Jump to content

Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board


Sign In 

Create Account
If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible troll and spam accounts.

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your information and the situation will be addresses ASAP.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

LISTEN TO A 24/7 STREAM ON THE NEW FREEDOMAIN RADIO iOS APP!


DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here

67 Philosopher King files - 73 Gold files - 48 Silver files - 51 Bronze files

One new Philosopher King podcast (Marriage Challenges: A Couple Conversation) and one new Silver podcast (Innocent Until Proven Guilty) have been added to the donator section.


If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information and it will be corrected as soon as possible.


Photo

Peter Joseph debate

Zeitgeist

  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic
-36 This post by STer is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#37
Sashajade

Sashajade
  • 65 posts

  I really enjoyed the podcast with Peter Joseph. I hadn't heard of him till the podcast. It was very entertaining, right from the start.

I was suprised that he started out with that offputting comment rite in the beginning. Like as if he was offended before the debate

even began. Or on the defensive, like just frazzeled bc he knew it was going to be difficult to try to make his arguments.

He started to sweat pretty badly, it was priceless to watch Stef correct him. Peter just kept trying to repeat the same stuff

over again and just couldn't get anywhere. Not to sound mean but the guy had it coming lol! Stef I love watching you debate.

You turn these guys into dogs who limp away with their tails between their legs. Also loved the Joe Rogan podcast.

I thought u too hit it off well, considering having such different styles. My little bro Pete, loves Joe Rogan, and my

fave is Stefan. So when i told him u guys were doing a podcast together it was awesome. He tuned in as well.

Thank u so much. I feel like im rambling on, so until my next post, this is it for now lol! :)


  • 0

#38
NotDarkYet

NotDarkYet
  • 623 posts

If:   

 

Two people aggreeing to trade = evil.

 

 

Then:

 

 

Two people having sex is rape.

 

1 = 2

 

Up = down

 

Right = left

 

TRUTH doesn't exist.......

 

 

 

Getting Peter Joseph to parse EXACTLY where things become immoral would show the insanity of his position.


  • 0

It is not he or she or them or it that you belong to.


#39
dsayers

dsayers

    collateral damage

  • 2225 posts

Structural violence:

Posted Image

Sorry for the bump, but this is one of the funniest things I've seen in awhile.


  • 1

Providing value doesn't justify providing anti-value. I won't pay to be censored.


#40
nathanm

nathanm
  • 2008 posts

Funny that you mentioned that, as I was working on this drawing just the other day.  So now I had to finish it.

Posted Image


  • 4

"The government always sneaks in when I'm half seized-over and purloins the very thread from my hanky!" - Joad Cressbeckler


-49 This post by june is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#42
dsayers

dsayers

    collateral damage

  • 2225 posts

All I see are people making decisions. You seem unclear as to the contradiction of terms that "structural violence" actually is. If "the system" is abusive, it's because people made it that way in the past and use it as an excuse in the present. Referring to it as an inanimate force is a way to not accrue responsibility to the responsible. Usually to usher in one's own initiation of the use of force upon people who will not hold them responsible. Wretched.


  • 0

Providing value doesn't justify providing anti-value. I won't pay to be censored.


-49 This post by june is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#44
dsayers

dsayers

    collateral damage

  • 2225 posts

I am interested in your reply. I've read it a few times trying to figure out exactly what is being said. As I understand it, what you're talking about could not be classified as structural violence. "Suboptimal" and "eligible for improvement" is not the same as "violence." The way you're talking about it, if I watched a goofy movie instead of reading an informative book, I could be described as a victim of structural violence for not complying to an objective standard for valuation (another contradiction in concepts).

I think we differ on the view of the agent to talent relationship. An agent's value is real and their incentive is no different from that of the talent themselves: to acquire the most amount of resources with the least amount of effort. For as long as their actions do not violate the property rights of others, where can the term violence apply?


  • 0

Providing value doesn't justify providing anti-value. I won't pay to be censored.


