If I take something from you, but you still have the same amount you had, have I really taken something from you? You don't have any less of it, how can you claim I harmed you? You are lumping exclusionary and non-exclusionary goods together into the same category when they are fundamentally different. If you shoplift at a store, the store has less of what you just took.
Let me tell you a little story. A beggar went into a market and bought a piece of bread. He then went to the sausage vendor's stand and held the bread over the smoke, to flavor it. The sausage vendor became irate and demanded payment for the flavor of his sausages. All the townsfolk gathered round and took sides in the ensuing argument, some thought the beggar should pay, others thought the sausage vendor was being ridiculous. Then someone had a bright idle: "Let's ask the fool!" and the whole town thought this would be a fair way to settle things: let the fool decide. The fool asked the beggar if he had any coin left, and he did, so the beggar bounced the coin on the table and said, "There. It's settled. He's paid for the flavor of your sausage with the sound of his money."
And morally, that is the most we should be obliged to pay for something that someone else is letting go to waste, or for anything we can take without there being any less of it.
And here I was thinking you were making a self effacing 'nerds don't get laid' joke. "The corporatist who wants to regulate who you fuck" was just a place holder for whatever right wing anti-gay-marriage social conservative happens to be running.
Hehe, "It's more complicated than that," is almost always true. Certainly so in any case regarding human motivations and love. But yeah, when you put it in terms of a 'significant minority' (which I'm guessing means anywhere from 20-49%) then I completely agree.
Maybe so, but in my experience they are more likely to learn from their mistakes and stop dating losers. In general, the whole 'women only date misogynistic losers' idea seems to emanate from misogynistic losers who think of themselves as nice guys, but still can't get a date, or from men with no self esteem and poor social skills. Actual nice guys with confidence and self esteem never seem to have many problems getting dates, unless they are fat, ugly, and/or poor.
True, take Bombshell McGee and Jesse James, for instance. Step dad touch you much, lady? You might try counseling rather than dating losers that remind you of him. But I wouldn't say lots of women are like this. And certainly not many of the smart ones.
LOLwhat? Where the hell did that come from? Read the fucking page, moron. It's a scam, and has nothing to do with anything you just said. You do not have a 'straw man' bank account that the government set up in your name as collateral. You do have to pay taxes, even if you file all the batshit paperwork suggested.
But you know what? Forget I said all that, I'm just an evil Statist. Go ahead and pay for the material. File that paperwork and become a sovereign individual. Refuse to pay your taxes and try to cash checks on your straw-man account. I'm sure it will work now, they just needed to work the kinks out of the legal language.
I had a good friend who got caught up in this. I managed to convince him it was batshit crazy before he tried anything that would get his ass thrown in jail, but he did spend over $200 for the materials.
It is the only way, sorry, your examples do not contradict my hypothesis. Lets take them one by one: -"Get people to agree" is my hypothesis. You are supporting what I'm saying in this example.
-Keep your business private. You are talking about segmenting society, perfectly acceptable. In your example, A and B are now the society in question, C is not. Remember, society is just individuals acting under shared agreements.
-Keep your powder dry. Now you are talking about power, not rights.
Of course it makes sense to argue for rights: you are arguing that society recognize a certain right. It is not currently a right society recognizes, or you wouldn't be arguing for it.
You must always imagine yourself in any role society has, if you want to evaluate your society for fairness. If liberty is important to the individual, then liberty is utility. Decreasing liberty decreases utility.
ALL decisions are mine to make, regardless of what society says.
I do not want to unfairly impact others by my actions, because I do not want to be unfairly impacted.
If you ever hear the phrase 'sovereign individuals,' run. Run away, as fast as you can. You are in the presence of either a moronic patsy or a dangerous con artist. Do not fall for this scam. You will lose money, and perhaps go to jail yourself for attempting to follow the ludicrous and expensive instructions for becoming this imaginary thing called a 'sovereign individual.' Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Citizen_Movement
"We" don't have a bad reputation, so speak for yourself. Sure, society has become slightly more egalitarian and we white men can't lord it over others like we used to, but some of us consider that a good thing. Here's a tip for you: women loathe self-pitying misogynistic losers.
Huh? You're still getting it completely backward. Probably my fault, so let me try again. In my analogy, I'm talking about you forcing the magazine publisher to publish your article. Analogous to an app author forcing Apple to publish his app.
