David Ottinger

Maybe this will help: http://www.templegrandin.com/article.html

Odds of a healthy relationship coming out of that aren't in your favor.

These "news" outlets are not in the pursuit of truth. Instead, they're using language and symbols instrumentally. Basically, they're marketing an idea that is unpopular in order to normalize its premise. Repeat something long enough and by people of social status and you begin to manifest that idea. Hence, the Chinese proverb. "Three men make a tiger."

This doesn't address my point.

For me, the argument for the state has always been an argument for war. And, the gun in the room analogy hits the nail on the head for me. i.e. People fight for that gun until totalitarianism eventually emerges. So, while I agree that Anarcho-capitalism is a valid antithesis to the state. And, I think Voluntaryism is the thesis thereafter which gives us a heading. There is still the pragmatic dilemma of: Who will protect the infant while it matures? In my many years of studying this school of thought, we're ultimately trying to overcome war. But, what happens when you meet an adversary that does not care to be reasoned with while actively pursues total control over the governing institutions under the illusion of best intentions? "It's all for the greater good." We can't all just exit the room leaving the retards to fight it out and hopefully kill each other. As long as there is the gun, war will emerge. Over the many years trying to reason with these "liberals," I have watched them double down and become polarized towards advocating communism. They make no apologies about wanting total control over the governing institutions. This is what they fight for. More importantly, they have been winning. What good is anarcho-capitalism, voluntaryism, or libertarianism when you're dead? Don't get me wrong, I don't think this conversation should let up. But, in light of current events, do we have a horse in the race? Either our horse failed to make it out of the gate, or she doesn't exist, i.e. The stage of infancy for this voluntary form of governance has yet to be born. Or, technically, this conversation is it. I've watched it grow. I've helped it grow. But, who is going to protect it from the self-righteous SJWs (or whatever you want to call them) from reaching for the gun and outlawing reason as hate speech? I'm strongly opposed to war, but I'm also not a pacifist. If the virtuous among us allow the might to fall in the wrong hands, then all is lost. This has always been the ultimate argument in favor of the state.

Ok, you're not going to be able to fight off your amygdala. That's a very sophisticated system that has ensured your genetics are alive today. So, first off, let's not make that beautiful system your enemy. Basically, if your approach to this situation is to suppress that reaction, then you're just loading the spring. But, there is plenty of hope here... Try this: Instead of approaching the situation with the perception that you could be hurt, look at it as though it's an opportunity for you to connect with someone that will provide support in your life. If you find there is resistance within you as to why you cannot reach such a conclusion, then explore that. Journal about it. Whatever you have to do to reason it out. Ultimately, your perception needs to change from (a) a thought of loss which releases cortisol in you and paralyzing your interaction, to (b) an opportunity to gain emotional support in your life thereby releasing dopamine during the interaction.

http://www.selfauthoring.com/ You can do the future authoring program for free right now with the code: changeyourself

Hi AccuTron, Thanks for the response. Why is Fear a bad thing? I don't find that it is. If we didn't mistake shadows for predators lurking in the bushes and ran away, then we wouldn't be here -- which I was vaguely referencing in the above post. Basically, there are pros and cons to all these mechanisms. This site gives pretty good insight into all the "feel good" chemicals that occur: https://innermammalinstitute.org/

I think the emotions VS thought (or better yet somatic mind VS intellectual mind) is a short hand dichotomy for what's actually going on. An analogy I've found useful is to consider oneself as an exposed nerve to the world. And with that, emotions are derived from this relationship with the world. From an evolutionary standpoint, we have developed various features (e.g. brain functions) to navigate this world. Intellectualizing the world around us is one of many coping mechanisms we have. This particular feature of the human condition is so advanced that we are able to adapt to the world around us insofar as to change the environment. In order to manifest our ideas, we ascribe emotional associations with them, or else how will they ever be experienced empirically? The absence of emotions is apathy. That sort of state of mind is antithetical to being a productive being. But to be inspired and motivated to achieve something feels like a fire burning within. Thus emotional vigor is essential for a fruitful life. And having access and acceptance of your full range of emotions allows you to be stoic in that you're more aware of the self, thus are more immersed in the present as you experience the world as well as how you "the exposed nerve" interprets these experiences. And, from that understanding, one can adapt his/her responses. Mind you, there is no such thing as omniscience, so there is no such thing as a perfect response. Either way, the world doesn't stop moving while you try to think things through. So, if the body always waited for the intellectual feature of ourselves to respond, then we'd be dead and extinct. Hence, when the base brain function (analogously the reptilian brain) takes over, you're stuck within the flight, fight, or freeze response of this brain function. Our abstraction of this sensation is called fear. Do you really think you can live without fear? Can you see why fear is a healthy response? I hope my crude explanation was helpful in providing a different perspective.