-49 This post by june is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#46
dsayers

dsayers

    collateral damage

  • 2225 posts

"For as long as their actions do not violate the property rights of others, where can the term violence apply?"

I am aware of your parents as inherent aggressors stance. Not talking about parents here. You have an agent and the talent he represents. Something you claim is a good example of "structural violence." To which I've asked this very simple question, which I'm afraid you have not answered.


  • 0

Providing value doesn't justify providing anti-value. I won't pay to be censored.


-49 This post by june is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#48
dsayers

dsayers

    collateral damage

  • 2225 posts

Statements don't end in question marks. This reply of yours also does not answer the question. You are confessing that your claim of structural violence is invalid.


  • 0

Providing value doesn't justify providing anti-value. I won't pay to be censored.


#49
ProfessionalTeabagger

ProfessionalTeabagger
  • 1039 posts

but to make an argument in this thread to acquire a direct response/feedback (and this query is open to anyone): if someone has a child, then that child then earns 100% property rights over itself. yes? so at this point what obligation does the parent have to interact with this childs property in any form? would it not be completely within the bounds of property rights for this parent to simply walk away and let the child live on its own devices and property rights? of course the child will likely starve and die, but that is the childs doing for not taking care of its own property. nothing to do with the parent. would you consider this "violence" by the parent.. and if so, what "rights of property" did they breach?

If the child is likely going to starve and die then by definition the parent has not fulfilled their chosen moral obligation.


  • 0

-49 This post by june is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#51
Isthmus

Isthmus
  • 5 posts

This is ridiculous. Why can't he debate someone on par with him? Peter Joseph is just a guy with a little bit of info, who made a nice movie that people like. I'd love to see Stefan debate someone who actually knows what they're talking about... This is just a "let's make an example of these guys" kind of debate.  Stef - go argue someone on your level from the opposite side, i dare you.


  • 0

#52
dsayers

dsayers

    collateral damage

  • 2225 posts

No, june, YOU made the claim that the agent/talent relationship is a good example of structural violence. I pointed out that their interaction was voluntary and asked where the violence was. You continue to demonstrate that you understand that the violence you claimed to be there is not actually there.


  • 0

Providing value doesn't justify providing anti-value. I won't pay to be censored.


#53
ProfessionalTeabagger

ProfessionalTeabagger
  • 1039 posts

ugh, are you really going to argue pointless semantics? "For as long as their actions do not violate the property rights of others, where can the term violence apply?" the way this is phrased implies that you are both stating your assertion (beginning the sentence with "for") and also asking a question. but whatever, i am not going to go down this semantic path. i have already provided my argument to rebut your question, a refutation which claims that something can be deemed as "violent" when property rights are not breached, which is to the contrary of your very claim. what now is your counter-argument against my claim?

thank you for providing a constructive argument in this discussion. this is the type of input that holds information that can be looked into and argued for and/or against. okay, so your argument pertains to a moral standpoint, and to that i have to ask: what is every parents moral obligation to their child, and does it change if it is "unchosen"? those are 2 questions that should be asked in regards to your moral position. i'm looking forward to the potential dialogue with regards to your stance here, however.... ... lets not to deviate too much here, what is your stance in the realm of property rights? in realm of property rights -- which this discussion is largely centered upon -- has their been a breach of such rights by the parent? and if not, would you still consider the parents action (or inaction i should say) as "violent"?

The parents choose to care for the child when they choose to have one. They choose guardianship of the child's property rights until such time as the child can exercise them.

If a parent did not choose to have a child they were raped and either chose to continue the pregnancy or were unable to stop it. If they choose to keep it then they choose the obligation to care for it. If they choose not to keep it then they can leave it at a hospital.

Property rights are valid and property exists objectively. If a parent abandons their child after birth then have murdered it.


