pretzelogik

This is a very curious situation. What piques my interest the most is how one in law school, or those practicing, manage the inconsistency of the legal system. On one hand, the system is based on rational argument, yet on the other hand the system is entirely arbitrary. So, successful lawyers must construct sound arguments, to a degree, yet give credence to the arbitrary whims of psychopathic judges and uniformed jurors. I am sure it is possible for a lawyer to do some good in terms of protecting the innocent form abuse by the state, but his allegiance would always be first and foremost to the state itself. It seems impossible that a career in law could meet ones need for consistency, which could correlate to a high toward the ingestion of alcohol by those in the legal profession. I understand your dilemma. I cannot say that I would bail due to a commitment to philosophy, my curiosity might get the best of me for wanting the see the system from the inside. It is definitely an anthropological expedition for one with your perspective.

Quick comment: I had a much easier time reading the board posts before the upgrade. I recall the previous version having higher contrast/bbolder font, particularly on the quoted material, which has vey low contrast levels presently.

I just finished paying off a student loan from the 90s, that qualified as a "low interest loan" by having a rate of 9%. Whiners.

It's all in the definitions. Define "God", then define "existence". After that, proceed to the proof part. Aaannnd, Go!

ter·ror·ism /ˈterəˌrizəm/ Noun The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Do you suppose he has a keepsake from the first excorcism, you know, like a business frames its first dollar?

Why don't you PM me and I will have you added to some of the circles that have regular discussions about voluntarism and non-violent communication. It's very refreshing to have this conversation with like-minded people. I have yet to meet one in person, though. Mark Twain said: "I have had a lot of problems in my life, most of which never happened". Which is to say that freedom (as I am struggling to understand) is in large part being free in ones own mind. I have ghosts that tie me down far more that the state or my significant other ever could. Sometimes it seems easier to focus on the things that are farther away because the inner work can be the most challenging.

I remember some of Stef's podcasts where he mentions his preference for a statist who is a peaceful parent over an anarchist who parents by domination. My anarchism caused a lot of trouble in my marriage initially, but I realized the state was really a metaphor for the win/lose paradigm that we were using to conduct our relationship (a reflection of our childhoods). As we learned to negotiate the state became less of an issue. Perhaps if your son was raised peacefully, the isse of the state would be less bothersome. A question to ask would be: what the chances of him being raised peacefully would be if you were not in the picture? When you say talk to someone, are you referring to a new mate? There are a few hangouts and groups that you can connect with over the net that are voluntarist that would give you an avenue of expression and serve as a resource for empathy. I have found them to be very encouraging. Our road has been very turbulent, but we worked it out. I am sure it is difficult to see your son raised in a tyrranical way, I don;t have any solutions for limiting his exposure to this other that making the tyrant aware of the fact that there are alternatives and she is likely inflicting this on him as a result of her trauma, rather than for his benefit.

If you are transgendered, (I assume that means the process is complete), why are you anything other than the gender you are currently? Isn't your preference to be and be regarded as the gender you were meant to be?

Well, I guess they are starting to take it seriously. http://gigaom.com/2013/05/14/homeland-security-seizes-funds-at-main-bitcoin-exchange-report/

These ads go back at least two years....

The Soviet Union did not arise organically, but was heavily funded and influenced, if not managed by western powers from the outset. It was continually supplied with technology and economically subsidized by the west. It may be instructive to look at Gary Allen's definition of communism: AN INTERNATIONAL, CONSPIRATORIAL DRIVE FOR POWER ON THE PART OF MEN IN HIGH PLACES WILLING TO USE ANY MEANS TO BRING ABOUT THEIR DESIRED AIM - GLOBAL CONQUEST Perhaps the cold war mythology was growing stale and a new threat was needed to continue the maintenance and expansion of the military/police state so the red menace was retired. When I was growing up Kruschev, Brezhnev and the like were constantly in the news and we were instructed in school on how to survive a nuclear blast. Tension over imminent nuclear annihilation was constant and the political leaders were portrayed as having nervous, twitchy fingers poised over the red buttons of doom. Why did that subside? Boredom and fatigue most likely. Russia was simply written out of the script to be replaced by the Muslim menace. The west withdrew funding, the Russian leaders cleared the shelves and skedaddled as mentioned above and the way was made clear for the next band of violent thugs to fill the void. Of course, there will always be money for the space station, so we can see how people brush their teeth in zero gravity.

