I seem to get myself into a lot of philosophical discussions and debates regarding morality. I'm guessing that this is largely because I take the subject so seriously while holding positions that are often unusual to most other people. When one adopts a certain position because they believe it to be correct and superior to all others, it's naturally implied that those others are incorrect and inferior. Even if you're not saying it outright, it'll still offend people.
Welcome to my world.
I'm an atheist, vegan, anarcho-capitalist... So basically, it's a miracle that I have any friends at all. Sure, I could compromise and weaken my stance in order to be less offensive. I could be an agnostic vegetarian classical liberal and ruffle far fewer feathers... but I decided a long time ago that I'd rather end up with a very small number of high-quality true friends than a multitude of low-quality fair-weather ones.
Anyway, a lot of people love to question and challenge my positions and I've become pretty adept at explaining them. A classic move that challengers like to pull is the posing of absurd hypothetical situations meant to reveal hypocrisy. Here's an example.
As an ancap, I uphold the Nonaggression Principle, which essentially just states that it's morally wrong to damage and take the property of others without their consent. To challenge this position, one might say, "suppose you were dangling off the side of a skyscraper and the only way to survive was to break the window and climb in? Wouldn't you violate your principle then???"
At this point, they usually smirk and await your concession and apology... but I take it as an opportunity to point out a very important aspect of my moral framework. I say, "I would absolutely vandalize the window to save myself... but I would stand accountable for my crime after the fact, pay for the damage, and earn my victim's forgiveness."
The morals we adopt are recipes for how to live, not how to die. When one's survival is at stake, morality takes a back seat until the threat has been nullified. We should definitely be honest about this.
The concept comes into play in less extreme situations too. Consider parenting. My rigorous application of the nonaggression principle means that I cannot hit children to force them to obey me. That means spanking or any other such force is off the table. Challengers like to say things like "but what if your kid runs into traffic? Won't you pick them up and pull them away against their will even if they scream and cry?"
This is similar to "wouldn't you shove someone out of the way of an oncoming car?" To this challenge, I answer, "yes, I'd absolutely use physical force to save someone's life." As in the first scenario, however, I also follow up with an explanation of what I would do afterwards to make things right. "I would apologize for my violence, explain my reasoning, and seek forgiveness from the victim."
Ends don't justify the means but if your victim understands that your violation was done to avoid even greater harm, they're likely to forgive you. If they don't, you may have to pay restitution until they're satisfied. In other words, don't take such decisions lightly. I wouldn't ever commit such a violation unless I was absolutely certain that I could make up for it afterwards and that the victim would forgive me. The point is that with this follow-up policy of making things right, we're not trying to justify our violations or maintain moral perfection at the expense of the principle. Instead, we're owning our transgressions and admitting that we wouldn't do the morally pure thing at the expense of others. In the end, I think we can safely say that almost everyone prefers it that way anyway.
You.
I like you.
You're capable of separating your beliefs from yourself, which is something many people tend to find difficult.. understandably so.
When our beliefs are questioned, or rather, when we are provided with information that challenges what we believe, the part of the brain that responds is the amygdala.
In case you weren't aware, the amygdala is the part of the brain that responds to threats. Say.. a corner table that has it out for your pinky toe, or a bear wielding a knife.
Needless to say, I respect that very much.
On the topic of your article, I agree when you say ends don't justify means. But, as you stated, sometimes worse means need to be executed so that they can result in better ends. Where as allowing better means to be executed for the sake of themselves, causing the ends to be worse, would be... well.. worse.
Thanks for the write up. I'm looking forward to seeing more of what you put out.
Hey @piedpiper! I am also an atheist, vegan, anarcho-capitalist and I appreciate you sharing your approach on how to deal with these type of situations :)
Wut? That can't be right. Another one? Maybe the virus is spreading... ;)
lol :)
@brunotreves, Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying to maybe rape me.
