I am trying to follow some logical steps from reasoning to conclusion in the sense that the conclusion is unavoidable. But I don't see it in this case.

1. Narrowly applied. I will explain.
I think fairness could be interchange with reasonable. Is it reasonable? And I think it is. Giving the fact that I believe no one is able to get exactly what they want in a group of more than one some sacrifices need to be made.

Now you talk about individual but a country have many of those. So the sacrifice that 1 make is equal to the sacrifice that another make therefore its reasonable/fair.
Example - One didn't negotiate all the rules (I believe non of them did that is a far fech assertion) and the other didn't get the vote to allow a person to be a citizen when he granted one at birth.

2 As for the conclusion. getting their own land. Land cost money. People can live their whole life without being able to do that. But your conclusion is that a person just need to disagree with the government to be allowed to get a piece of land?

I think more reasonable conclusion is that one should be allowed to forfeit his citizenship.

Also you keep on talking about rights but say nothing about obligations.

again its hard for me to see the reasoning here.


1. What is your definition for fairness. And why it is only narrowly applied in this argument?
2. What do you think is the objective of a nation/country/government ?
3. Your conclusion was that a man should not just be able to create his own nation but should also get a land to do that? How did you get there from the fact that he should be able to negotiate the rules he wish to follow? I'm trying to think of some suppressed premises that will make this argument reasonable but I can't think of any.

Hi Josef,

Thank you for forming your thoughts. Still don't find it easy to follow along. So I hope you will be patient with me while im asking questions about your premises.

" Individuals born to a model of governance that they did not accede to are unethically imposed upon by the expectations of the jurisdictional authority (e.g. taxation, popular representation, conscription)"

What are you saying here?

1. A human is born with a citizenship.
2. A citizen has a set of rules he need to follow
3. Every person have to have the right to chose their own set of rules they want to follow
4. Not having the right to chose the set of rules you want follow is unethical.
Therefore is unethical to get a citizenship at birth?

If not try to simplify it for me. Try to write it like you explaining it for a child :)

Any chance you can clarify your argument? I think your conclusion was that children should decide their own nationality?
It will be helpful if you can number the reasoning like.

1. Reason one
2. Reason two
Etc
Therefore
Conclusion.

Why should it matter through? If someone believe in something or not?

if infact the brain=you=your consciousness what would be your thoughts about mind uploading?

I'll try to explain by analogy. You (I assume) know what the colour yellow is. It is very clear to you. How easy though it is to explain to another person that never saw the colour? (Mary's room thought experiment have a similar premise) same thing with experiencing myself easy to know effortless even however hard to explain. As for the continuity of the self. As far as I know for the most part most people experience that. Don't you?

For me definition is underline the necessary parts and the relation of those parts to one another of the object being define. So it will be descriptive as to what it is and to distinguish it from other objects. There is a sense of self for me that it is constant through time (and I'm assuming will be there till death) and is distinguishing me from others and this I have hard time to define in words. I know there are other ways to look at it (based on psychology research I read I know a few) but those mean nothing to me. And reading those (other definitions of self) didn't let me know much about who the other person Is.

Hi George, thank you for that. Those are very long videos :) I started to watch one of them and although it offer some insights I was looking for something else. I don't know much about Muslim beliefs so a video that tackle one of those with be great. Based on what I read from Mr Phil I assume it should be a paragraph from the tafsir.

Hey RBS, it is such a great question. Is it easy though? I mean I know me and I can see me as a constant through time. But I find it very hard to pass this fwd. This constant variable that is me as apposed that the things that changed through the years. I think firstly we need to decide which parts are necessary for this definition. What do you think?

Thank you Mr Phil... Much appreciated. YouTube video is a great suggestion. Can you recommend a reliable video I can watch. Based on the information you mentioned I believe you already researched this subject yourself. Anything you perticularly liked about what a human should do or don't do based on Islam?

I don't know much about Islam only what gets into the news. I tried to read some on the Wikipedia but I just couldn't keep my attention. Can you recommend good somewhat objective source of this subject? Another question when you compare Muslims to the west you mean countries with mostly Muslim population vs US and some countries in Europe?

I like what Rabbi Dr. Abraham Twerski said about anger (u can find it on YouTube) basically he says that you can't control the first feeling of anger but you can control how you react and how long are you going to hold on to your anger. The thing is the bad consequences of anger is the results of those things. If we won't feel anger we won't be force to make the choice how to react to it or how long to hold on to it so it seems like it is a good thing because we won't have to make bad choices. How far would it go though? There are a lot of other things that i can think of that can cause us making bad choices do we eliminate them as well? On a more personal note I think anger teach you more about yourself than it is about the other person. I wouldn't want to lose that.

got to ask then. what was the purpose of your first comment?

Im a bit confuse now.

What is the current agreement on what hedonism is right now?
What was the agreement then?
What do you think it is?

Hi Fooloso4.

so what is pain? physical pain? negative emotions? if i manage to live life without it. does that mean I live a hedonistic life?

I have no firm grasp of those 2 approaches so i hope you wouldnt mind this following questions.

1. Is this discussion more about immediate gratification vs future goal?
2. where would you, Jenn, assign meaning/truth is it part of who you are or is it something outside yourself?
3.What are those 2 approaches says about meaning and truth?
4, What does 2 approaches says about each other?

as i get older i find it hard to take this concept of truth as i used to when i was younger.
if i think truth is the invaluable conclusion of some premises meaning a deduction processes (like math) that means that the premises themselves are need to be true....it just seems pointless. to me at least.