Ah, Phil Plait, the indefatigable NASA apologist appealing to the most high of self-contradictory, corrupt and superstitious cults to keep the institution of science on the beam. I can rest peacefully knowing that NASA and other various and sundry bureaucracies and politicians are doing what they can to keep us safe from irrationality.

But, wait: Haven't we already replaced paper currency with virtual currency? I don't know the actual proportions of the paper to digital ratio, but I imagine it to be rather tilted toward the virtual. Why is trading one form of digital for another not feasible? At least in the BTC realm, inflation is not arbitrary and unlimited.

Alan, why are you not a fan? On the surface it seems like a potential challenger to the fiat cartel. I have not bought any either, but I am looking for more info.

Wrong. The purpose of anarchy is to enforce morality consistently. Saying "there is no such thing as a legitamite authority" is a pronouncement of nihilism. Perhaps as there are disconnects in the definitions. I define "authorities" as those who coerce others into particular actions or coerce the abstention of certain actions. There is no legitimate authority in this sense, or I have never seen a valid explanation of the mechanism that creates authority in some, but not others.

I have heard this point before, but it does not make sense to me to make the point so broadly. It seems easier for the state to have propaganda, but not essential. We could all be in chains for example, or have a computer chip collar that blows up if we disobey. I get the idea that propaganda makes it easier, and our minds are just added to the list of things being controlled. The purpose of the state is to plunder the productive. If too many resources are diverted to physical control of those who produce goods and services, there is much less left to plunder. Far more effective to have the slaves smelt and shape their own virtual shackles as it were, by cultivating a sense of duty or obligation to submit their resources to the state. Currently, the entire enforcement arm of the state in the US is about three per cent of the total population. Forcing an armed populace who were of a mind to resist into chains and exploding collars would quite a feat for that three per cent (assuming that all of them would unquestioningly obey a direct order to forcibly insert their friends and neighbors into chains and collars.) I do not know a single person in the real world (I assume the internet identities I communicate with are real) that can conceive of a world without a state. I congratulate you if you do. Perhaps when the number of producers start to recognize the true nature of their opressors there will be more overt efforts to violently control them. In the meantime, they benefit far more from having everyone on edge, willing to punch their clocks everyday and looking to the state for protection. There are a still lot of miles left on that machine.

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/AddPost.aspx?ReplyToPostID=299635&Quote=TrueLook. You tell me how to get rid of rulers and we'll go from there. You tell me how you stop people from ruling over each other and I'll concede. You tell me how an anarchist can tell a person what to do and we can discuss that interesting angle. The whole point of anarchy is that no one tells others what to do, as has there is no such thing as legitimate authority. The state is nothing more than the irrational assumption that compliance with authority is required. No state can survive through violence alone. This is why the propaganda apparatus is so essential. People must be conditioned to think that coercion by state is legitimate. Elimination of the state (changing the perception of it) will not elimate those with the desire to rule others by force, regardless of their labels. It will however, eliminate the institutionalized and pervasive corruption and violence that operates under the guise of legitimacy.

