I don't buy this theory that we are so encapsulated that how we respond to other people's actions is purely a matter of our own choices. — Bitter Crank

This makes no sense to me.
How we respond to the behavior of others is completely within our control if our rights and freedoms are intact.
For example if some one insults you, and your rights and freedoms are not impeded, it is well within your control to depart the company of that person.

The same if you discover that a person is lying to you, it is within your control to deem them untrustworthy and treat them accordingly.

Of course there are exceptions.
If you verbally abuse a child that does not have the means to remove themselves from the situation, then you are infringing upon the rights of that child.

or are so consistent that we eventually lose our ability to ignore them. — Bitter Crank

This amounts to harassment and of course there should be exceptions there too.
That is reasonable and you will have no argument from me on that point.

What about Havens gate?
They did not have super natural beliefs, but were they a cult or a religion?

Do you have to have a large enough fellowship to be considered a religion?

So? If they don't harm someone's freedom that means they don't do any harm at all? — Agustino

If you don't infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others you are not legally responsible for any harm.

So it's a sensible position to hold that lying to my girlfriend, insulting you, or emotionally blackmailing people aren't harmful? — Agustino

They do not harm anybodies freedoms.

According to scientific findings, only to a certain extent. There are situations when you can't control the emotions that you feel. — Agustino

There is an extent to which we can control our emotions though.
And it is our responsibility to do so,

No that's just an ideology which you use now because you realise that your argument doesn't hold. Everyone here can probably testify that if I do that I will cause harm. — Agustino

No this is the most sensible position to hold.

For example, after I insult you, you get upset and report it to the moderators, they could come and tell you that it's your fault for getting insulted so easily. That would be, in the name of my freedom to insult, applying social pressure to maintain that freedom. — Agustino

It would be my fault for being upset, I am responsible for my own emotions.
Your insults would have no real power over me because they would not be able to violate my rights or freedoms so they have no real power to cause harm.

.

You thought the problem was common ownership, when in fact it was a problem of access and self interest.
The problem occurs when all agents
a) act in their own self interest
b) have equal access to the resource
c) and the demand increases beyond supply

It is not clear what you think privatization accomplishes.

The solutions are
a) agents must act with a social interest
b) the access must be limited
c) the demand/supply must be supplemented
or some combination of these things

So if I tell you i fuck your mom, I'm not responsible for the harm I cause you? Good to know! — Agustino

You have not caused any harm unless you have violated my rights and freedoms.

I'm not talking about that case. I'm talking about things everyone finds offensive, about which there is no doubt. If I tell you I fucked your mom, neither of us has any doubts that I've insulted you. If I lie to my girlfriend, nobody has any doubts that I've harmed her. Even you don't have any doubts about that. You've admitted it before. — Agustino

You imagine that words have some power over people that they do not.
Words are just words.
Unless you violate a persons rights you have not caused them harm and you are not responsible to them.
So if you choose to be an insulting liar that is your choice.
People can leave your company if they do not like it.

Yes, but in the name of freedom we could encourage people not to enforce these consequences via means of social pressure on folks who lie. So should we do that? — Agustino

I have no idea what you are saying here?

I never said blackmailing. I said emotional blackmailing. That's different than other sorts of blackmail. And blackmailing doesn't have to be obvious (and when it's not obvious, the law can't do anything about it). For example, I know you've cheated your brother out of money in a business deal, it's enough to bring up the subject when we're having an argument, or I'm trying to get you to do something, and you will be pushed to comply or else I will tell your brother. I never even have to tell you or threaten you that I will tell your brother. I can suddenly ask you "How'd you feel if your brother knew?" and then if you try to push the conversation down that way, I can change subject. — Agustino

So individuals are not qualified to manage their own emotional well being?
Sorry I disagree.

So if they don't violate rights, then they aren't harmful? — Agustino

If you don't not violate a persons rights you are not responsible for any harm.

Say for example I say something you find offensive.
Since I have not violated your rights I am not responsible to you.
It is your fault that you have become offended.
Blaming me because you are not mature enough to ignore an insult is not ethical in the least.

So then it should have those consequences? If yes, then you're agreeing that you shouldn't be free to lie (there should be consequences for it). — Agustino

It does not matter if it ought to have consequences, the fact is there are consequences for lying and being offensive.
People will not regard you as trustworthy(because you lie) and people will not want to keep company with you(because you can't conduct yourself with civility).

