Same logic: "If we don't comply to terrorists' demands, then why do we act surprised when they want to cause violence."

There are good reasons to help our fellow Man but this ain't it chief.

Hey maybe I could do it one day. I have ideas just not the time.

Just switched to Linux a few months back. It's such a relief.

This type of messaging resonates with me way more than what I usually see.

I would dabble in Bitcoin but the IRS seems keen on making that a pain in the ass.

Plus, I don't want to nark on others who wish to remain anonymous or have them find out I didn't nark when someone else eventually narks on me.

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzplfq3m5v3u5r0q9f255fdeyz8nyac6lagssx8zy4wugxjs8ajf7pqq34g6rfwvkkjuedvykhqmmnwskkzcn0w46z6snfw33k76tw94skzam6xa3s7lpdrj

Oh wow I haven't noticed it yet. I just check in every once in a while.

Ya, that sounds great. I'm just think other things are interesting as well.

Provisions to help limit the federal government per Michael Huemer:

1. Supermajority rules: New laws should necessitate a 2/3 majority vote for passage. A presumption against coercion needs to be overcome. Slightly over 50% on contentious issues doesn't overcome this presumption.

2. Negative legislature: Introduce a separate legislative body, elected by popular vote, that only has the power to find and eliminate unnecessary and legislation.

3. Constitutional court: Establish a dedicated court to enforce the Constitution, accompanied by a special prosecutor's office for pursuing potentially unconstitutional government actions. These cases should be decided by juries of ordinary citizens to avoid pro-government bias.

4. Accountability for constitutional violations: The Constitutional Court should have the power to impose penalties on government officials who violate the Constitution, including fines, removal from office, and even imprisonment.

https://fakenous.substack.com/p/can-constitutions-limit-government

From my perspective a big problem to overcome is this:

An outsider's first impression of Nostr I imagine is "twitter for bitcoin bros".

Most regular people don't have the time or inclination to get into something new like that.

And it's difficult to find people talking about similar interests if they aren't into that.

No matter where I look, 99% of the conversation is "FOMO this, FUD that, and bitcoin blah blah blah"

It appears that the platform is attracting only a sliver of the overall market of people willing to use non-mainstream platforms.

Groups are most responsive and malleable after a disaster.

Right now is the best time for libertarians, classical liberals, and moderates to influence the democrats.

And there is unfathomable room for improvement.

Bwahahaha

This is like when a woman posts a selfie with #nomakeup but makes sure squeeze in all that cleavage into the frame of the photo lol

My allegiance lies with those who acknowledge their flaws and strive for betterment, rather than those who mask their flaws with a facade of righteousness.

Oh ok.

I agree that truth should correspond to reality.

I also agree that intuition can be flawed and unreliable, my point is just that that's how it seems we work for better or for worse.

Do you think it's possible to not include intuition from moral reasoning?

I think a concrete example could help before things start getting too abstract:

How would one objectively evaluate the moral truth of sacrificing an innocent life for another without using intuition?

I'm curious about your perspective.

They may be wrong objectively but how would anyone know that they are holding the wrong or right objective belief other than using their interpretation and intuition?

Ya, that's true.

Maybe I'll be curious enough one day to see how it reads.

I have heard of some of the commonly used philosophical arguments before.

I'm sure there are a ton of them I haven't heard.

I'm open to hearing them out though.

I appreciate the input but a problem is I've read books before that other people thought were solid only to find them to be very lacking at best.

And maybe they would think the same about some books I like.

I bet if we both saw the same Christian/atheist debate I would say the atheist won and you would say the Christian won.

And I have a feeling that with this book you would say he was very convincing and I would say he wasn't.

If he brought new winning arguments to the forefront then I would expect them to spread throughout the Christian community.

So, I think I'll wait for some of those arguments to appear first.

I think homeschooling is good but it's not the same thing as unschooling.

Unschooling is fully self-directed by the child meaning if the kid wants to play video games from k-12 then that's what they do.

The hope is that the kid will eventually get over it and strive to do more in a more inspired way but I can see how it could be recipe for failure for kids that lack self-discipline and direction.

Interesting to think about.

I also think it's appropriate and normal to use both deontological and consequentialist ethics.

I never got much into Natural Rights Theory though.

I like what I've heard from the philosopher Michael Huemer.

He argues from an intuitionism perspective.

Basically arguing that we intuitively know that our life is our own without using much if any philosophical framing.

And that it doesn't seem to make any sense that the government should have any special authority over us unless it serves a very good reason.

The approach is clean, to the point, and cuts out any framing that's starting point based on an intuition anyway.

I would give it a go but there are a lot of books on my reading list and I have so many criticisms on religion's validity that can't seem to be answered well.

So to prioritize it, I would need to be first intrigued by a Christian's responses.

I just haven't seen it yet.