The study data I have seen suggest spanking ought to be viewed with neutrality or mild suspicion. In your wildest fantasies, did this really not occur to you?! And this conclusion could be easily deduced from the OP. There are two ways one could go with the spanking question (and this is a general theme, if you look at philosophy/science papers on any topic): 1) Is spanking good, or bad? 2) Can we prove hypothesis X regarding spanking? (e.g. hypothesis: spanking a child causes their IQ to drop). Failing to prove a hypothesis doesn't say anything except that you failed to prove the hypothesis (maybe you're just bad at collecting or analyzing data). Succeeding in proving the hypothesis doesn't answer question 1), because question 1) is such an all-encompassing question. There could be dozens or hundreds or facts regarding spanking to consider. And facts aren't even necessary. You could talk in abstract terms about the dignity of a person, or, as you have, you could appeal to our moral instincts, i.e. that spanking an adult seems wrong, and what makes a child any different? If you want to go after question 1) (pretzelogik and Stef), and facts aren't the most important thing to you, be bold and say so. Don't just grab onto stats that seem to support your argument, but are actually built on shaky studies. Doing so will only distract and detract from your overall point. Pretzelogik, if serious (which I'm sometimes doubting), appears to think that when you claim a study is not valid or reliable, it is relevant what the implications of that are. As if we should let pass shaky studies if we like what they support and not call them into question if doing so might help an argument we don't like. Pretzelogik is not apparently able to separate simply requiring data to be accurately reported from taking stances on issues. He thinks if you call out a study that supports a particular viewpoint then you are supporting its opposite. In fact, I think when you support a particular viewpoint but call out the studies that support it just as much as ones against it when merited, you gain credibility. Pretzelogik's view is that of biased people everywhere who call out studies that go against their view but want the ones that support their view to not be questioned. In other words, confirmation bias rather than an honest search for truth whatever it is regardless of the implications. As I've already said, it's completely irrelevant what OP's viewpoint is. He could be the most horrible terrible person on the face of the earth, whose viewpoints we all disagree with vehemently. But if he is correct that Stefan was referencing a faulty study, then that's all that matters in this particular discussion. Feel free to start a new thread where the topic is OP's particular viewpoints. This thread was about the validity of a study Stefan referenced. It may be Pretzel is just pushing buttons. But luckily I think this is worth saying anyways since it is relevant to philosophy in general. This above is so laden with projection and cherry-picking and a multiplicity of fallacies it boggles (it would likely fit comfortably as a counter on some hyperbolic MSM rant about the inherent evil of guns or the like. Which is what passes as argument these days). Yet, these defenses and rationalizations are done in the name of philosophy. I do declare. The OP was a judgment and an opinion, an attempt to set the record straight as it were, about the merits/faults of spanking. The simple and obvious answer to questions about the motivation behind setting the record straight would be something along the lines of: "Spanking is logically contradictory and morally repugnant, but in the interest of the greater good of philosophy, I think it's important to call attention to faulty research." "I am carrying the mantle of factual accountability for Stef and am going to see to it that when a statistic is referenced in his videos, they are accurate, by gum!" And so on. Judgement was introduced in the OP, as has been repeatedly pointed out and studiously ignored. When faced with inquiry, the responses were ad hominems and value projections. If one's intention is to come to the rescue of philosophical integrity, eliminating contradictions from one's own arguments might be a good place to start.

Quite a bit of emotion and projection for someone claiming to be all about the data, truth, etc. But a side note was given to the original questions about the logic and first principles, albeit not directly. Great. So, we should view spanking with neutrality or mild suspicion. Not because there is something in particular about children that makes this particular practice of behavior modification acceptable, but the data in regards to whacking kids is inconclusive at best, or shows no lasting impact. I will even take you at your word that the data suggests spanking to have no deleterious effects. If I spanked my wife every time she did something I did not approve of, it might be argued that she would suffer no lasting effects from being restrained and struck with enough force to make her cry out in pain or feel quite uncomfortable (not consensual spanking, naughty minds ;-). It might be a tough sell for the friends and neighbors to say that I was attempting to modify her behavior. Could you reference any studies that speak to the spanking of adults and whether it has any lasting impact? Perhaps if neutrality is the prescription we should consider spanking in the workplace in order to prompt more productivity from the shiftless. I work with a couple of less than industrious individuals whom I might like to see spanked into cleaning up after themselves, although the lack of size disparity might make it a bit of a challenge if they were of a mind to resist. Funny how it ended in my house when my mom broke the yardstick across my back and I was able to walk away in defiance of her attempts to restrain me. And when my father knew that the next time we would be squaring off mano a mano and it might not have been a walk in the park for him either. I guess after that point they got a mildly suspicious of spanking or maybe became neutral about it. "Stop being so goddamned difficult!" How familiar. So, around we go. What is it about children, in your own words dear OP, that separates them from adults and qualifies them as acceptable candidates for "spanking"? Do we need studies and statistical analyses to make this call?

