What do you believe is moral?

[Rassah]

 *sigh* It doesn't matter what christians believe. The bible was written by people.

A Christian would say that's utter garbage.  "It is divinely inspired," he'd say, "the people writing it were merely conduits for God, no more its authors than a pen or keyboard."  Before having theological discussions, why not brush up on the topic?

And that christian would be a total idiot for claiming this, because they would essentially be saying that the thousands of cultures that live on other parts of the planet who have never heard of their god, or all the humans who lives for 200,000 before their god even came along, were all immoral, despite having largely the same sets of morals. "Brush up on the topic" indeed  

What are you saying?  That all moral codes are identical?  That save for some "weird eccentricities," stripped of "extra frills," everything's the same?  Just what is the escence, and what are "extra frills"?

Yes. The "Golden Rule" of "Do unto others..." The rules against taking other's property or life are pretty much universal, regardless of the religious, legal, or philosophical book or culture, and everything else stems from that. The "frills" are just cultures of the time, often based on misunderstanding of the world, misinterpretations of history or scripture, or just stuff added for power hungry assholes to control others. This is obviously a topic you have little to no experience in, so I don't feel like venturing into it.

It is legally binding.  Stop it with the silly biz 101 definitions.  If you want to find out *how* legally binding it is, go and break some lawz in front of a cop.  That's the truly scientific, empirical method.  Come back & tell me how it went, this is getting tedious.  

k?

Stop conflating crimes defined by objective morals and codified in books (laws) with contracts or oaths attempted to be passed as contracts (so-called "social contracts" and citizenship). The two are not even remotely related. If they were, had I been an illegal immigrant, then in your example the cop would have no obligation to do anything since I have no "legally binding contract" with this country.

Had you been an illegal immigrant, there would be no contract, you'd be thrown out of the country, not made to pay taxes.  

Had I been an illegal immigrant and committed a crime, the cop would have still arrested and imprisoned me. You don't need to follow or break contracts to commit crimes. If that had been a prerequisite, being an illegal immigrant with no legally binding "contract" with the country I committed a crime in, the worst that would happen to me is deportation. But, as you so like to say, "that's not how the real world works." So, as I said, stop conflating contracts (social or otherwise) with crimes. The two have nothing to do with each other.

If I were to kidnap you, put an explosive collar around your neck that will blow up if you leave the house, and write down a "law" on a piece of paper that said that you are obligated to stay in the house and to clean it once a week, that would also be "legally binding" on you, enforced in much the same way as government law (threat of force, and in case of USSR/China ban on crossing borders). But no one would consider you being in a contract with me.

U should take me up on my offer, and collect some empirical data -- go and break some lawz in front of a cop.  Then you can try your astute & incisive reasoning on him, and see if he's easier to convince than i am.

What reasoning? I'm not talking about breaking law. I'm talking about breaking out of the "social contract" or whatever the hell contract you think we as citizens have with this country. As I said, police have nothing to do with whether you are under any contracts in order to stop you from committing crimes. Stay on topic:

Do you think my imprisoning you in my house with an explosive collar and forcing you to clean my house, because I wrote that I'm allowed to do this on a piece of paper and called it a law, makes for a legally binding contract between us? I mean, I would be able to say, "Go ahead and try to leave the house, and see how quickly your head blows off. Then you can try your astute and incisive reasoning on me about how it's not a legally binding contract," right? We have a body that creates and enforces laws (me and the explosive collar you're wearing), and a person being compelled by that body to do something (you cleaning my house and not being allowed to leave), same as with government (or at least a heavily armed and border-restrictive one). Are you really claiming that such a situation would still be considered a contract between us?

[crumbs]

 *sigh* It doesn't matter what christians believe. The bible was written by people.

A Christian would say that's utter garbage.  "It is divinely inspired," he'd say, "the people writing it were merely conduits for God, no more its authors than a pen or keyboard."  Before having theological discussions, why not brush up on the topic?

And that christian would be a total idiot for claiming this, because they would essentially be saying that the thousands of cultures that live on other parts of the planet who have never heard of their god, or all the humans who lives for 200,000 before their god even came along, were all immoral, despite having largely the same sets of morals. "Brush up on the topic" indeed  

We are not debating if Christians are right to be Christian.  Right now let's stick to the topic:  What do Christians base their mores on.  Answer:  The Bible, be it right or wrong.

What are you saying?  That all moral codes are identical?  That save for some "weird eccentricities," stripped of "extra frills," everything's the same?  Just what is the escence, and what are "extra frills"?

