TreyMoney

1. Establish boundaries. If your mother does something that you feel is inappropriate, tell her that is not ok, and you won't accept that behavior anymore. 2. Establish independence. Move out on your own as soon as possible if you still live at home. 3. If your mother tries to guilt or shame you for doing 1 of 2, she is trying to manipulate you, and you should consider either cutting her out if your life entirely or only seeing her at certain times of the year at your choosing. Hope this helps. P.s. I have personally cut off communication with my grandmother and other family members so I speak from experience. Cheers to health, wealth, peace and love. TreyMoney

@Opo i think corporate pollution of the environment is violence, yes, because it harms people without their consent. Imagine there is an oil spill, and it pollutes a river that runs by my home that I use for drinking water. The oil spill causes harm to my portion of the river stream and harm to me if I drink the water. That is definitely violence. Corporations forcing people off of land is definitely violence. Corporations use moral relativism to their advantage by changing the laws to whatever suits them at the moment.

@Opo so here we need to come to an agreed upon definition of violence before we can continue. I define violence as an action that harms a human being physically or harms their property against their will. What is your definition of violence?

Also, by simply engaging in philosophical discourse, a person is actively valuing the search for truth, through the use of reason. So to deny reason while simultaneously engaging in argument is itself contradictory.

Irrational moralities lead to contradictory conclusions. Rational moralities lead to consistent conclusions. I have only discovered one rational, consistent, non-contradictory morality....the NAP Voluntary moral framework, thus I believe it is the only rational moral framework, thus moral absolutism. There are certainly other moral frameworks but they lead to contradictory conclusions, and are thus false, incorrect moral frameworks.

@Godhead What separates my "relative" morality is its logical consistency. Apply the coma test: a human being in a coma is not acting. So if violence is morally good, then anyone not acting violently this instant is immoral, thus the coma patient is immoral. If violence is good, then in order for the coma patient to be a moral being they must awake from the coma and begin acting violently, which they cannot do, because they cannot act. It is incoherent. But if non-violence is morally good, then anyone not acting violently at this very moment, such as our coma patient, are moral beings.

Because morality is a framework for guiding action. And logically consistent frameworks result in correct conclusions while logically inconsistent framework result in incorrect conclusions. It's like asking why should I apply mathematical principles when solving equations? The answer is whether you value the correct conclusion or not. If someone is not interested in the correct conclusion, that is fine. But if they are, they should apply the laws of logic. The branches of philosophy have an order to them. 1. Metaphysics: study of reality. 2. Epistemology: study of knowledge. 3. Logic: study of reason. 4. Axiology: study of value. 1&2 are empirical based. 3&4 are reason based. Logic is prerequisite to any type framework, moral or otherwise.

Islam and Judaism are religious belief systems not rational belief systems. Can't reason with religious fundamentalists.

It's about logical consistency. If it is ok for me to kill someone and steal their stuff, then I should also be ok with someone killing me and stealing my stuff, right? It can't be right for me but wrong for someone else. That's contradictory.

@Godhead im very glad that you are engaging in this discussion because these criticisms are commonly encountered. First, morality is a framework to govern human interaction, not humans interaction with other creatures. Second, any moral framework needs a guiding principle. The guiding principle for all action is choice. If I choose to take an action and that action either a) does not impact any other person or b) it does impact another person physically or impacts their property, but that person also consents to my action, then my action is right. If my action impacts another person physically or impacts their property, and they do not consent, then that person is wronged or harmed, and the action is wrong.

Moral relativism doesn't say that people disagree about morality. It is a fact that people disagree about morality, it is not a philosophical argument. Moral relativism argues that the there is no universal, logically consistent moral framework, and is instead morality is just the illogical whim of culture and society and subject to ad hoc change.

Moral absolutism and specifically the NAP is based on an axiomatic belief that peaceful interaction is always preferable to violent interaction. I can't convince someone to accept this belief. If someone accepts this belief, morality follows logically. If someone rejects this belief and instead believes violence is always or even sometimes preferable to peace, then that person is choosing to live in under the law of the jungle aka might makes right, which is amoral. Moral absolutism and NAP is the only moral theory that is non-contradictory and internally consistent logically. This also assumes one is interested in defining a logically consistent morality, which they may not be.

In this age of fake news, mass media manipulation, identity politics, and delusion, I would love to see another video in the cult series discussing the methods of mass mind control and ways to defend oneself against mass mind control.

Spiritual autolysis was how I became gobsmacked by enlightenment. I was reading about the holographic universe and discovered Jed McKenna's Enlightenment Trilogy and bam! Like getting hit by a bus. This was in 2014 before I discovered actualized.org. It is a crazy experience to discover that consciousness is the only certain truth and everything else is a perception that is believed to be true. I had a taste of Torquise and it was delicious. But I am now going back to fill in the gaps in my self concept in stages green/yellow of the spiral.