Here are several other potential motives (besides the super obvious one pointed out by STer--thanks again) you might have considered if the term “bona fides” had any meaning to you: it irritates me when people who purport intellectualism accept reporting uncritically if it’s preaching to the choir, I look for unexploited market niches the same as post-graduate researchers (where are the armies challenging this video?), I think Stef’s message is too valuable to be compromised...et cetera, et cetera. The OP calls out data that are misrepresented and/or meaningless. (And, uh, misrepresentation is not "potentially" irresponsible.) I have no idea what you think you mean by “inaccurate”. And I think it’s hilarious that you’re willing to outright concede the legitimacy of my concern. No pushback at all? Come on, my arguments aren’t that good. It’s precisely this lack of pushback that makes your trolling so transparent. And now you make it even more transparent by focusing on an irrelevant side-comment made to a person with whom I was commiserating about being trolled (by you). Please. If you have serious questions that don’t relate to the OP (including your desperate supicion that I support child abuse), you could always exercise the PM function. My good faith towards you hasn’t been exhausted just yet, despite that yours towards me started out in the negative. I started out with simple inquiries, no judgement. Simple questions, that inquire as to the specifics of your post. I don't purport intellectualism, nor do I take any statistic on faith. I find it far simpler and more direct to rely on logic and universality. So, yet again, can you just give me a simple response as to whether children are suitable subjects for behavior modification by spanking? There are no statistics or IQ tests required for this answer, it's black and white. Either spanking is an acceptable method of behavior modification or it isn't. If it is, does it only apply to children? If so, why? No statistics required. Is this what you call trolling? There are a few comments in this thread being levied at those who accept information uncritically, yet when questions are posed to those presenting new information, it is referred to as trolling. If the possibility of those with various levels of pigmentation in their skin being biologically/neurologically challenged in some way should be considered, as mentioned, I think it is the responsibility of the claimant to provide some evidence, or perhaps even some data (preferably incontestable), lest the claimant be considered irresponsible. Or such claims could be justified as commiseration and ignored, but that may violate the high standards of intellectual integrity to which those advancing arguments on philosophical forums ought to be held. I think the order of things matters. OP raised an issue with some of the research in one of Stef's videos. You ignored that, didn't address it, and skipped to asking him about other things. The problem isn't that you aren't allowed to ask questions back, but that when you do so in a way that changes the subject while avoiding the question at hand already, that's evasive. OP's personal views are really not even relevant to the point he raised, which was questioning a particular piece of research in Stef's video. It's ad hominem to suggest his views are even relevant. I agree that if he wants to put forth other assertions of his own he has the onus to back those up with solid data, as well. But first and foremost, in this thread, the data in Stef's video that he raised should be addressed. Stef himself was reasonable enough not to question OP's motives or views or anything else. He simply saw the questions about his research and agreed to look into it. It's sad others don't have the same straightforward reaction to it that he did. Once we agree on the importance of verifying the research OP questioned, then it makes sense to move on to other issues. But until then, it's a distraction mechanism. Last lines from the OP: "Bottom line: the attitude of those opposed to spanking is wildly out of sync with the data I've seen so far. Spanking is the equivalent of being tossed into a battlefield? Spanking is responsible for third world’s lack of development? Parents who spank are deserving of contempt/hatred? This is ridiculous." Correct me if this is something other than the contention that it would be more "in sync" (less "wild", as it were) according to the data, to be at the least tolerant of spanking. Since it's "ridiculous" to show "contempt/hatred" of those who spank, what exactly does the data suggest we show as an alternative? Support? Perhaps I am not the one here ignoring the OP's sentiments. Statements such as the ones from the OP above are judgements. To avoid answering questions about the motivation behind such judgement remarks by claiming the post is merely about data is disingenous at best and blatantly hypocritical at worst. And the hypocrisy is multiplied when those claiming to hold truth in high regard ignore the evasion so studiously. I am not a particular fan of any statistics that rely on self reporting, or statistics concerning human behavior in general as it is more often than not the exception to the statistical mean that make for a live well lived. Tests such as IQ can be biased in regard to particular cultural norms. Why not reasons from first principles, using logic as the guide? The OP contends the data suggests we modify our attitude toward spankers, so as not to be "ridiculous". Because it's the data, not logic that make this ridiculous, no? Once again, will one of the purveyors of truth just step up to the plate and tell us why these attitudes are so ridiculous and what it is about children that makes it acceptable to spank them?