I find it difficult to speak about hypotheticals. For example. Someone might be manipulating the stock market, causing an investor to lose all his money, that can result in his family death due to shortage or funds/retirement account.
The broken might not have used physical violence but he indirectly caused a lot of suffering that might justify any action from the victim.
Yeah, fraud can be a bit trickier than physical force because it's not always easy to see all of the interconnected factors. In general though, it can often be treated the same as theft.
As a basic rule of thumb, just go ahead and respond as you believe is right and be prepared to stand accountable before your community afterwards.
@kyriacos, Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying to maybe rape me.
maybe you should try talking to him in chat
Ah, the extreme lifeboat scenarios. What amazes me is that people seem to think that exigent circumstances couldn't possibly be a consideration in your proposed moral view, even though they are perfectly understood and accepted in our current reality and legal structure.
@zorrotmm, Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying to maybe rape me.
The issue, I think, is that people have no sense of personal responsibility. This lack of personal responsibility comes from many different places, but I personally think it is largely because of having a government. A government with a policing force makes it so that we are not responsible in moral situations because it is big brother's responsibility to step in and take action. So people have a hard time recognizing this sense of self in accountability.
Great article! Upvoted & Resteemed.
Hi @piedpiper, thanks for writing this.
I have very different beliefs, but reason in a similar way. I respect you for holding to your principles and taking responsibility for your moral positions and potential actions.
I look forward to reading more of your writing!
Thanks! I find that the conclusions aren't nearly as important as the method of reasoning. As long as we're honest, critical, and logical, we can always adapt to new information and refine our conclusions in time. Those are my favorite discussions - the ones where we're just a couple of fellow travelers exploring our thought processes to see where and why we diverged to end up at different conclusions.
Good advice. The broader problem I have with hypotheticals is that they can be tactically used to tie you up ad infinitum, as you attempt to genuinely respond to any number of contrived situations. There's often no real intellectual investment on the part of the hypothesiser and an unjustified assumption that you should be defending your position and not the other way around.
Maybe if one were to impose a one-for-one rule of posing hypotheticals to the other party in a debate, it would discourage some people from asking so many :P
Yeah. With the type of response I recommended, they stop trying because it's clear that you can and will apply it to any and all scenarios they throw at you.
Yes I'm sure this works most of the time. Some will try to win by attrition though and are more resistant to an elegant rebuttal.
@equimanthorn, Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying to maybe rape me.
Atheist, vegan, anarcho-capitalist... that's nothing!
I'm a... there aren't words for it yet.
Damn you english! Why have you forsaken me!
Be well
Well now I'm definitely curious! :)
Well, err.
I am allergic to vegan, and to nuevo paleo, and to gluten free, and to fat free...
So, I have grown my own chickens and milled my own wheat.
My political standings are beyond anarchism.
So much, that there isn't words for it yet. Also, no one will probably believe it will work for at least two generations as mankind's basis shifts. (There will be no more war as humankind grows up... but that is a little ways away yet)
You might say I am a Budhist, or Zen, or a Shaman, but none of those are really correct.
Super zen Buddhist anarchist serial killer? and allergic to plants? Damn, dude. I'm both sorry and intrigued!
Not exactly plants, but many plant proteins and oils.
It isn't so much the food, it is the diet. You can't follow a diet when an important third of it is poisonous.
It is not too bad really, I can eat typical american diet, although my body will not be very happy with it.
I'm with you on this, so I'd like to ask about your beyond-anarchism politics: at least, what are the bullet points?
Human nature is changing.
Govern-cement is currently a Kakistocracy. (rule by the worst / most evil)
As people "grow up" and stop needing govern-cement to be big daddy / big mommy, then govern-cement can morph into what it should be a protectorate.
As govern-cement becomes more transparent, it will actually start to do what it is stated to do. (or it will just stop existing)
Humans actually like things in one place.
Humans are group creatures.
Only about 1/4 of the people are fit for being anarchists. The rest are truly sheep and need the group.
