PatrickC

If the discussion about determinism can progress any further than it already has, then you will find this board most interested and open to the discussion. If there is any kind of 'viewpoint' here, it is one of improving philosophical ideas. Sadly rehashing old debates becomes kind of futile and frustrating in that endeavour, if that makes sense. It's interesting to note that we have actually had some discussions around the topic recently. So either Stefan's demand is really more of a request (or challenge perhaps) to move the topic along into a new and more fruitful area. Or people are being disrespectful by bringing the same arguments up each time.

That is a very good article which repeats, eloquently, an oft-made point about the incorrect use of the word "terrorism" when members of an aggressor nation's military are attacked in retaliation for that aggression. Thanks for posting it, xelent. I'm very glad we can both agree on that.. Best wishes.. []

For a more rational response to the attacks in Woolwich Glenn Greenwald gives an excellent synopsis. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback

Thanks for the correction and that was a much clearer explanation of your definition and not a disagreeable one at that. It's interesting to note that the Wikipedia definition attempts to strip (rather well) 'moral obligation' from the word, by distinguishing it from 'loyalty' and 'duty'. It later admits that there is still much debate about the definition. However, whilst I have learnt something new here today, I think you can safely assume that people on this forum will be using the cultural (even Randian) definition of the word. Not dissimilar to the definition I used in my previous post. I'm not sure I want to get all nit-picky with their definition, when I understand what they mean. Unless of course the more precise definition lends itself to a better understanding of one’s position or argument, if that makes sense. Darkskyabove - Who was labelling whom? Your criticism was unspecific and broad and didn't make a lot of sense (at least for me).

You are conflating matters here.. No one here (I imagine) doubts that the bankers and govts are the major problem, including the warfare classes. However, imagining there is a foxhole for these interests behind every murder (whether described as terroism or not) doesn't serve 'truth' at all well. So let's not get ahead of ourselves and imagine that the state is clever enough to devise all these false flags. Some of which happen simply because the state pisses a certain minority of people off enough to act out in this way.

I don't understand Libertus. The discussion was focused specifically on 'Atheism+', which is a special little band of atheists that have been lumping political ideaolgy into their little group. Unless I have misunderstood this wasn't a thread meant to bash atheists in general, if that makes sense.

I'm not sure I've ever come across your definition of altruism before. Which isn't to say it's not true, just that it's very new for me. I've always understood altruism as one of those impossible virtues of 'self-sacrifice' and 'selflessness' that can never be reached in the purest sense, because of the rather obvious detriment to ones own life. Which of course is ideal for most collectivist ideaologies, like religion and statism that seek to control and modify peoples behaviours, by re-asserting our failure to ever reach such a standard. If I understand you correctly you see individuals adherence to the NAP alone as being essentially altruistic.

A classic piece of rhetorical shaming by Obama.. Tough issue indeed Barack!

Whilst it's clear there have been false flags in the past and no doubt more in the future.. This incidence was no Gulf of Tonkin or WMD claim. The eye witness and frankly traumatic testimony is enough. I think there is plenty of reason for some muslims to act out this way. Not least a decade of wars in the middle east. Clearly the state takes advantage of these incidences as a means to claim some pseudo virtue, but that's about the only conspiracy going on in this particular instance. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhtV7qkuNnk] [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMURCBkHTzg&feature=share]

You truely believe that a man hacked to death in front of countless witnesses with bloodied hands on Youtube, was a false flag?

Yes I've known about their state obligations and the Chairman’s pay for some time now. But it ran a fairly successful phone line which helped children in distress find some comfort, which was always my initial interest in them. This particularly new take was the last straw for me. It just beggars belief that they are effectively blaming other children for child abuse. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be an isolated view of the NSPCC, but pretty much every major UK children’s charity, as the Daily Mail article shows. If I were to do anything of this kind, I would avoid charity status for sure. My first thoughts is I'd probably run it like a mutual I think. Although, still no doubt bound up in other regs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/22617414 "A growing number of children are being sexually abused by other children, say charities. They say their helplines have seen a big increase in calls from young people who are being abused. Freedom of information figures obtained by the NSPCC say more than 5,000 children were reported to police in England and Wales as abusers over the last three years. Almost all of those accused of the abuse of other children were boys. Some of those reported were as young as five. More than half of the offences were classified as serious and included rape. The NSPCC and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation say it is a growing problem. They think that it is partly because of access to online porn becoming easier, with more children owning devices such as smartphones and tablets." BBC http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287596/NSPCC-Online-porn-blamed-children-aged-just-FIVE-quizzed-sex-offences.html I've watched a growing trend towards blaming pornography for all the sexual ills of boys and men for some time now. Mainly they have been religious or feminists groups that have some kind of agenda they are trying to fit around their ideaology. So for the most part are ignored. But when childrens charities almost unanimously start to use the same tactics as well as blaming other children for abuse. I'm beginning to realise there is need for a real childrens charity. One that will actually support children and one that will offer parents comprehensive courses in peaceful parenting. Whilst I'm not suggesting pornography is a wholly appropriate past time for children, it clearly is not. But when I see these charities openly lobbying with the media, govt and ISP's for regulations I know they don't have the stomach to face the real reasons for child abuse.