Yes. The "Golden Rule" of "Do unto others..." The rules against taking other's property or life are pretty much universal, regardless of the religious, legal, or philosophical book or culture, and everything else stems from that.

I think it's wordy to start sentences with "I think." ( )  But in you are wrong so often, it's almost a must unless you like feeling foolish.  So then:
You're wrong again.  If you bothered reading philosophy, you would know that "Do unto others" is just a lame rewording of Matthew 7:12.  Nietzsche believed in the primacy of strength and self-assertion, and considered appeals to kindness & fairness weepy and weak.  Weakness he also detested, though he himself didn't even lift.  Machiavelli, if you wish to go there, was rather specific about keeping two distinct moral codes -- one for private and one for public dealings.  He was not well-known for preaching "Do onto others."  You should read more.

The "frills" are just cultures of the time, often based on misunderstanding of the world, misinterpretations of history or scripture, or just stuff added for power hungry assholes to control others. This is obviously a topic you have little to no experience in, so I don't feel like venturing into it.

Then why bring it up?

It is legally binding.  Stop it with the silly biz 101 definitions.  If you want to find out *how* legally binding it is, go and break some lawz in front of a cop.  That's the truly scientific, empirical method.  Come back & tell me how it went, this is getting tedious.  

k?

Stop conflating crimes defined by objective morals and codified in books (laws) with contracts or oaths attempted to be passed as contracts (so-called "social contracts" and citizenship). The two are not even remotely related. If they were, had I been an illegal immigrant, then in your example the cop would have no obligation to do anything since I have no "legally binding contract" with this country.

Had you been an illegal immigrant, there would be no contract, you'd be thrown out of the country, not made to pay taxes.  

Had I been an illegal immigrant and committed a crime, the cop would have still arrested and imprisoned me. You don't need to follow or break contracts to commit crimes. If that had been a prerequisite, being an illegal immigrant with no legally binding "contract" with the country I committed a crime in, the worst that would happen to me is deportation. But, as you so like to say, "that's not how the real world works." So, as I said, stop conflating contracts (social or otherwise) with crimes. The two have nothing to do with each other.

If you believe i claimed that breaking a contract was necessary for a crime to take place, blame your reading comprehension.  I said no such thing.  I merely pointed out that in your specific case, you as an immigrant would be breaking a contract -- an agreement between two parties that, in this case, also happens to be legally enforceable.

If I were to kidnap you, put an explosive collar around your neck that will blow up if you leave the house, and write down a "law" on a piece of paper that said that you are obligated to stay in the house and to clean it once a week, that would also be "legally binding" on you, enforced in much the same way as government law (threat of force, and in case of USSR/China ban on crossing borders). But no one would consider you being in a contract with me.

U should take me up on my offer, and collect some empirical data -- go and break some lawz in front of a cop.  Then you can try your astute & incisive reasoning on him, and see if he's easier to convince than i am.

What reasoning? I'm not talking about breaking law. I'm talking about breaking out of the "social contract" or whatever the hell contract you think we as citizens have with this country. As I said, police have nothing to do with whether you are under any contracts in order to stop you from committing crimes. Stay on topic:

Police is the executive branch of the US justice system.  Please learn to law.
Edited for clarity.

[Rassah]

We are not debating if Christians are right to be Christian.  Right now let's stick to the topic:  What do Christians base their mores on.  Answer:  The Bible, be it right or wrong.

We're not debating where Christians get their morals from either. We are debating where morals themselves come from. I suggested that they are based on a foundation of morals that are innate and objective. You found that idea "lulzy." You explained that, for example, Christians get their morals from the bible. I pointed out that the Bible's morals have their origins in the same innate and objective moral foundations as everyone else, including an atheist like me. More so, even Christians who think they get their morals from the bible still have their own sense of morals, since they don't stone adulterers, don't kill those who work on Saturdays, and don't think slavery is OK, which obviously didn't come from the bible.

You're wrong again.  If you bothered reading philosophy, you would know that "Do unto others" is just a lame rewording of Matthew 7:12.  Nietzsche believed in the primacy of strength and self-assertion, and considered appeals to kindness & fairness weepy and weak.  Weakness he also detested, though he himself didn't even lift.  Machiavelli, if you wish to go there, was rather specific about keeping two distinct moral codes -- one for private and one for public dealings.  He was not well-known for preaching "Do onto others."  You should read more.