So, what will come about is something, probably a protectorate, where it does what a govern-cement says it did.
And the system has real feedback loops.
Such as on your 1040, along with your donation, you fill at a list of which agencies get the money. If an agency doesn't get enough money it is instantly shut down. Or a form where you vote for which agencies should remain, be shut down, or shut down and reopened.
That all sounds like you're saying: if people are ideally educated/informed/fit, then good government will follow. But that's what communism has been saying for decades, in a way. In fact, any system will work if people are educated/fit.
That's why a system whose success depends on ideal citizens is probably a bad system. And it's also why a good system will always prioritize education, by any means necessary: because that's the thing that will most likely guarantee its continued existence - because even if there are better systems out there, change requires effort, so citizens, like Nature, will prefer to tinker rather than redesign from scratch. So a less-than-perfect system that prioritizes education will tend to remain in force. Radical change happens usually when things get really shitty. (Hence the anarchists who wanted Trump because they think doomsday will ensue while he's in office.)
The difference between then and now:
People are becoming... more wise for lack of a better term.
Transparency is becoming the thing. Basically, if you run campaigns like they used to, you will be slaughtered in the polls. Open, honest, with flaws shown, that will be what gets votes in the future.
Only if something is measured can it be improved. This is an axiom in business. It is will be forced into govern-cement. And thus, a beneficial loop is formed. Instead of the destructive loop we have now.
I expect a generation before we actually see any real signs of change. But it is coming.
@builderofcastles, Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying to maybe rape me.
Before getting a bot to reply to all comments, you may wish to get your english grammar checked by someone who is fluent in english.
Your reply has more than one possible meaning.
So, I am unsure what to make of your reasoning.
I am not a bot and you have not heart like Obama and Soros.
Obomba and Soros have no heart.
Obomba is the only president to be at war his entire presidency.
Obomba used spent uranium round in Iraq which are now causing child malformations.
Soros made much of his money buying up companies and selling off the pieces. Soros put many people out of work.
And so, you are saying that you are not a bot, but you posted the same reply to hundreds of comments changing the name in each. That is a lot of work.
Over 4 trillion USD went missing with Obama.
I am an English Teacher and you are insulting me too. You can stay with your friends. You guys all enjoy insulting people.
Great post. It's not surprising when we consider that we are bombarded with so many instances daily where violence is the only conflict resolution presented, that many people would find it hard to grasp the idea of the NAP. It seems that many people find it instinctive to intrude and intervene into the lives of others, be it verbally, through gossip, or through the manipulation of space. I would argue, that it is here where the antithesis of the NAP is realized, because if you can intervene so easily and naturally in a mental capacity, then it becomes easier to do so with physical aggression of body and property.
Yeah, violence is just a desperate last resort when you feel overwhelmed and out of other options. It wouldn't come up much at all if we were all raised with better problem solving skills. :-/
It's called being alive. See the first 30 secs of this, for instance:
Or, better yet, this quote by Nietzsche:
"No egoism at all exists that remains within itself and does not encroach—consequently, that “allowable,” “morally indifferent” egoism of which you speak does not exist at all. “One furthers one’s ego always at the expense of others;” “Life always lives at the expense of other life”—he who does not grasp this has not taken even the first step toward honesty with himself." (from The Will to Power)
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for individual rights and I guess I'm also a pacifist. But I'm also a realist. I mean, even forcing your child to go to school is a form of violence - and that's not an 'extreme hypothetical'.
I would never force my daughter to go to school. I'm her service provider, not her ruler.
I'm not sure what the relevance of his statement about life living at the expense of other life has. I see no problem with it. I apply the NAP to all sentient beings but I see no moral problem with our killing of non-sentient life forms like plants, fungi, and bacteria.
The reply was meant for @therussianmonk . It was meant specifically for his statement that
And what I meant to say was that "that's what living things do", they "encroach".
