ok. I’m thinking the common sense part was misplaced and I really don’t want to get into semantics. I agree. But morality is common sense according the definitions that I’ve been posting recently. Aristotle called it practical wisdom and it is a basic human faculty in the brain that judgement, understanding, and intuitive reasoning enacts. As long as humans act they are performing morality. It is its very definition.
Again, it is implied in the definition of stealing that the property was legitimately owned. So, If someone steals my car and I find out where the person lives ithat stole it, and I steal it back, then I did not really steal it, I took it back. Semantics of course.
And there is no such thing as natural rights.
Again, I do not believe in morality. I believe in consistency.
lol… We are talking about human nature. Not natural death.
Therefore we agree.
There is, but you ignore them. But then you talk about legitimate property above, but how you go on contradicting yourself…
Consistency is morality. It’s making a logical judgement about human action. That’s the very definition of morality that has been around for thousands of years so I’m not going to throw away a perfectly good biological mental faculty cause you say so.
In a (somewhat horrible) way this discussion is very funny.
Actually, lawyers and the legal system exist because there’s such thing as ‘objective’ crime. But, regrettably, the legal system is always hijacked by the people who are supposed to prevent crime, and then things look as if the legal system actually gets to arbitrarily define what crime is…rendering the concepts of crime/justice/rights/etc meaningless.
But notice that such system is based on might-makes-right. Now, regardless of the moral status of the position, it seems to me that lawyers and other people want to have a legal system in order to AVOID the law of the jungle or might-makes-right. But at the same time the system they create IS the law of the jungle.
The whole thing seems contradictory…So, I wouldn’t ask a lawyer for advice
This is actually an interesting intellectual pursuit - the “criminal mind”. I’ve noticed that where I used to work in the crime world the psychiatrist on staff would ask questions of wetting the bed. Youth that had difficulty with restraining themselves aggressively or sexually usually also had difficulty with involuntary actions. Not saying Jacob does (?), I’m bringing this up due to the psychological components that come with lack of self-restraint abilities. Conscious inabilities of self-restraining also show up in what would be more usually considered involuntary actions. It’s also known as incontinence.
Some youth that were of the most aggressive or lack of restraining sexuality had problems with crapping. For some reason they would shit on the bathroom floor or in trash cans in their bedroom or bathroom. They would do this in their pants at times or in the middle of the floor if nobody was around (their bedroom or bathroom floor therefore). It’s quite the other world.
can someone ban jacob bloom, the guys a certified retard. why did they let you on a computer jacob? tell us where youre staying so we can tell the nurses to take the fucking computer away from you, christ.
I guess you missed it where I told him I would shoot him in a chance meeting if we were alone, it is the only way I can be sure he would not murder, rape and then steal from me…
I asked my wife who is sitting on the couch right now what this sounds like. I read her what Jacob said. I gave her no cues on what I thought. She said it means he would rape somebody for money. He would have no problem raping somebody if a person offered him $100 to go and rape somebody.
The case for anarchy takes a little reading to fully cement. If you want a nice quick read, just read Molinari’s article. I know you like efficiency, and this article will take you 10 minutes to read. It will explain what hours and hours of posting and enduring somewhat hostile criticism have not. I promise that once you read that article you will be able to come back and be much more fruitful in these discussions. You are right about a lot of things, by the way. You show more integrity and intellectual promise than 99% of people because you are able to put aside your ego even as others rain criticism and verbal abuse on you. We need people like you on our side.
Morality is just shorthand for certain aspects of utility, coupled with the concept of empathy. You’re basically spot on about morality. As a concept, it’s more confusing than it is useful. And yes, people are attacking you far more than you deserve: you’re really almost there. I implore you in the strongest possible terms: invest 10 minutes to read Molinari!
Rape isn’t a moral decision. It’s a profit and loss decision. Rape, despite being very high on the power and control and instant gratification meter is also very high on the risk meter. So…it’s just not worth it to me right now. Morality would never stop me from raping someone, simple financial and economics calculations do.