So Nietzsche and Machiavelli were two outliers who believed it was perfectly moral to steal, lie, and murder, and did those things often?

If you believe i claimed that breaking a contract was necessary for a crime to take place, blame your reading comprehension.  I said no such thing.  I merely pointed out that in your specific case, you as an immigrant would be breaking a contract -- an agreement between two parties that, in this case, also happens to be legally enforceable.

So are you then claiming that committing a crime is breaking a contract? You brought this up in the context of me pointing out that the "agreement" or situation between government and citizen is not actually a contract, but is something else. How am I supposed to comprehend your statement that, if I don't think the thing government forces on its citizens is a legally binding contract, that me committing a crime and being arrested by a cop will prove that I have a legally binding contract with the state? Is being arrested for something constitute a contract? Also, who are the two parties you are talking about and what agreement?

Police is the executive branch of the US justice system.  Please learn to law.

OK, and what does this executive branch have to do with negotiating, establishing, fulfilling, and terminating a contract between a citizen and a state? Teach me on wize one. Surely you wouldn't have brought up police into a discussion about citizens having a contractual obligation to the state which they may or may not have been forced into, if said police wasn't relevant to the topic.

[crumbs]

We are not debating if Christians are right to be Christian.  Right now let's stick to the topic:  What do Christians base their mores on.  Answer:  The Bible, be it right or wrong.

We're not debating where Christians get their morals from either. We are debating where morals themselves come from. I suggested that they are based on a foundation of morals that are innate and objective. You found that idea "lulzy." You explained that, for example, Christians get their morals from the bible. I pointed out that the Bible's morals have their origins in the same innate and objective moral foundations as everyone else, including an atheist like me. More so, even Christians who think they get their morals from the bible still have their own sense of morals, since they don't stone adulterers, don't kill those who work on Saturdays, and don't think slavery is OK, which obviously didn't come from the bible.

I pointed out that Christians, unlike atheists, have a concrete, objective basis for their morals.  Christians wishing to know the morality of an act appeal to their canonical text -- the Bible.  Just like a judge bases his decision on a specific body of law.

You may argue that the Bible leaves room for interpretation, but so does law -- that's why lawyers have jobs.
An atheist appealing to morals is appealing to ... what exactly?  His intuitions?  His gut feelings?  That's the lulzy part.

You're wrong again.  If you bothered reading philosophy, you would know that "Do unto others" is just a lame rewording of Matthew 7:12.  Nietzsche believed in the primacy of strength and self-assertion, and considered appeals to kindness & fairness weepy and weak.  Weakness he also detested, though he himself didn't even lift.  Machiavelli, if you wish to go there, was rather specific about keeping two distinct moral codes -- one for private and one for public dealings.  He was not well-known for preaching "Do onto others."  You should read more.

So Nietzsche and Machiavelli were two outliers who believed it was perfectly moral to steal, lie, and murder, and did those things often?

On the off-chance your ignorance is not willful, i will point out that it is irrelevant how much lying, stealing & murdering these two individuals did.  Suffice it to say such things exist, & moral codes exist that accommodate them.
I find some of such ad hoc moral codes curios, in particular:  "Because f8ck U, that's why!"  Elegant logic, no?

If you believe i claimed that breaking a contract was necessary for a crime to take place, blame your reading comprehension.  I said no such thing.  I merely pointed out that in your specific case, you as an immigrant would be breaking a contract -- an agreement between two parties that, in this case, also happens to be legally enforceable.

So are you then claiming that committing a crime is breaking a contract?

No.  I'll use pictograms:  
(break contract) -> (crime)
(crime) ->((break contract) V (some other shit)).

In words:  Breaking a contract is a crime, but the statement is not a biconditional -- a crime may be other things, not just breaking a contract.

You brought this up in the context of me pointing out that the "agreement" or situation between government and citizen is not actually a contract, but is something else.

I brought it up because in your particular case -- you being an immigrant -- the situation involved a contract.
Your parents *explicitly* agreed to be governed by the laws of US of A to become US citizens, and agreed in your stead (In their capacity as your legal guardians).  In other words, you, of all people, have no reason to baww.

 
How am I supposed to comprehend your statement that, if I don't think the thing government forces on its citizens is a legally binding contract, that me committing a crime and being arrested by a cop will prove that I have a legally binding contract with the state? Is being arrested for something constitute a contract? Also, who are the two parties you are talking about and what agreement?

See above.

Police is the executive branch of the US justice system.  Please learn to law.