I did not mean to suggest the unrealistic notion that in a planet of 3 billion people there would be no encroachment, physical or otherwise. We can just try to squeeze into an elevator during lunchtime in an office building to see that impossibility. My suggestion was, that in a society that so often and easily encroaches on each others in more passive ways, such as the allocation of cameras on most street corners, or our activities and website usage being tracked online, etc., that more aggressive encroachment (such as violence at the individual/group/nation level) does not seem at odds with our general behavior, and it seems to flow logically from how we are conditioned. Like with other things in this world, the goal of eradication (of encroachment and violence) perhaps is unrealistic, but minimizing it can be achieved.
@therussianmonk, Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. Violence is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying to maybe rape me.
Your morals ..beliefs and ways that you do things are your choice....we all have our own. So why do people think that they have the right to challenge yours anyway. Hypotheticals are unnecessary. ..we can cross these bridges if and when we ever have to. None of are ever sure what we are truly capable of when put in certain situations...and if we are truly sound and have good intentions we make good and explain that our decision outweighed what the other outcome could have been...I know I dont need to tell you this but screw em this is your life...stand your ground and feel NO need to explain yourself...:) :) lol sorry I tend to ramble alot
It's called freedom of speech.
And challenging each other is how we grow as humans.
Yes I see your point :)
Tho this will probably be a redundant comment: I just wanted to mention that it's become so rare for anyone to acknowledge a point, that what you said came as a bit shocking! People would rather invent a new dictionary than acknowledge a spelling mistake, if I may put it like that!
Lol..yes I know..when I left the original message I wasn't actually being facetious...I thought I was supporting him but I had apparently misunderstood where he was going with his post after his explanation I then understood...I dont get offended easily...If I am wrong or made a mistake I'm fine admitting it lol..thats that's life right :) :)
I'd say that challenging one's morals is important for people within the same community. It's how we help to refine one another and thus strengthen the tribe. You're absolutely right that there are many different kinds of moral framework to choose from though and that people from "Framework A" have nothing to gain by arguing with people from "Framework B." I believe that the majority of the conflict we see in the world today stems from the fact that we're so bad at sorting ourselves into tribes of compatible people. Rather than separating into homogeneous tribes, everyone's compete with one another over the levers of centralized state power. Political correctness is also in the way because to propose such sorting is denounced as being racist, xenophobic, etc.
@kayleigh-alesta, Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. Violence is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying to maybe rape me.
"The morals we adopt are recipes for how to live, not how to die. When one's survival is at stake, morality takes a back seat until the threat has been nullified."
I think this is something too often forgot about morals. They exist to help foster a more enjoyable life experience and when you're confronted with a scenario where possible death is involved, morals aren't reasonable (so long as the reason is for Life, not against it.)
@imerick, Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. Violence is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying to maybe rape me.
To me "Principles" are excellent to have BUT there are moments when your principles must take a back seat to survival. As you stated, direct threats to your well being and those you love may require action which you normally would not take. If you are not willing to do what is necessary in that moment you will suffer the consequences, only to then live with your principles in tact, but missing a part of your life, a loved one, or your good health.
Indeed. Moral purity comes at a price and it's important to know just how much we're willing to pay for it.
Nice one, will definitely keep this in mind next time I end up in stupid debates. Hello from a fellow ancap :)
Upvoted for the atheist, vegan, anarchocapitalist part :D
I'm atheist, vegetarian and classical liberal slowly progressing in that direction haha
ha! Right on :)
High quality friends is the way to go! Some people can ultimately justify anything in their minds when put in a stressful situation.
Absolutely spot on. This is the way I interpret the NAP also, and I always apologise when I do something wrong the moment I recognise it, and I have a list of things in my memory of when circumstances did not let me do that, and they are a weight in my heart.
I am an Epi Paleo, Anarchocapitalist, Cipherpunk Futurist. Yeah, also I don't have many friends. I don't care. The laws of the universe judge me, not some little small person who does not understand logic and reason, who is trying to justify initiating coercion or violence against me with what is essentially propaganda. Rhetoric, same thing.
