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.
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.
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.
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.
No. Your senses are used to perceive the world, and reason is the tool to make sense of it.
Your ignorance is astounding.
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?
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.
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…
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?
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.
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?
Ok, how about 100 for 1?
1,000 for 1? 10,000 for 1? Would the trade ever be worth it to you?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Assuming you’re being honest here - which I think is quite a stretch - do you expect this to intimidate 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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.