  • 0

-49 This post by june is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#55
ProfessionalTeabagger

ProfessionalTeabagger
  • 1039 posts

"The parents choose to care for the child when they choose to have one... Property rights are valid and property exists objectively. If a parent abandons their child after birth then have murdered it."

when a baby is born it is given full 100% property rights over itself as a sovereign being, so what obligation, in regards to property rights, does a parent have to interact with the child in anyway, after the birth? in this scenario the parent isn't "abandoning" their child, they are respecting the childs rights of property/self-ownership, are they not? "They choose guardianship of the child's property rights until such time as the child can exercise them." what is "guardianship", can you provide your definition? who is entitled to claim "guardianship" over another sovereign human-being, and what does this title grant them? does "guardianship" overrule the childs right of self-ownership?

You are forgetting those chosen obligations of the parent (assuming they're not mad or severely mentally retarded). Property rights do not just go one way. You may own yourself 100% and people may not have the right to violate that but you also own the effects of your actions. So when you have a child you have created the situation were the child will die if you do not care for it. You own the effects of that action. Part of the child's property rights is the right to be cared for and that right is one created by the parent. If they abandon the child they are violating that right. It's not like the baby created the situation. It does not own the effect of of being helpless. The parent owns that.

So no, the abandoning parent is not respecting that child's property rights/self-ownership; just the opposite.

Guardianship means an obligation to guard the child from the potentially harmful situations you have created. It does not overrule the child's self-ownership. It helps to think of a child as a full person. If you could not justify something to a child when it becomes an adult then you can't justify it when they're a child.


  • 1

-49 This post by june is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#57
PatrickC

PatrickC

    London Meetup organiser

  • 3148 posts

So June, tell us about your own experience as a child?


  • 3

#58
ProfessionalTeabagger

ProfessionalTeabagger
  • 1039 posts

"You may own yourself 100% and people may not have the right to violate that but you also own the effects of your actions. So when you have a child you have created the situation were the child will die if you do not care for it."

when you have a child you create a sovereign being with 100% property rights over itself. to not interact with that child is to respect it's property rights. to say "the child might be harmed if you don't do anything" is an argument from consequences, not from property rights, which is: "to be the exclusive controller of his own body and life"

"Part of the child's property rights is the right to be cared for and that right is one created by the parent."

a sovereign being with 100% ownership over itself has the right to be cared for by someone else? can you explain, specifically, how a person (the parent in this case) can be in breach of someones elses 100% right to self-ownership by not interacting with them in any way shape or form?

"It's not like the baby created the situation."

no, it did not. so (and this is a new, separate question) would you say the act of having a child is a breach of property rights, seeing as it did not consent?

"It does not own the effect of of being helpless. The parent owns that."

the parent owns the action of creating the baby (which is a separate matter that i have asked for your opinion on, just above). once the baby is conceived (or birthed; whichever point in time you believe self-ownership to begin) then that baby now has 100% selfownership rights over itself. the parents do not own anything at this point, it is the child who owns, because it now has full self-ownership.

Yes you created a sovereign being but you also created the moral obligation to care for it. That's part of its sovereignty. I do not know were you're getting this idea that abandoning the child is respecting its property rights. You don't have to physically DO something TO someone to violate them. Abandonment of a child is the same thing as active murder of the child.

I made no argument from consequences. I argued that part of the child's property rights includes the right to be cared for by the parent, and that right was created when the parent chose to have the child. This answers your second question too.

Children do not consent or withhold consent to be born so there's no breach of property rights.You may have forgotten but we've already had something like this discussion. I am pretty certain I successfully rebutted and answered all the antinatalist arguments you made and questions you asked. But you did not respond any further. That bothers me a bit because i have to assume that if you're still asking this strange question then my arguments had zero effect.

[color=rgb(90,90,90);font-family:Verdana, tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(251,253,254)]"the parents do not own anything at this point, it is the child who owns, because it now has full self-ownership."[/color]

The child owns the right to be cared for by the people who created that right. If the child HAS self-ownership then it has property rights over itself; So the parents created those rights, correct? Similarly they created its right to be cared for.


  • 0

-49 This post by june is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Zeitgeist