The best result is not always privatization because we are dealing with a problem of accesss.

Take over fishing for example.
Privately owned business harvest from the fish population and each compete with one another.
Because everybody has equal access to the resources and because all agents will act in accordance with their own individual self interest the problem of tragedy of the commons will occur.
To solve the problem requires a social solution, where the community devises regulations to prevent the issue from occurring.

No being offensive does not violate anybodies rights.
Lying does not violate anybodies rights.
Blackmailing might be a violation of a person rights and hence the person being blackmailed should have legal recourse in such cases.

If you are a liar and an offender this does have consequences.
People will not trust what you say and will not want to keep company with you.

That's nonsense. If I tell you that "I fucked your mom, and your child is a hopeless retard", have I done you no harm? If I lie to my girlfriend, have I done her no harm? If I emotionally blackmail my sister to get something in return, have I done her no harm? — Agustino

Nonsense.
Words might cause offense, but you have not violated any of my rights or freedoms in being a fowl mouth.

Again if you have not infringed upon the basic rights and freedoms of others you have not caused any harm.

I completely disagree.
It would be objectively wrong to prevent people from defining for themselves what it means to flourish.
The most effective way to do this is by giving people basic rights and freedoms.
Provided they do not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others they should be allowed to live their lives as they decide.

To be flourishing is a thing that individuals should be able to decide for themselves.
In a historical context individual rights have improved significantly in more recent centuries, this means more people have a greater freedom to decide for themselves how they will flourish.

Sugar britches.

Just thought I would get in on the pet name action.

That reminds me another thing.
An increase in individual freedom so that people can determine for themselves what it means to flourish.

Literacy

Actually that is kind of the point, privatization does not work with common resources as people will act in their own individual self interest which has a net negative effect for all agents.

A common resource is a resource, such as water or pasture, that provides users with tangible benefits. A major concern with common resources is overuse,especially when there are poor social-management systems in place to protect the core resource.

It has been argued that the very term 'tragedy of the commons' is a misnomer per se, since 'the commons' originally referred to a resource owned by a community, and no individual outside the community had any access to the resource. However, the term is presently used when describing a problem where all individuals have equal and open access to a resource. Hence, 'tragedy of open access regimes' or simply 'the open access problem' are more apt terms.[3]:171

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

The tragedy of the commons is an economic problem in which every individual tries to reap the greatest benefit from a given resource. As the demand for the resource overwhelms the supply, every individual who consumes an additional unit directly harms others who can no longer enjoy the benefits. Generally, the resource of interest is easily available to all individuals; the tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals neglect the well-being of society in the pursuit of personal gain.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tragedy-of-the-commons.asp

lol

Fossil fuels are a finite resource though.
As the supply dwindles the cost of doing modern business will increase.
I think it is good to develop more sustainable alternatives now while our current modes of energy consumption are relatively cheap, rather than put it off.

I am glad this thread got posted.
I think this is a much better narrative than denial in the context of climate change debate.

Is it true that there is another way philosophy has long been practiced Yes or No?

What type of philosophy has long been practiced?

I argue something similar about sustainable energy.
It will cost less to implement sustainable solutions now rather than put it off until later.
While fossil fuels are cheap and abundant we should be transitioning away from reliance upon them.
Rather than trying to do so when fossil fuels have become more scarce and more expensive.

You want to control how other people answer, but at the same time, you yourself are against being controlled.

That is kind of funny.

That is ironic.

I think he has a teds talk as well.

This would be great if it was about something.

I think we are done here.

WTF?
You "Who cares that 10% died in the past"

Consumption is a basic fact of the human condition, we consume.
This cannot be avoided.

I think you are not being very reasonable.
Pinker does not imply that violence in more recent centuries is less appalling.
He points out that it is a trend that is actually in decline.
That is a good thing.

Yes but if no one consumes their material they will not succeed in that intention.

Well Pinker addresses that in the vid.

These "consume me" type of authors — Agustino

Aren't all authors intended to be consumed?

I think Pinker gives us good evidence to believe that more recent centuries were not in fact the bloodiest of all time.

I am a glass half full type of guy.


.

Can you give an example of a religion (not people who claim to be followers) that doesn't include supernatural beliefs? — anonymous66

lol
Scientology?