OK, and what does this executive branch have to do with negotiating, establishing, fulfilling, and terminating a contract between a citizen and a state? Teach me on wize one. Surely you wouldn't have brought up police into a discussion about citizens having a contractual obligation to the state which they may or may not have been forced into, if said police wasn't relevant to the topic.

Police are responsible for enforcing the terms of the contract.  You claim that you are not obligated to abide by a contract entered into on your behalf by your parents.  Committing  a crime in front of a cop is the most practical & scientific way to explore the legal validity of that belief.  Said crime will trigger an arrest & introduce you to the judiciary branch of our legal system, where you may argue your case to your heart's content.

[Rassah]

I pointed out that Christians, unlike atheists, have a concrete, objective basis for their morals.  Christians wishing to know the morality of an act appeal to their canonical text -- the Bible.

Do they now? So what do Christian morals say about working on Saturdays, eating shellfish, wearing mixed fiber clothing, owning slaves, rape, or sex before marriage? Their concrete canonical texts is very specific about the morality of those things.

An atheist appealing to morals is appealing to ... what exactly?  His intuitions?  His gut feelings?  That's the lulzy part.

A very ancient atheist took the time to figure out morals from scratch, and wrote them down in a religious text. Christians just take the easy route, and use those written morals as the basis of their own morals, with some tweaks here and there once they realize that not everything in the bible is right. Atheists today who reject the bible, simply follow the same steps that the old atheist did, and derive their own morals from scratch again, sort of like testing a scientific theory you don't quite trust. It's like someone testing whether a rock and a cork fall at the same rate, writing down that they do, and then christians just taking those words in faith, while nonbelievers doing the experiment themselves and reaching the same conclusions.

So Nietzsche and Machiavelli were two outliers who believed it was perfectly moral to steal, lie, and murder, and did those things often?

On the off-chance your ignorance is not willful, i will point out that it is irrelevant how much lying, stealing & murdering these two individuals did.  Suffice it to say such things exist, & moral codes exist that accommodate them.
I find some of such ad hoc moral codes curios, in particular:  "Because f8ck U, that's why!"  Elegant logic, no?

Hey, you were the one who said their morals were contrary to the general  "respect other's property and life" morals. I guess they were either liars, or hypocrites.

So are you then claiming that committing a crime is breaking a contract?

No.  I'll use pictograms:  
(break contract) -> (crime)
(crime) ->((break contract) V (some other shit)).

In words:  Breaking a contract is a crime, but the statement is not a biconditional -- a crime may be other things, not just breaking a contract.

Yeah, that's weird, because breaking a contract isn't a crime :p At most it's a civil dispute. You don't go to jail for breaking your Verizon 2 year plan and refusing to pay the fee, and you don't get arrested for moving out despite having a few months left in your lease. Worst case is you'll have your wages garnished, or get a ding on your credit score.

Sounds like you have some issues with understanding how things are iRL, too 

You brought this up in the context of me pointing out that the "agreement" or situation between government and citizen is not actually a contract, but is something else.

I brought it up because in your particular case -- you being an immigrant -- the situation involved a contract.
Your parents *explicitly* agreed to be governed by the laws of US of A to become US citizens, and agreed in your stead (In their capacity as your legal guardians).  In other words, you, of all people, have no reason to baww.

Yes, my parents. Remember I asked if it was legal/moral/ethical/whatever for your dad to buy a shitty investment property, and settle you with the debt? (Hint: it's not) You danced around that question like a drunk stripper, never actually bothering to answer it, or maybe not even understanding why I asked it in the first place. Plus there's that "contract" thing again. It's not a contract. It's a promise to abide by rules.

Police is the executive branch of the US justice system.  Please learn to law.

OK, and what does this executive branch have to do with negotiating, establishing, fulfilling, and terminating a contract between a citizen and a state? Teach me on wize one. Surely you wouldn't have brought up police into a discussion about citizens having a contractual obligation to the state which they may or may not have been forced into, if said police wasn't relevant to the topic.

Police are responsible for enforcing the terms of the contract.  You claim that you are not obligated to abide by a contract entered into on your behalf by your parents.  Committing  a crime in front of a cop is the most practical & scientific way to explore the legal validity of that belief.  Said crime will trigger an arrest & introduce you to the judiciary branch of our legal system, where you may argue your case to your heart's content.

But, again, there was no proposal, no agreement, and most importantly no consideration and no termination terms. Which doesn't make it a contract. It's just a promise to follow some rules. I tried to explain that in my kidnapping you, strapping an explosive collar, and forcing you to work for me example.