My guess, is they are keeping him out of the park until Monday so that he can't rabble rouse during the rest of the weekend. I imagine he will be released within the day. This is a well known tactic which has also happened to Charlie Veitch as well, albeit in a differnt country. People are stretching the possibilities way too far frankly.

Why doesn't this hungry person offer some labour in exchange for a meal? That way no one comes out a loser. Further to this, why doesn't the homeless guy just ask the person he is considering stealing from. It seems to me that there are a number of ways to skin a cat, of which theft may well be the last one. Of course a person may decide that given the guys extremity in life that they will go easy on him in terms of restitution. But this is an aesthetic choice in the circumstance.

Stephen Hawking, perhaps one of the finest huckster genius known to all science. It's a shame he's never been able to use his 'brilliant' mind for anything but magic tales.

Hey Tony, I was wondering whether you had had anymore thoughts as to why you feel ambivilent about going, if you wanted to share.

I'm more thinking that provocateurs could join the group and just start firing guns to scare people or worse. Yes, that's entirely possible, but I think that would only be likely to happen if they felt this movement was getting any significant public support that was a serious threat to its power. I think the state probably knows how the general public will view this march. Still, as mentioned still very risky for seemingly not much reward.

Agreed Anders. "About 50 civil servants from HM Revenue & Customs, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, Home Office and GCHQ – the intelligence listening service – held a one-day conference which examined how Bitcoin works and how criminals might seek to exploit the electronic cash system, which is currently unregulated by any financial authority. The meeting, entitled The Future of Money, focused on the implications that widespread adoption of the currency might have. As Bitcoin users are anonymous, authorities worry that it could be used for purposes such as money laundering, and that transactions between individuals fall outside boundaries of tax collection." This is all too predictable of course.

Apologies for the ensuing rant. [] What I find interesting about this type of research is how it attempts at shaming collective groups into a more ethical stance. No one doubts that racism, sexism and homophobia exist within some people. Way more less than say 40 years ago of course. But given all the laws that are in place to criminalise such thoughts, I find these tactics all too much like a modern day witch hunt. Sure, it is irrational to hate a person’s colour, gender or sexuality, but it's just as irrational to criminalise people who think that way too. If it wasn't for the criminalising of peoples thoughts I would probably take their shaming tactics more seriously. But this kind of pseudo ethics backed up with the force of the state juxtaposed against real philosophical ethical guidance (NAP/UPB) just smacks of snarky nonsense. End of rant.

I felt very uneasy about this march for Adam. Given the recent debate about guns in the US. It sems this march could further fuel the idea that libertarians are just gun slinging nutjobs. Not that that necessarily matters of course, having a potentially deadly confrontation with the state does I think. Whatever you choose to do, be careful.

I'm going to assume that any reconciliation with your mother would involve pointing out her past behaviour and explaining how you felt about it. Then it's a question of your parents accepting some culpability and to make some kind of restitution with you and your husband. The question is how do you feel about having such a conversation? What reaction do you expect from them in this conversation? On an aside the child parent relationship is perhaps the most complex one. Insofar as there is a significant bias we experience as adult children towards our parents. This is why a competent therapist is such a useful way to balance out that distinct advantage the parent has in the relationship. Unless you are already in therapy, I would urge you to seriously consider it. You have my sympathies your mother acted horribly.

Yes, I've known a few determinists over the years that got frustrated with Stefan’s approach to this topic. Whilst Stefan has already neatly put forward his position, part of his reasons 'I believe' are also anecdotal, which I can also vouch for in myself. Since Stefan has seen demonstrable (self-determined) change in his life, whereby he had to make considerable effort to change his will and his thinking. It would be somewhat disingenuous (towards himself) to suggest that it had all been planned for him. Determinism robs a person of their agency and more importantly the ability to choose non (initiated) violence over violence. Not to mention in the area of morality and better parenting in general. Now that doesn't necessarily hold up scientifically or clinch the argument ofc, which I'm certainly not suggesting. However, it did give me some insight into why free will is entirely possible. In my life prior to making these changes I often believed my life was determined. Not in any spiritual way either, just that it felt my personal control was limited or restricted in some way. This was primarily self-esteem issues as with other things that were not allowing me to consider options and choices where I can and I do now.

My esteem for the way you are handling this is deeper than any ocean.. My sencerest sympathies for you and the ladies in your life.. Best wishes

This was well said

This format and your answers to questions were spot on and you didn't pull a single punch. This was (for me at least) one of your finest moments. Well done sir!