cynicist

Wow nice graphic. I'll post back if I can think of a good one to add. (I like the one Kevin mentioned, however I think it was, "Voting is a suggestion box for slaves")

So you think that a company with lots of factories will be able to get away with polluting the environment and then simply change it's name and nobody will notice? Or that moving the factories they own in order to relocate will somehow be cheaper than properly disposing of their waste? You ask where the safety nets are as if they exist today; When BP pollutes the ocean they pay a small fine and continue. Based on your post I'm inclined to believe you haven't put much thought into this idea.

Doesn't public school doesn't qualify as "massive intellectual and emotional abuse of children"? I went through that and a catholic upbringing. Both are pretty horrible and severely retard a person's ability to reason. I'm not really sure how you can say one is better than the other. I think you are probably right about religious education taking over without state education, but so what? The only real solution to that is to try and promote peaceful parenting so that future generations stop damaging their children.

So you prefer state indoctrination to religious indoctrination. I prefer neither.

Yeah, I don't like to use 'corporation' when talking about a theoretical future society, it's just too tainted of a word for most people. I use 'company' sometimes but it doesn't sound right for a large international organization. 'Business' is probably my favorite, seems ambiguous enough to work for both mom & pop stores and more professional ventures. As to your example, I see it a little bit differently. Say the power company succeeds in erasing evidence of this newer technology (and spending resources to do it), that's a far better situation than having that technology legally banned (like marijuana/hemp) or the old one subsidized (corn/oil/telco) because there will always be another person coming up with ideas for improvements to what exists, whereas today it's almost meaningless due to patents, evil subsidies, and tax exemptions. I would rather see an engineer bribed in order to slow innovation than threatened with violence to completely stop it. The potential for corruption/evil will never go away, least we can do is make it harder.

Your description and explanation of this problem is perfect. I was concerned about my own tendencies in this area and your video actually made it clearer to me how pervasive this issue is in my life; I basically hit the entire checklist of symptoms you brought up. Needless to say I'm looking forward to your followup regarding possible solutions.

That makes sense, thanks for the explanation.

I want to be clear, since it seems like you are talking about a situation involving a friend, that by 'remove the stimulus' I don't mean end the relationship. What I mean is end the conversation and get away because you are no longer having a debate/discussion. Later you can explore the passive-aggression and where it might be coming from, or try to continue the topic again, but you can't make yourself get over your feelings in that situation. I will add though, that if they don't want to acknowledge what they did or show any indication that they regret it I would probably end the relationship right there.

Do you mean a thing you sit on and a thing you eat from or the person in charge of a meeting and something you find in an excel spreadsheet? If it's something you sit on, does a bean bag count? Does it need to have legs or be made of wood? Personally, I would never call a bean bag a chair but according to Wikipedia it technically fits the definition of one. That's a good argument, but man can also mean human being without referring to a particular gender. It's only the context in which the word is being used that tells you which definition to go by. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but for that reason there is no objective meaning for the word 'man'. In English we typically use it to refer to a male human, but tomorrow we could all agree that it means something else, or create a new word that refers to a male human (a zorgle perhaps) and then simply use the other meaning of man. This is all horribly brain twisty due to the confusion of these things being both words AND concepts so I may have something wrong here, please let me know if that is the case.

The whole point is to irritate you. The way to deal with that is to get away from them. Sorry if that wasn't clear but that's what I was trying to get across by explaining the motivation. This is how your post looks to me, maybe it will help. See I don't know what "processing the emotion efficiently" or "resolve the residual feelings of discomfort" mean here. In situations where people are provoking you into feeling an emotion, you need to remove the stimulus. After some time the feeling will pass and you can move on. On the plus side, "agree to disagree" isn't traumatic so you don't have to pay a therapist.

I used to be a catholic, so I was sympathetic to your first post, but after your second I'm going to go ahead and say I don't think you will have a good time on this forum, based on the beliefs you've put forward here. This conversation is about the search for truth, and correcting the error of belief in a deity is certainly a part of that. There is no evidence of, and plenty of good arguments against, the existence of a god or gods. You've also suggested that either logic itself or our ability to understand it is limited with no arguments or evidence to support it. Are you serious? Science relies on evidence, not personal opinion. How can you compare the self-reporting of patients taking sugar pills to physical evidence of the existence of god? Or the contradiction inherent in saying that consciousness is unreliable for data when you need to possess a consciousness to even consider collecting it? Right, and there was no need for instruments to prove the healing powers of plants when you can see the evidence from using them. How is that comparable to paranormal phenomena?

