Echarmion

I think it's sufficient that you want to have children and honestly judge that you can give them the necessary love and resources in order to allow th...

We just disagree on the "have to". When do you "have to" do something? Taken literally, you almost never "have to" do something, unless it's a reflex ...

Perhaps all the online spaces I frequent are left-leaning, but I very rarely see anyone positively self-describing as "right wing". The actual right-w...

Heartbreak isn't limited to relationships though, is it? Wouldn't it be better though, if we decreased it? I don't get why I should stop worrying abou...

"Left" and "right" are extremely leaky generalisations about a whole host of not necessarily connected views. So it's no surprise that noone can agree...

Yes, you could say that. Though my metaphysics skew constructivist, so I'd say shared mental faculties. I think our shared reasoning is pretty fundame...

I wouldn't class strong economic control as a defining part of fascism. I'd say the core elements are: A strong focus on the family and the nation as ...

Most outside observers describe China's economic system as capitalism with a strong state. What makes you differ?

But it is what authority does, right? Make the laws, enforce them etc. I think it's important here to distinguish between instrumental goals and ultim...

I mostly wanted to distance myself from the idea of a "divine logos" or similar. I only have access to my own reasoning. The best I can do is vet my r...

I always have a problem with the liberty vs. authority angle. In my mind, authority can preserve liberty as much as endanger it. Authority is a tool, ...

That may be a good enough heuristic in many cases, but that doesn't make it a convincing principle. But you apparently do not think this is because we...

But what one is supposed to do would have to take into account what one wants to do - since you're probably less effective at doing something you don'...

Well we assume it is. We cannot really know, since we only have access to our own reasoning. So the principle would have to be something universal acc...

Right, and I disagree. I don't see how your position could consistently avoid dystopian scenarios where everyone is forced to conform to some exact co...

Ah, then i think the misunderstanding may be that you think I want other people to suffer so they can self-realize, but all I am saying that self-real...

In the most general terms, the disagreement seems to be about where you draw the line between a simple mistake and willful ignorance. A says that peop...

That's not, however, what you initially said. I did not say that people need to be born in order to realize themselves. Though if I did say that, then...

I should perhaps clarify that I am using "troll" in the more modern sense of: someone intentionally trying to disrupt or manipulate online conversatio...

I'd most definetly say that driving drunk is immoral regardless of whether or not you have an accident. It's also illegal in most countries, I'd wager...

You already quoted it. It just didn't say anything like what you then wrote.

To the best of my ability to tell, NOS does not actually believe most of the things he posts. Most of the time, he is exactly repeating the current pr...

I am saying your representation of what I said was either mistaken or dishonest.

You seem fine with presuming to put words into other people's mouths though. This often misunderstood example was not actually about the categorical i...

Including breaking up with someone that loves you, for example? Yes, I can see how you arrive at the conclusion. It just seems to me you're thereby fo...

Yes, though not, of course, at any price. But this is because causing the suffering is a crime, so we have already established that it has special sig...

Well I consider morality to be on a case by case basis. There is a general principle according to which you decide, but there isn't a canon of command...

I'd consider drunk driving a case of negligence. And what makes negligence what it is is your failure to act according to your duties before the outco...

In the same sense that shooting someone on the street isn't inherently wrong. It all depends on who is doing it, and more importantly why.

That's the point, I think. What's different is the motivation and the symbolism, not the fact that there is violence.

That seems to be a weird question, honestly. I don't think you want to discuss individual scenarios and decide whether this or that is moral or immora...

Yeah, that makes sense. I think I fall more on the community side of things myself. I think that explains some of the difference in outlook on an emot...

I think that disgust has a lot to do with the disagreement we have. Can you elaborate on what you find disgusting? Your test also fails the car exampl...

I think the statement is clearly false. Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children. Noone is responsible for someone else's sufferin...

Yeah, you may be onto something here. One of the common criticisms of Kant is that he dismisses emotions pretty much out of hand. It was just obvious ...

Why though? This seems to be an absurd goal. What's the point of preventing suffering by preventing existence? Suffering isn't objective metaphysical ...

The problem is I don't see how "do not cause pain" can possibly be a reasonable goal in isolation. In the abstract, pain is just a fact of the univers...

This seems a very obvious point, but it's not one that the anti-natalists here accept, so there must be some fundamental disagreement about the basics...

But isn't it also intuitively true that freedom involves the freedom from outside influences? From hunger, outside pressure, social norms? And can we ...

But this definition of liberty seems fairly useless in practice, because everyone either has this capacity at all times - even at gunpoint - or they n...

So, for one your last sentence is clearly an empirical claim. But apart from that, I don't see why we need to ignore the differences between the two s...

You're right, this isn't very clearly written. I'd say there are at least three different definitions for freedom: the theoretical freedom of will, ac...

Then what are you doing here? It's a forum. If you cannot deal with criticism, perhaps avoid inviting any. We might start with this paragraph: For one...

I am not sure Kant would say that there even are situations where you cannot do your duty. If you cannot do something, it cannot really be considered ...

You're making an empirical claim. About how people use a term, what they associate with it and what their motivations are. But it's not a definition. ...

You could point out to me where you justify your view. To me it seems like a naked claim, a premise that is taken as granted from the start.

How are you going to talk about incels, or talk about talking about incels, without first establishing who you consider an incel and why? Are you talk...

You seem to be missing the fact that "incel" isn't predominantly a slur we use for others. People self-described as "incels" first. In a convoluted wa...

It means the mode of defense must be appropriate to the threat, so you're not allowed to simply use the safest option for you, but have to consider le...

It'd be an interesting case of provoked defense, which itself is handled differently in different jurisdictions. In the roman legal tradition, self-de...