This assortment of pictures comparing the duality in propaganda over the years is, imo, relevant to this topic: http://imgur.com/a/o61AS Enjoy! Or... wait, maybe, run for hills?

Why did your views go down a different path than theirs?

Is this about that time Richard raised his glass to toast victory after giving a speech, and people passionately raised their hands for the Q&A, but the fake news media dubbed them all literally Hitler?

I don't think the "establishment" will give up on pushing cultural Marxism. Trump winning is nothing more than a set back that they have to adapt to. But, there is no reason to accept that they've given up on pushing for a one world government. If anything, their issue is the scalability of their current governing model. Basically, I would say their current model reached a point of diminishing returns. Now, this change in leadership serves as a correction. Where Trump actually fits into it all is uncertain at this point. And, in many ways, I think that's what most people fear. I suspect the media will try to feed into that fear while pushing a solution that promotes cultural Marxism as it has been doing these various past years. But, right now the momentum is in Trump's favor, and the establishment will try to slow this down until it gains leverage over the narrative -- which it still has quite a lot of influence over. After all, SJWs are still their army of useful idiots.

The due process of law is being fulfilled, although she is still at risk. In order to alleviate this risk, I think she should consider private security measures, and then file a civil suit against the boy for those expenses.

(1) When you (or anyone for that matter) says, "...willing ones will requires somebody to be omnipotent..." You have defined will outside of reality. So, you edify my point by making that the requisite for will power to exist. If that is the definition of will power, then we've setup a false dilemma. I have no reason to accept that as an objective definition of will power. I fail to see how this is a straw man. (5) I am a man of nature. We all are. As a result there is a nature to our being -- which implies limitations. But, just because there are limitations, that does not automatically imply that we're finite. Consider set theory. You can have an infinite set of infinities. That means there can be infinities of infinities. Hence, the golden ratio. Or, the idea of a fractal universe. In other words, even though there is no such thing as true random, that doesn't mean the variability of reality can not be influenced by man. The degree to which we can affect our environment is proof that we are capable of being a force of nature. And, that in essence is will power. It's not omnipotence. But, it can affect the ebb and flow of space-time. Granted, there are larger forces of nature influencing our reality. And, yes, our fight against entropy is ultimately a driving force that influences our nature. But, just because there are parameters, that doesn't mean there cannot be anomalies that serve as doors (if you will) to another framework. An animal that lacks empathy, simply cannot utilize that particular framework to his/her/its advantage. It just doesn't have that sort of metric. In order for a being to achieve an end, that entity is limited by its nature. And, human have adapted insofar as to produce the power of abstraction thereby allowing one the ability to hack reality, thus affecting consequences. Exercising ones will power does not imply certainty of experience. Will power only implies influence on events, not control of events. (6) I don't know what it means for a decision to be free. Free from what? Reality? Because there is no escaping reality. (7) We're getting into morality here, and with that we're introducing a sub-topic to free will. Of course, I agree that there are physiological aspects that affect a humans ability to be self-aware enough (or intelligent enough) to understand moral theories and their benefits, thus affecting the individual's ability to influence his/her own behavior with respect to those theories. But, that is not cause for a moral free pass. You still have the de facto vs de jure dichotomy even if people do not understand it. For example, a foreigner can steal someone's property not knowing there is a pre-existing claim on that object. That lack of intent to steal doesn't mean that incident cannot be defined as an act of theft. Intent simply affects the degree to which it is malicious. We can discover the intent of an individual. Intent is evidence of free will. And, the overall point is that not all beings have the same amount of will power. That implies that will power can be expended. How you expend your will power today will affect how you expend your will power tomorrow. It also affects the amount of will power one can expend as it is like a muscle that can be developed and made stronger. Clearly, "will power" isn't an abstraction regarding how omnipotent one can be because there is no reason to accept that we are omnipotent when everything tells us otherwise. Instead, what this concept abstracts is one's ability to influence the outcome of events with respect to the self. Thus, it is more of a spectrum than merely omnipotence -- which would be the ultimate form of will power. But, again, what's the point of contemplating omnipotence when it is beyond us? That is simply not a dilemma we have. Our dilemma is discerning what we can an cannot influence. And exercising that influence is what free will is all about.