I miss your posts, come back please @piedpiper :)
Been extremely busy lately but will start posting again soon :)
"When one's survival is at stake, morality takes a back seat until the threat has been nullified. "
I'm not surewhat kind of morality this is that can be sacrificed for the sake of pragmatism.
Read it again. Breaking the rules for the sake of survival doesn't make it right... but you'll break them anyway so it's best to be honest about it and be prepared to make amends for your violation afterwards.
Oh no, I got that.
However, this only works in a moral system that is arbitrary. Which is completely consistent with an atheistic worldview. After all IF there is no external objective standard for the atheist to reference, "moral" issues are necessarily subjective and arbitrary, wether were speaking of individual or societal "morals".
So when one regards the society created standard of morality, it can be disregarded a la situational ethics, and returned to after the specific situation resolves itself.
It seems similar to what I call the Slackers Creed: It's easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.
This leads us into a whole other subject, which definitely deserves a page of its own. I'll do a piece on the foundations of morality next.
As for your slacker's creed, I'd say there are definitely cases where that's true but asking forgiveness is how one can play it safe so that they need not have to ask forgiveness later... after all, sometimes, forgiveness is impossible.
I look forward to reading that post.
Be sure to address the argument of Frederick Niche in the Ubermench. I'd be interested to know how you think he was wrong. If at all.
@neopatriarch, Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. Violence is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying to maybe rape me.
I hear you, I agree with the concept of "why ask if you can apologize" approach to morality you are posing here. Then again morality has been sincerely diluted in accordance with opinion and society's approach leaving a doorway to guilt driven mentality based on the other's opinion and expectation of you based on their own agenda rather than your own. I am actually currently dealing with the same topic in my meditations working on finding a place for myself that is faraway from societal/parental guilt trips based on their preference in life rather than what is actually beneficial. So thank you for this article.
Asking is a good way to avoid the need for apologies and, more importantly, the need to pay restitution. In other words, the "ask first" policy is not only more considerate but cheaper too.
Not to take their point of view, but just to argue the point itself logically: What you did (smashing the window) is either a crime, or it's not. It's either wrong, or it's not. And you know it when you're doing it. You even know it before doing it (i.e. right now, and when you were writing the article).
If the act is wrong, why do it? How can you do anything knowing it's wrong?
If the act is right, why apologize? I would apologize as well, even maybe use words to the effect that "I know what I did was wrong", but that would be just because I would be talking loosely. I would be contrite toward the individual whose window I broke, but not because what I did was wrong (if the person thinks I should die rather than break his window, I think he's a psychopath that ideally should be locked away), but because of embarrassment etc. You get the point.
Same goes for your "pushing someone out of harm's way" argument. It's like you're saying "I know what I did was wrong, but...". If you really think what you did was wrong, then - here comes the extreme hypothetical! - then, if you had a time machine, you would go back and right the wrong. Right? After all, what you did was indeed wrong. Right? So why wouldn't you really fix it (with a time machine), instead of just hypocritically fixing it after the fact?
So if you were unemployed and knew you couldn't pay for the window, you'd fall to your death, contra "When one's survival is at stake, morality takes a back seat"?
Smashing the window is a violation of the building owner's property rights. It's wrong, regardless of my reason for doing so. I would only do it in an extreme survival situation where I had no other choice because I'd rather be guilty of a crime than be a red stain on the pavement bellow. There are other ways to pay for the window. First of all, I'd explain the situation to the property owner and appeal to his common decency. Most people would understand and forgive the offender without requiring payment. If he was a hard-ass about it, I'd offer to work off my debt to him. If that still wasn't good enough, I'd call the local media and make a story out of it to apply social pressure. If he still stood firm before the whole community and insisted on payment that I couldn't provide, I would have to turn myself over to the mercy of the courts and accept whatever sentence the judge deems appropriate and then pay my debt to the building owner later, when I'm able to.