In such a situation I have set up laws: Do not leave the house, Make sure to clean every day. I wrote the laws down on a piece of paper for you to see. I am the cop that enforces those laws. Leaving the house or refusing to clean are crimes, punishable by up to and including death. It's a microcosm of the situation you are describing. Yet no sane person would possibly describe that situation as you and I having a "contract." Feel free to not reply to anything else until this last part is settled (agree and learn something, or point out where I went wrong). I certainly won't bother discussing so-called contracts if you won't answer questions, won't debate, and won't even use the proper definitions of words.

[crumbs]

I pointed out that Christians, unlike atheists, have a concrete, objective basis for their morals.  Christians wishing to know the morality of an act appeal to their canonical text -- the Bible.

Do they now? So what do Christian morals say about working on Saturdays, eating shellfish, wearing mixed fiber clothing, owning slaves, rape, or sex before marriage? Their concrete canonical texts is very specific about the morality of those things.

You'll be happy to know that some of your inquiries could be answered by Jesus himself, having already been asked by the much-cleverer Pharisees.  You obviously never even *opened* the Bible.  Your ignorance is rivaled only by your ... it's unrivaled.  
 

An atheist appealing to morals is appealing to ... what exactly?  His intuitions?  His gut feelings?  That's the lulzy part.

A very ancient atheist took the time to figure out morals from scratch, and wrote them down in a religious text.

Orly?  

Christians just take the easy route, and use those written morals as the basis of their own morals, with some tweaks here and there once they realize that not everything in the bible is right. Atheists today who reject the bible, simply follow the same steps that the old atheist did, and derive their own morals from scratch again, sort of like testing a scientific theory you don't quite trust. It's like someone testing whether a rock and a cork fall at the same rate, writing down that they do, and then christians just taking those words in faith, while nonbelievers doing the experiment themselves and reaching the same conclusions.

Oh, c'mon!  You're just reciting the same old atheist fairy tales.  No facts, no data, pure conjecture & boring at that.  Your silly scientistic "cork vs rock"?  Keep writing -- you'll always forget that shit only works in a vacuum

So Nietzsche and Machiavelli were two outliers who believed it was perfectly moral to steal, lie, and murder, and did those things often?

On the off-chance your ignorance is not willful, i will point out that it is irrelevant how much lying, stealing & murdering these two individuals did.  Suffice it to say such things exist, & moral codes exist that accommodate them.
I find some of such ad hoc moral codes curios, in particular:  "Because f8ck U, that's why!"  Elegant logic, no?

Hey, you were the one who said their morals were contrary to the general  "respect other's property and life" morals. I guess they were either liars, or hypocrites.

Your logic is borked again.  If i think that there's nothing morally wrong with murder, does it mean i have to start killing nao, or can i put it off for a few days?  How old are you?

So are you then claiming that committing a crime is breaking a contract?

No.  I'll use pictograms:  
(break contract) -> (crime)
(crime) ->((break contract) V (some other shit)).
In words:  Breaking a contract is a crime, but the statement is not a biconditional -- a crime may be other things, not just breaking a contract.

Yeah, that's weird, because breaking a contract isn't a crime :p At most it's a civil dispute. You don't go to jail for breaking your Verizon 2 year plan and refusing to pay the fee, and you don't get arrested for moving out despite having a few months left in your lease. Worst case is you'll have your wages garnished, or get a ding on your credit score.

Sounds like you have some issues with understanding how things are iRL, too  

The word "crime" is a catchall for felonies, misdemeanors and civil law violations.  Learn to dictionary.  More, even though your ignorance is simply criminal, our legal system takes a lax, Libertarian approach to such transgressions.  Defend your right to stupit!

You brought this up in the context of me pointing out that the "agreement" or situation between government and citizen is not actually a contract, but is something else.

I brought it up because in your particular case -- you being an immigrant -- the situation involved a contract.
Your parents *explicitly* agreed to be governed by the laws of US of A to become US citizens, and agreed in your stead (In their capacity as your legal guardians).  In other words, you, of all people, have no reason to baww.

Yes, my parents. Remember I asked if it was legal/moral/ethical/whatever for your dad to buy a shitty investment property, and settle you with the debt? (Hint: it's not) You danced around that question like a drunk stripper, never actually bothering to answer it, or maybe not even understanding why I asked it in the first place. Plus there's that "contract" thing again. It's not a contract. It's a promise to abide by rules.