Without the social decision, we do not have rights.
Exactly. If society decides that some people should be owned by others, or should be locked up in camps, who are those people to say otherwise? They're not society, and they clearly have no power, so they have no rights other than what each society says they do.
Unfortunately, that is simply a cold hard fact. Look, even if you believe that rights derive from some other source, such as nature or God, you still have to convince other people, a.k.a society, of that fact, and it still boils down to a social agreement that that is where rights come from. You can try to argue from authority, but people still must believe your authority.Any list of natural or God-given rights does not in fact come from nature or God, it comes from an individual who dreamed them up and attributed them to God or nature. And each individual will come up with a list at least slightly different from any other.
Utility to the individual is the only real way to argue for rights. What is the utility to the individual for owning others, or locking other people up? There may be some advantage, but the disadvantage is obvious to everyone: you may be the person owned or locked up. What starts with even one small minority group may extend to your group. Better to forbid owning others or locking people up without due cause, because that provides the most utility to the individual.
See, now were getting to the good arguments. Sometimes it takes a while, but they usually show up. A good argument is usually nuanced, (like, "they can do it, but we shouldn't encourage them") but short.
I agree with that. They should have the right not to publish, and we should call them on it if they use that right to censor.
Absolutely true. So, one part of the censorship equation has to do with the power of the censoring organization. The other, as some have argued here, is the motivation for not publishing. So, large relative power plus refusal to publish, not for lack of quality or saleability, but for moral reasons, equals censorship.
I'd have to consider the magnitude of harm as well, in order to even have a shot of answering that question. Car crashes tend to create greater harm than being punched in the face or having your doorstep peed on.
Uhh, you got it backwards. You're thinking of the wrong definition of 'publish.' I can publish a paper I wrote. That's not the publish I meant. A magazine can publish the paper I wrote. That's the publish I meant.
Slashdot Mirror
If I take something from you, but you still have the same amount you had, have I really taken something from you? You don't have any less of it, how can you claim I harmed you? You are lumping exclusionary and non-exclusionary goods together into the same category when they are fundamentally different. If you shoplift at a store, the store has less of what you just took.
Let me tell you a little story. A beggar went into a market and bought a piece of bread. He then went to the sausage vendor's stand and held the bread over the smoke, to flavor it. The sausage vendor became irate and demanded payment for the flavor of his sausages. All the townsfolk gathered round and took sides in the ensuing argument, some thought the beggar should pay, others thought the sausage vendor was being ridiculous. Then someone had a bright idle: "Let's ask the fool!" and the whole town thought this would be a fair way to settle things: let the fool decide. The fool asked the beggar if he had any coin left, and he did, so the beggar bounced the coin on the table and said, "There. It's settled. He's paid for the flavor of your sausage with the sound of his money."
And morally, that is the most we should be obliged to pay for something that someone else is letting go to waste, or for anything we can take without there being any less of it.
And here I was thinking you were making a self effacing 'nerds don't get laid' joke. "The corporatist who wants to regulate who you fuck" was just a place holder for whatever right wing anti-gay-marriage social conservative happens to be running.
Hehe, "It's more complicated than that," is almost always true. Certainly so in any case regarding human motivations and love. But yeah, when you put it in terms of a 'significant minority' (which I'm guessing means anywhere from 20-49%) then I completely agree.
Maybe so, but in my experience they are more likely to learn from their mistakes and stop dating losers. In general, the whole 'women only date misogynistic losers' idea seems to emanate from misogynistic losers who think of themselves as nice guys, but still can't get a date, or from men with no self esteem and poor social skills. Actual nice guys with confidence and self esteem never seem to have many problems getting dates, unless they are fat, ugly, and/or poor.
I call bullshit. The system is still biased towards white men.
True, take Bombshell McGee and Jesse James, for instance. Step dad touch you much, lady? You might try counseling rather than dating losers that remind you of him. But I wouldn't say lots of women are like this. And certainly not many of the smart ones.
LOLwhat? Where the hell did that come from? Read the fucking page, moron. It's a scam, and has nothing to do with anything you just said. You do not have a 'straw man' bank account that the government set up in your name as collateral. You do have to pay taxes, even if you file all the batshit paperwork suggested.
