Now, obviously, such a dichotomy is always undesirable. However, I'm not referring to respective ideologies. I'm not asking if you're pro-gun control or pro-life or for a flat tax.
Ideologically, we all have fundamentally liberal values I would imagine. That is, the legal liberty and equality of all individuals, freedom of the press, fair elections and the like. But from this basis, of course, many divergences have presented themselves.

No, I'm talking about attitude. It isn't uncommon for people to experience times of radicalisation in their lives, usually under the influence of either adolescence or oppression. Some of you may consider yourselves radicals, which is fine. However, in the dichotomy I'm asking about the attitude of giving due respect to historical institutions like (for us Britbongs) the Monarchy, and taking things like tradition into account vs the attitude of "out with the old and in with the new", being hostile to traditions or such institutions.

I'm sure you can all differentiate between whether or not you fit into a more conservative or a more liberal attitude, but if you need further explanation, F.A. Hayek made a decent typology that can be applied to the dichotomy.

the "British tradition" (conservative) and the "French tradition" (liberal). Hayek saw the [British tradition] as representative of a tradition that articulated beliefs in empiricism, the common law, and in traditions and institutions which had spontaneously evolved but were imperfectly understood. The French tradition [...] believed in rationalism and sometimes showed hostility to tradition and religion.

I'd put myself in the British tradition.

I will find it.

And I will kill it.

So, I ask, if it has little value, but not completely none, then how much do you value money over time? How much time, your life in hours, would you be willing to spend for what amount?

Not a clue. I'd certainly be willing to give up a fair amount of time for a large portion of money, not necessarily for the worth of the money itself, but the general ease of living and liquidity which it'd offer me. But, I really don't know, I'd need to be in a specific situation to judge it properly, I think.

I wouldn't say it's inaccurate though.

From my experience people's views and opinions evolve and graduate over time. There's nothing wrong with having a sudden change of ideals, but the rate at which you alternate your ideals is fascinatingly bizarre.

Just to clarify, I'm not even taking issue with it. Just pointing out an observation.

(FYI the "one week to the next" was hyperbole.)

Fair enough.

For some stupid fucking reason, someone let the niggers out of their cages.

]Lol yeah.

Oh man I can almost taste it.

Oh, the though of a shimmering piece of lengthy meat in my mouth.

Wonderful.

I think you said you wouldn't torture your own animals in your other thread, so do you experience love or affection to those people who are closest to you?

You could characterise it as affection, but not love. The best definition I've ever heard somebody give me of love is "caring for somebody more than you do for yourself".

It's a very selfish kind of affection, however. I'm closest, in my family, to my grandma. However, I have vivid memories of her saying something which annoyed me and then feeling a flash of intense anger. Whether that's normal, I don't know, but it can lead to horrible consequences when I act on impulse (I haven't, however, physically harmed a family member).

Verbatim got his focused AMA to work, so I figured I'd go ahead and do mine. I do expect to take some flak for this, though.

Antisocial (or dissocial) personality disorder is characterized by a lack of empathy or remorse and a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others. There may be an impoverished moral sense or conscience and a history of crime, legal problems, and impulsive and aggressive behavior.

Psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.

And yes I put this in Serious because I'm actually interested in what a (marginally) serious discussion about this will look like.

What the fuck.

Indeed.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 11, 2014, 05:53:19 PM

Quote from: Le Dustin on September 11, 2014, 05:51:19 PM

...In your fucked up opinion.

You're not seriously going to sit there and tell me that a 15-year-old consenting to publicly nude pictures of him/herself isn't a fucking retard.

That isn't what you said. You said that it would be okay for them to do it.

No. . .

I didn't.

A 15-year-old, under the AoC, cannot - or shouldn't - be able to own such property. I'm saying if it gets distributed because of his/her own stupidity, I won't shed any tears over the magistrates who ignore it.

In the same way it'd be illegal for somebody to distribute somebody else's property without consent, it would be an -probably minor - offence for somebody under the AoC to distribute their own "property". If they can't legally consent, I don't see how they can truly be considered in such ownership of this property.

Regardless, how do you propose we enforce this? Have you ever fucking used kik?

What if somebody, ethically, just doesn't give a fuck about the aggregate suffering?

That's entirely besides the point. You literally just told me that you're okay with nude pictures of kids circulating the internet if they gave it their consent even though kids cannot give consent like that because they do not understand the larger implication that doing things like that ruins lives.

Kids can't give consent, therefore they cannot properly be in possession of property.

We're still discussing the case of somebody 15-years-old, which isn't so black-and-white.

And assuming that wasn't an issue for you, you would be okay with it?

What?

If we assume it isn't an issue with me, then surely the conclusion would be that I'm okay with it.

Of course you are. Just comes off as a bit jarring when you're an communist one week, then a libertarian the next.

I think that's an unfair analysis.

My views don't change from one week to the next, and although spontaneous developments of interest can spur rapid alterations, it isn't a common occurrence.

I've also rarely identified as a libertarian outside of a social perspective, as I'm uncomfortable with its implications.

Teenagers are almost less responsible considering the amount of emotional distress they (we) go through.

Bull. Shit.

I've seen you say, on at least one occasion, that depression, one of the greatest emotional distresses a person can endure, isn't a big deal.

We don't give people aged 15 mortgages or the legal capacity to consume alcohol, with good reason. But there are a number of responsibilities that they're also close to, including driving a car and, in some places, voting.

15-year-olds know that taking a naked picture has its risks. The sense of immediacy diminishes the ability to perform a cost-benefit analysis in everybody, not just teens, but it's just bollocks to imply it somehow reduces responsibility.