I have already explained this to you in this very thread.  Do you even lift, bro?

Police is the executive branch of the US justice system.  Please learn to law.

OK, and what does this executive branch have to do with negotiating, establishing, fulfilling, and terminating a contract between a citizen and a state? Teach me on wize one. Surely you wouldn't have brought up police into a discussion about citizens having a contractual obligation to the state which they may or may not have been forced into, if said police wasn't relevant to the topic.

Police are responsible for enforcing the terms of the contract.  You claim that you are not obligated to abide by a contract entered into on your behalf by your parents.  Committing  a crime in front of a cop is the most practical & scientific way to explore the legal validity of that belief.  Said crime will trigger an arrest & introduce you to the judiciary branch of our legal system, where you may argue your case to your heart's content.

But, again, there was no proposal, no agreement, and most importantly no consideration and no termination terms. Which doesn't make it a contract. It's just a promise to follow some rules. I tried to explain that in my kidnapping you, strapping an explosive collar, and forcing you to work for me example.

In such a situation I have set up laws: Do not leave the house, Make sure to clean every day. I wrote the laws down on a piece of paper for you to see. I am the cop that enforces those laws. Leaving the house or refusing to clean are crimes, punishable by up to and including death. It's a microcosm of the situation you are describing. Yet no sane person would possibly describe that situation as you and I having a "contract." Feel free to not reply to anything else until this last part is settled (agree and learn something, or point out where I went wrong). I certainly won't bother discussing so-called contracts if you won't answer questions, won't debate, and won't even use the proper definitions of words.

TL;DR:  Before you have a chance to shut your mouth, my boot comes into positive & constructive engagement with your head, and good ol' Newtonian physics take it from there.  My next door neighbor, the cop (ever inquisitive), meanders over to ask wtf.  I point at you, and regale him with a synopsis of your goofy scheme. He joins me in fingerpointin' & honest, mirthful laughter.  He walks home, i shut my door.  

The End

Edit: *Your answer, if you still don't get it:  You have no means to enforce your law:  you're weak, you have no "statist thugs" to enforce compliance.  See how that works IRL?  

[Rassah]

Your answer, if you still don't get it:  You have no means to enforce your law:  you're weak, you have no "statist thugs" to enforce compliance.  See how that works IRL?  

I guess I got my answer: you're a psychotic, masochistic child, with delusions of grandeur and a total lack of imagination, who bases its life on unsubstantiated assumptions, thinks morals and ethics come from authority, and believes contracts, businesses agreements, and property rights are based on nothing but weapons and might. No wonder you protest so much. Sorry i wasted any time on you, and sorry to say, you won't learn or gain anything from this forum.

[Anon136]

Do you let your intuition guide you on environmental issues as well? Intuition only goes so far.

Why are environmental issues immoral/unethical?

This is in response to the deleterious effects of ignorance, a byproduct of people who have strong opinions of morality combined with ignorance and an unwillingness to research and educate themselves.

If a moral/ethical person is ignorant, you can just teach them....

You act as if I haven't been trying to educate anon, yet he refuses to listen. Furthermore, scroll back a little and look at the words of Spendulus.

It seems pretty hard to "teach" anti-coercion disciples anything. First, they would have to volunteer to learn.

this is ridiculous, if im anything its willing to learn. im CONSTANTLY refining my understandings and changing my positions. *note* i do have firstassent blocked because hes mental retard, so its true that im not actively trying to learn anything from him. ill seek to learn from him as soon as i need advise on strategies for winning the special olympics.

anyway go ahead. im volunteering to learn. teach me why i ought not oppose coercion.

[Rassah]

It seems pretty hard to "teach" anti-coercion disciples anything. First, they would have to volunteer to learn.

this is ridiculous, if im anything its willing to learn. im CONSTANTLY refining my understandings and changing my positions. *note* i do have firstassent blocked because hes mental retard, so its true that im not actively trying to learn anything from him. ill seek to learn from him as soon as i need advise on strategies for winning the special olympics.

anyway go ahead. im volunteering to learn. teach me why i ought not oppose coercion.

I'm just curious how they expect to teach anti-coercion types to be submissive to coercion. That's, like, the opposite of what those types want.

