing the disgust I was feeling at the time and that I thought his opinion indicative of a weak and foolish man, bound to moral principle. I think most of the people I know in real life would feel the same way about him if he were to say such a thing in their presence. But then perhaps most of the people in his life find his attitudes to their liking. Doesn't really matter now I'm over it and frankly I regret saying it to some degree. While my brain does view libertarians as essentially an out-group I don't necessarily think you guys are all bad people or anything.
Autolykos: In that case, you're just as much a dog being wagged by his tail and then rationalizing it to make sense as the rest of us are. That you're apparently avoiding this point means that you're trying to make GotLucky believe that he's not in control, but others(possibly including you) are in control. Good luck with that.
No I'm perfectly aware that the thing I might call "I" is something of an illusion created by my brain and hardly the process that's in control. I'm being wagged by my tail as much as anyone else I'm just perhaps more consciously aware of it than others. Doesn't really change anything for me though.
Autolykos: Oh by the way, Bloom, as we discussed privately before, I consider myself a determinist, yet I've found a definition of "free will" (and hence "control") that can be reconciled with determinism. As I recall, you tried to sidestep that entire issue by trying to maneuver me into telling you what I fear.
I realized I needed to do more research before I could tackle the concept of free will v determinism. I needed to understand from an evolutionary point of view why it would happen that the process of consciousness might be linked to a certain amount of skeletal muscular control. I think I'm starting to understand it more now but not as well as I'd like to.
I still do not understand the sensory relay process very well and/or how the conscious mind perceives itself and/or allows "me" to send neuronal signals from the brain to the muscles telling them to move. That being said I hardly think the ability to move my body is evidence for the conscious control over the will to act or the psychological mechanisms responsible for analyzing data and issuing a "choice" (particularly in certain situations such as high stress situations where people react somewhat automatically.)
I definitely need to do more research but I hardly find myself expecting to uncover evidence of anything approaching a "free will" that could be reconciled with the seemingly more deterministic qualities of human action.
I do think there's something interesting about the incredibly broad moral concern for others that libertarians display. Or at least profess to (for all I know many of them could be complete hypocrites.) I think it might be rooted in a universal fear of retaliation, which is why I asked you about your fears. I see many libertarians take something approaching the golden rule as a moral standard which could be translated to "If you do this to someone they then have the right to do it to you." But it seems to ignore the consideration of do they have the ability to do anything about it at all? I mean what can libertarians do about paying taxes? Not much. Advocating taxation in this society, at least up to a certain point, is unlikely to get me on the wrong side of the law or the people I might interact with on a regular basis in real life. They all seem to want taxation too. There are certainly some people who might want to hurt me as a result but they're uncommon and I could reasonably expect them to be considered outlaws. Based on prior experience, my brain tells me I have more of a chance of running into someone who wants taxation than someone who doesn't. Therefore I adopt a more friendly position towards taxes to fit into society. It's a conditional strategy.
A retaliator (tit-for-tat) conditional strategy requires that the potential retaliator be convincing. My aggression strategy is more dependent on what I think my opponent can do as a response. I might choose a more passive retaliatory strategy or perhaps a more actively aggressive strategy dependent on what I think my opponent's capabilities are. This is why I asked you about your fears. They seem to be far broader and more abstract than mine.
I haven't come to any conclusions on the reason for the differences in strategies yet though.
Is this a joke?
What the implication of this nonsense is is that everyone is diseased with the disease of 'self'.
You need to run this theory by some psychiatrists. They'd love you.
My aggression strategy is more dependent on what I think my opponent can do as a response.
Everyone is against you. Nature made them that way. You need to take advantage of them before they take advantage of you...
You're a nut.
I might choose a more passive retaliatory strategy or perhaps a more actively aggressive strategy dependent on what I think my opponent's capabilities are. This is why I asked you about your fears.
bloomj31: I do think there's something interesting about the incredibly broad moral concern for others that libertarians display. Or at least profess to (for all I know many of them could be complete hypocrites.) I think it might be rooted in a universal fear of retaliation, which is why I asked you about your fears. I see many libertarians take something approaching the golden rule as a moral standard which could be translated to "If you do this to someone they then have the right to do it to you." But it seems to ignore the consideration of do they have the ability to do anything about it at all? I mean what can libertarians do about paying taxes? Not much. Advocating taxation in this society, at least up to a certain point, is unlikely to get me on the wrong side of the law or the people I might interact with on a regular basis in real life. They all seem to want taxation too. There are certainly some people who might want to hurt me as a result but they're uncommon and I could reasonably expect them to be considered outlaws. Based on prior experience, my brain tells me I have more of a chance of running into someone who wants taxation than someone who doesn't. Therefore I adopt a more friendly position towards taxes to fit into society. It's a conditional strategy.
I have yet to see any evidence of libertarians having a "universal fear of retaliation".
Also, your use of outlaw is bizarre. It is an actually legal term, even if it isn't used much today, and your use is incorrect. The only people in our society today that could possibly be considered outlaws are "suspected terrorists", "alleged terrorists", or actual terrorists. They end up entirely outside the protection of the legal system, though the state never officially brands them "outlaws".
Not to press the issue too much, but are you sure you study law? Studying various cases doesn't do much good if you don't study the legal system itself.
I don't have evidence of it, it's just a hypothesis. I can't make sense of the philosophy otherwise.
If you're not afraid of retaliation, why go by the golden rule?
It makes no sense to me. Treat others as you would have them treat you only makes sense if by treating others poorly you can incur retaliation on yourself. Otherwise it makes no difference how you treat others, nothing bad is going to happen to you. Particularly if they're people that the members of society care little for. In that case one might even be rewarded for treating them badly or just generally disregarding their values.
I'm not going to get caught up on semantics, the point is that in the society I live in advocating taxation, at least up to a certain point, is considered perfectly normal. In fact I think I'd be more likely to draw the ire of the people I come into contact with on a regular basis if I advocated the abolition of the state or secession or whatever. The people who might actually get mad enough about getting taxed to really do something violent will probably end up being branded as terrorists and the rest represent a political minority (albeit a vocal one.) And no I don't count the tea party as being an anarcho-capitalist movement although some of them very well might be an-caps. They kinda just seem like a bunch of minor statists to me. I'm not even entirely convinced that the whole libertarian political movement is anarcho-capitalist. So my moral strategy is designed to appease the majority of the people I meet, and fit into the society I actually live in and in this society there's no punishment for advocating taxation or for accepting redistributed funds.
And yes I study the legal system. I study constitutional law and the SCOTUS mostly.