But you know what? Forget I said all that, I'm just an evil Statist. Go ahead and pay for the material. File that paperwork and become a sovereign individual. Refuse to pay your taxes and try to cash checks on your straw-man account. I'm sure it will work now, they just needed to work the kinks out of the legal language.
I had a good friend who got caught up in this. I managed to convince him it was batshit crazy before he tried anything that would get his ass thrown in jail, but he did spend over $200 for the materials.
It is the only way, sorry, your examples do not contradict my hypothesis. Lets take them one by one:
-"Get people to agree" is my hypothesis. You are supporting what I'm saying in this example.
-Keep your business private. You are talking about segmenting society, perfectly acceptable. In your example, A and B are now the society in question, C is not. Remember, society is just individuals acting under shared agreements.
-Keep your powder dry. Now you are talking about power, not rights.
Of course it makes sense to argue for rights: you are arguing that society recognize a certain right. It is not currently a right society recognizes, or you wouldn't be arguing for it.
You must always imagine yourself in any role society has, if you want to evaluate your society for fairness. If liberty is important to the individual, then liberty is utility. Decreasing liberty decreases utility.
ALL decisions are mine to make, regardless of what society says.
I do not want to unfairly impact others by my actions, because I do not want to be unfairly impacted.
If you ever hear the phrase 'sovereign individuals,' run. Run away, as fast as you can. You are in the presence of either a moronic patsy or a dangerous con artist. Do not fall for this scam. You will lose money, and perhaps go to jail yourself for attempting to follow the ludicrous and expensive instructions for becoming this imaginary thing called a 'sovereign individual.' Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Citizen_Movement
"We" don't have a bad reputation, so speak for yourself. Sure, society has become slightly more egalitarian and we white men can't lord it over others like we used to, but some of us consider that a good thing. Here's a tip for you: women loathe self-pitying misogynistic losers.
Gee, someone stereotyping all public servants as contemptuous, what a surprise.
Huh? You're still getting it completely backward. Probably my fault, so let me try again. In my analogy, I'm talking about you forcing the magazine publisher to publish your article. Analogous to an app author forcing Apple to publish his app.
Well, I may smoke bud but I lick Busch. Amongst other things I do with it...
Without the social decision, we do not have rights.
Exactly. If society decides that some people should be owned by others, or should be locked up in camps, who are those people to say otherwise? They're not society, and they clearly have no power, so they have no rights other than what each society says they do.
Unfortunately, that is simply a cold hard fact. Look, even if you believe that rights derive from some other source, such as nature or God, you still have to convince other people, a.k.a society, of that fact, and it still boils down to a social agreement that that is where rights come from. You can try to argue from authority, but people still must believe your authority.Any list of natural or God-given rights does not in fact come from nature or God, it comes from an individual who dreamed them up and attributed them to God or nature. And each individual will come up with a list at least slightly different from any other.
Utility to the individual is the only real way to argue for rights. What is the utility to the individual for owning others, or locking other people up? There may be some advantage, but the disadvantage is obvious to everyone: you may be the person owned or locked up. What starts with even one small minority group may extend to your group. Better to forbid owning others or locking people up without due cause, because that provides the most utility to the individual.
See, now were getting to the good arguments. Sometimes it takes a while, but they usually show up. A good argument is usually nuanced, (like, "they can do it, but we shouldn't encourage them") but short.
I agree with that. They should have the right not to publish, and we should call them on it if they use that right to censor.
Now the question has been answered. Thank you.
Absolutely true. So, one part of the censorship equation has to do with the power of the censoring organization. The other, as some have argued here, is the motivation for not publishing. So, large relative power plus refusal to publish, not for lack of quality or saleability, but for moral reasons, equals censorship.
I'd have to consider the magnitude of harm as well, in order to even have a shot of answering that question. Car crashes tend to create greater harm than being punched in the face or having your doorstep peed on.
You forgot to put a matta boo boo in your post.
Uhh, you got it backwards. You're thinking of the wrong definition of 'publish.' I can publish a paper I wrote. That's not the publish I meant. A magazine can publish the paper I wrote. That's the publish I meant.
Interesting. I think you're right on this.
Another very good point.
Well put.
It's like a video game, but you play it with wome... Okay, let's start over.