[Anon136]

It seems pretty hard to "teach" anti-coercion disciples anything. First, they would have to volunteer to learn.

this is ridiculous, if im anything its willing to learn. im CONSTANTLY refining my understandings and changing my positions. *note* i do have firstassent blocked because hes mental retard, so its true that im not actively trying to learn anything from him. ill seek to learn from him as soon as i need advise on strategies for winning the special olympics.

anyway go ahead. im volunteering to learn. teach me why i ought not oppose coercion.

I'm just curious how they expect to teach anti-coercion types to be submissive to coercion. That's, like, the opposite of what those types want.

Sorry i dont follow. I understand in what sense they want me to be submissive to coerscion but in what sense do they not want me to be submissive to coercion?

[Rassah]

It seems pretty hard to "teach" anti-coercion disciples anything. First, they would have to volunteer to learn.

this is ridiculous, if im anything its willing to learn. im CONSTANTLY refining my understandings and changing my positions. *note* i do have firstassent blocked because hes mental retard, so its true that im not actively trying to learn anything from him. ill seek to learn from him as soon as i need advise on strategies for winning the special olympics.

anyway go ahead. im volunteering to learn. teach me why i ought not oppose coercion.

I'm just curious how they expect to teach anti-coercion types to be submissive to coercion. That's, like, the opposite of what those types want.

Sorry i dont follow. I understand in what sense they want me to be submissive to coerscion but in what sense do they not want me to be submissive to coercion?

I only said that they want us, the non-coercion types, to be submissive to coercion, and hope to teach us such. In a way I guess it's like trying to teach a recently freed slave about all the benefits of being a slave

[Anon136]

It seems pretty hard to "teach" anti-coercion disciples anything. First, they would have to volunteer to learn.

this is ridiculous, if im anything its willing to learn. im CONSTANTLY refining my understandings and changing my positions. *note* i do have firstassent blocked because hes mental retard, so its true that im not actively trying to learn anything from him. ill seek to learn from him as soon as i need advise on strategies for winning the special olympics.

anyway go ahead. im volunteering to learn. teach me why i ought not oppose coercion.

I'm just curious how they expect to teach anti-coercion types to be submissive to coercion. That's, like, the opposite of what those types want.

Sorry i dont follow. I understand in what sense they want me to be submissive to coerscion but in what sense do they not want me to be submissive to coercion?

I only said that they want us, the non-coercion types, to be submissive to coercion, and hope to teach us such. In a way I guess it's like trying to teach a recently freed slave about all the benefits of being a slave

gotcha

[FirstAscent]

Do you let your intuition guide you on environmental issues as well? Intuition only goes so far.

Why are environmental issues immoral/unethical?

This is in response to the deleterious effects of ignorance, a byproduct of people who have strong opinions of morality combined with ignorance and an unwillingness to research and educate themselves.

If a moral/ethical person is ignorant, you can just teach them....

You act as if I haven't been trying to educate anon, yet he refuses to listen. Furthermore, scroll back a little and look at the words of Spendulus.

It seems pretty hard to "teach" anti-coercion disciples anything. First, they would have to volunteer to learn.

this is ridiculous, if im anything its willing to learn. im CONSTANTLY refining my understandings and changing my positions. *note* i do have firstassent blocked because hes mental retard, so its true that im not actively trying to learn anything from him. ill seek to learn from him as soon as i need advise on strategies for winning the special olympics.

anyway go ahead. im volunteering to learn. teach me why i ought not oppose coercion.

You're not willing to learn. And your post shows who the fucktard is. Seriously, dude, if only you knew how ignorant and obtuse you are.

[FirstAscent]

It seems pretty hard to "teach" anti-coercion disciples anything. First, they would have to volunteer to learn.

this is ridiculous, if im anything its willing to learn. im CONSTANTLY refining my understandings and changing my positions. *note* i do have firstassent blocked because hes mental retard, so its true that im not actively trying to learn anything from him. ill seek to learn from him as soon as i need advise on strategies for winning the special olympics.

anyway go ahead. im volunteering to learn. teach me why i ought not oppose coercion.

I'm just curious how they expect to teach anti-coercion types to be submissive to coercion. That's, like, the opposite of what those types want.

Sorry i dont follow. I understand in what sense they want me to be submissive to coerscion but in what sense do they not want me to be submissive to coercion?

I only said that they want us, the non-coercion types, to be submissive to coercion, and hope to teach us such. In a way I guess it's like trying to teach a recently freed slave about all the benefits of being a slave

You're being obtuse as well. I have explained things in this thread that have nothing to do with coercion. Please explain how edge effects, trophic cascades, and species migration have anything to do with coercion. 