Here are several other potential motives (besides the super obvious one pointed out by STer--thanks again) you might have considered if the term “bona fides” had any meaning to you: it irritates me when people who purport intellectualism accept reporting uncritically if it’s preaching to the choir, I look for unexploited market niches the same as post-graduate researchers (where are the armies challenging this video?), I think Stef’s message is too valuable to be compromised...et cetera, et cetera. The OP calls out data that are misrepresented and/or meaningless. (And, uh, misrepresentation is not "potentially" irresponsible.) I have no idea what you think you mean by “inaccurate”. And I think it’s hilarious that you’re willing to outright concede the legitimacy of my concern. No pushback at all? Come on, my arguments aren’t that good. It’s precisely this lack of pushback that makes your trolling so transparent. And now you make it even more transparent by focusing on an irrelevant side-comment made to a person with whom I was commiserating about being trolled (by you). Please. If you have serious questions that don’t relate to the OP (including your desperate supicion that I support child abuse), you could always exercise the PM function. My good faith towards you hasn’t been exhausted just yet, despite that yours towards me started out in the negative. I started out with simple inquiries, no judgement. Simple questions, that inquire as to the specifics of your post. I don't purport intellectualism, nor do I take any statistic on faith. I find it far simpler and more direct to rely on logic and universality. So, yet again, can you just give me a simple response as to whether children are suitable subjects for behavior modification by spanking? There are no statistics or IQ tests required for this answer, it's black and white. Either spanking is an acceptable method of behavior modification or it isn't. If it is, does it only apply to children? If so, why? No statistics required. Is this what you call trolling? There are a few comments in this thread being levied at those who accept information uncritically, yet when questions are posed to those presenting new information, it is referred to as trolling. If the possibility of those with various levels of pigmentation in their skin being biologically/neurologically challenged in some way should be considered, as mentioned, I think it is the responsibility of the claimant to provide some evidence, or perhaps even some data (preferably incontestable), lest the claimant be considered irresponsible. Or such claims could be justified as commiseration and ignored, but that may violate the high standards of intellectual integrity to which those advancing arguments on philosophical forums ought to be held.

Still trying to derail the thread? Does asking for clarification constitute derailing? The OP calls out citation of inaccurate data as potentially irresponsible misdirection. So far so good, better to be accurate with the data. But there must be some reason for calling out the data in the first place, unless it is the intention of the post to challenge any and all data references in any report at any time that may be inaccurate. Here there is a particular bias toward clearing up any fallacies regarding the effects of spanking. My question was and still is: "Why?" Why the concern toward clarifying the misleading data in this area? Why the evasive answer about derailing? Do you want us to think there are biological tendencies where certain people with certain levels of melanin are concerned? I did not reference color, so I am curious as to where we can find accurate data to support those suggestions. Also, is the point of this post to say that since the data is misleading we should re-examine our attitudes toward spanking? If so, what is it about children specifically that makes it acceptable to spank them?

Is this to suggest that we should think of darker-skinned as being being inherently predisposed to underachieving largely due to biological factors?

So, is this post an endoesement of spanking? What is it about children, other than their obvious disparity in size, that makes spanking an acceptable, or even a recommended tool for modifying thier behavior? Why is not acceptable in adult relationships or at the workplace?