Noble, and I understand what you're saying. But I think you're avoiding my hypotheticals!
Maybe what we have here is a situation of two rights clashing against each other. On the one hand violating another person's property rights is wrong, and on the other hand it's much 'wronger' for any human to value a window over a person - or any advanced sentient life form. There are countries in which you're punished for not aiding a Person In Peril.
I don't agree that it's morally wrong to value a window over a person. Values are just thoughts and can't hurt anyone. Only actions can be moral and immoral. There are all kinds of different laws all over the world but laws and morality are two very different things. I would even go so far to say that all laws imposed by nation states are immoral.
Values are not just thoughts, they are your 'settings' let's say. They're your 'hue', Like the RGB color values in photoshop. They're always 'on' but not always acting. If you think blacks are inferior to whites, that's a value, and you will act on it sooner or later. So in that sense values can, and do, hurt. That's why people try so much to change each other's values! And if a person values his shatterproof window over you, he'll let you hang by the ledge till you drop.
All your thoughts are stored in the brain and exist even when you aren't focusing on them. They can't hurt anyone in there but you can hurt people by taking action. It's not the thought that does harm, it's the action. Leaving you to hang is not an action, the absence of an action. Only actions can be immoral, not their absence.
Well that's philosophically debatable! Trolley problems etc.!
Some people btw don't understand why philosophers bother with thought experiments. Many times, as in this case, they are meant to help you figure out your stance regarding whether inaction (among other things) can be immoral. So say for instance I know someone is coming to your house to kill you, and I don't notify you or the police. According to what you said above, a person who does notify you is neither better, nor worse, morally, than me. My intuition says that's false. Yours might say it sounds fine. What matters is that the thought experiment has helped us figure out where we stand on this issue.
Generally people challenge such concepts because they find themselves challenged and insecure. They fear that they can't commit to or they won't be able to live to your philosophy through out their life. So they want to disprove your stand.
My stand in the examples you provided would be similar to you. But instead of being apologetic later, the guiding force for my action would be compassion and love. And at times, you need to get angry with or even hurt some one out of love and compassion. Compassionate parents scold their children not for the sake of the fun of scolding them but for their own good in the long run.
If you push someone out of the way of an oncoming car, it is also the result of compassion. So it's not just your actions but the intentions behind your action that play a major role.
And while vandalizing the window, I'd do it even if I can't afford to pay off for damage done by me, later. Because, I'm being compassionate to myself too. Here guiding force is not to save myself from death due to any selfish interest but if I feel my life is more important to the humanity & all others than the life of this window-pane, I should choose the better option in the larger interest of everyone. While taking this decision, I ain't centred on myself but on the larger perspective of whole universe while judging the situation impartially. And I'm offering an opportunity to the owner of that premises to become compassionate towards myself. Asking for apology is just out of courtesy. In my heart, I'd empathize with the owner for his/her loss.
In such situations, philosophies of Lord Mahavira or Lord Buddha take the stand of supreme sacrifice. They preach not to fear even death to defend your principle of non-violence. And the vibration of non-violence is so contagious that there are stories that they were not harmed even by wild beasts like lion, venomous snakes and serial killers when encountering them in jungle.
To each his own.
@xyzashu, Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. Violence is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying to maybe rape me.
@joeyarnoldvn Would you please kind enough to refer me to the link where the aforementioned discussion took place? I'd like to go through it before taking any sides.
Please don't loss your cool. Thanks for your patience!
THANK YOU.
This so eloquently summarizes what I heard
Larken Rose say in his debate with Jan Hansfeld!
I have upvoted, resteemed, and put some steem money in to promote it; .005 and then .1.
I found your great post as resteem on @tmendieta and I am happy that I did! Great content and respect for all your viewpoints! There is already to many mediocre people without courage and strength to stand for what they believe in. You have upvote from another atheist and vegan! All the best!