[Rassah]

You're being obtuse as well.

I assure you, the feeling is mutual.

I have explained things in this thread that have nothing to do with coercion. Please explain how edge effects, trophic cascades, and species migration have anything to do with coercion.  

Yes, the biology lessons were enlightening. If you'll remember, I proposed that we teach people about how their actions affect their surroundings, and explain to them that certain of their actions may damage other people's property. Now, remind me please, did you simply explain how the things you mentioned work? Or did you explain how they work, and propose that we coerce people into doing things to mitigate changes? If the former, we are in agreement. If the later, you have your answer.

[FirstAscent]

You're being obtuse as well.

I assure you, the feeling is mutual.

I have explained things in this thread that have nothing to do with coercion. Please explain how edge effects, trophic cascades, and species migration have anything to do with coercion.  

Yes, the biology lessons were enlightening. If you'll remember, I proposed that we teach people about how their actions affect their surroundings, and explain to them that certain of their actions may damage other people's property. Now, remind me please, did you simply explain how the things you mentioned work? Or did you explain how they work, and propose that we coerce people into doing things to mitigate changes? If the former, we are in agreement. If the later, you have your answer.

I explained them, period. Whether in the absence of presence of suggested solutions has no bearing on the fact that such concepts were presented, and have, apparently, by your own admission, left you enlightened, and by anon's admission, left him just as dumb for ignoring them.

[Rassah]

I explained them, period. Whether in the absence of presence of suggested solutions has no bearing on the fact that such concepts were presented, and have, apparently, by your own admission, left you enlightened, and by anon's admission, left him just as dumb for ignoring them.

So, you stated a series of facts that have nothing to do with coercion, morality, force, law, or whatever, and are now upset because we ignored something that was, by your own admission, off topic?

[FirstAscent]

I explained them, period. Whether in the absence of presence of suggested solutions has no bearing on the fact that such concepts were presented, and have, apparently, by your own admission, left you enlightened, and by anon's admission, left him just as dumb for ignoring them.

So, you stated a series of facts that have nothing to do with coercion, morality, force, law, or whatever, and are now upset because we ignored something that was, by your own admission, off topic?

In this line of reasoning, you have only indicated that you prefer willful ignorance. Nothing is off topic if it demonstrates that added knowledge sheds light on the consequences of one's intentions, and whether they consider their actions moral or not, which is on topic.

And thus, we can see that you have once again attempted to use a twist of words, lacking in substance, to save any point you might have.

Please, I wish to debate with people who can assimilate new knowledge, and aggregate it into their positions. You're not meeting my expectations, and continually bounce back and forth as suits you to try and win an argument.

Knowledge and information is key. Both you and anon clearly can't move out of your boxed paradigms when presented new information.

[Rassah]

In this line of reasoning, you have only indicated that you prefer willful ignorance. Nothing is off topic if it demonstrates that added knowledge sheds light on the consequences of one's intentions, and whether they consider their actions moral or not, which is on topic.

And thus, we can see that you have once again attempted to use a twist of words, lacking in substance, to save any point you might have.

Please, I wish to debate with people who can assimilate new knowledge, and aggregate it into their positions. You're not meeting my expectations, and continually bounce back and forth as suits you to try and win an argument.

Ok, ok! Let me ask you something then. Please explain how edge effects, trophic cascades, and species migration have anything to do with coercion. 

[FirstAscent]

In this line of reasoning, you have only indicated that you prefer willful ignorance. Nothing is off topic if it demonstrates that added knowledge sheds light on the consequences of one's intentions, and whether they consider their actions moral or not, which is on topic.

And thus, we can see that you have once again attempted to use a twist of words, lacking in substance, to save any point you might have.

Please, I wish to debate with people who can assimilate new knowledge, and aggregate it into their positions. You're not meeting my expectations, and continually bounce back and forth as suits you to try and win an argument.

Ok, ok! Let me ask you something then. Please explain how edge effects, trophic cascades, and species migration have anything to do with coercion. 

Did I say they directly did? Answer: no.

I said they are natural processes which play a role in ecosystems. I said that being willfully ignorant of those processes can make someone believe that their actions on land are not disrupting systems which provide services collectively known as ecosystem services. Ergo, thinking it is your moral right to do as you please because you don't think you're causing harm precisely because you're ignorant of those processes might be a reason for one of the following two:

1. Get educated on the processes so you can reevaluate how stupid your actions are.
2. Allow others to set the rules by which you should follow.