Technology (drones) has made it cheaper but it will always be expensive due to the inherent corruption involved in using other people's money to fund it. Few people care about the cost when they don't have to pay. Also, the purpose of war is destruction so it can't ever be wealth generating, though it is certainly profitable for some individuals. The broken window fallacy illustrates that well. Are you more interested in rebuttals to Chomsky's arguments, or the ones in that FAQ? Because dear god that FAQ was irritating to read. The number logical errors is making my head spin; I think I could probably spend triple the number of words simply pointing them out line by line... Meanwhile I'll check out the videos and see if Noam's (does anyone call him by his first name?) arguments are any better. I haven't read any of his material, I only know who he is based on his reputation as an Anarcho-syndicalist. Edit: Hmm ok that was interesting. He describes capitalism as "private tyranny" and thinks the state is held captive by private interests. He compares the relationship between a corporation and a worker to a ruler and his subject, saying: His thoughts on Libertarianism: I've watched around 10 videos so far and I haven't seen any arguments against Anarcho-capitalism, just the corrupt relationship between corporations and the state. He rails against tariffs and treaties like NAFTA, but blames capitalist interference in government for the problems. He is a skilled linguist but I get bored listening to him because he makes lots of assertions and uses vague language to do so (like "private power" or "top down system of power"). If anyone can find any actual arguments from him at this point I would be impressed.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with his parents, at all.

That's incorrect. The point of isolation chambers is sensory deprivation. The goal is to restrict environmental stimulation. Honestly, it scares the shit out of me. Human beings were not designed to exist in an environment like that, and people who go through it experience hallucinations among other things. I mean, if solitary confinement is considered to be a kind of psychological torture, imagine what complete isolation from your environment must be like. Granted, the period of time spent there is limited in comparison, but still. I think the idea that you can gain self-knowledge through this act by limiting distractions is some bizarre zen buddhist nonsense, because the reality is that even if you only disrupted your ability to hear or see, that would be FAR more distracting than anything you normally experience when trying to meditate or focus on your thoughts. I doubt it has any long term negative effects if done for a short time period but I certainly wouldn't subject myself to it voluntarily. Check out this excerpt from Wikipedia:

It's an insult. They are stating that your assertion is opinion, and no more or less valid than theirs. Obviously it's manipulative, since it allows them to discredit your statement without disproving any of your arguments or supporting evidence. I think the true purpose is to intentionally anger you so that you respond in a passive-aggressive way, which lets them appear to have the more rational position. That's how I used to respond, and now I don't talk to people who are willing to use cheap tricks like that in order to "win" arguments.

People have to agree on the meaning of words, so they are subjective. You realize that when you get into a heated debate with someone only to find out later that you simply defined your terms differently and actually have the same position >< (for example, to most people the term government means "a system of rules", so when you try to explain to them how it is evil they will look at you like you are advocating no rules whatsoever, which would result in total chaos)

I just wrote several different responses to this and erased them so I'm going to try and make this one stick. I could see some limited value in finding Ancaps near you to try and start a friendship with, but overall they aren't very good tools because there aren't many of us around. (and finding Ancap women is even harder for obvious reasons) Stefan's advice on triage is good, but his best suggestion is that you kind of have to create other virtuous people to some degree because most moral philosophy is bullshit and the majority don't even know that they don't know. I haven't really tried building a virtuous circle yet but I've thought about it. I would probably start with just finding people who share similar interests so that we have something we can talk about and then ease them in to these ideas while remaining cognizant of the alarm that telling them black is white and up is down will generate. Then eventually expose them to Stefan's podcasts and books and see if they shriek and run for the hills or not. The only other option I see is moving to be near people that you already know are rational (or working on it at least) but that's pretty much limited to this forum. It sounds grandiose to say that I know but I genuinely can't think of another place like it. I'm a big fan of Reddit for my non-philosophical interests but the Libertarian and even Ancap subforums make my eyes roll so I can't participate there. Is it any better on Facebook? I doubt it. If you find out otherwise let me know!

'Morally obligated' and 'required to be a good person' (and we all want to be good) are just different ways of saying the same thing. So let me get this straight, paying taxes at all is considered by you to be morally equivalent to choosing to fund the war machine? The very nature of taxes means this is not true, as being forced to pay is not the same as voluntarily supporting something. Honestly even if you believe that I'm not sure how you can live without inadvertently supporting the state. How do you avoid sales tax? Income tax? Using roads paid for by taxes? Utility taxes? Using any service subsidized by taxes? The state is too intricately linked to everything people do. There is no way to avoid that short of living some isolated existence in the woods, feeding off of squirrels. (And even then the land is likely owned or controlled or subsidized by the state in some way) And if we are dead, imprisoned or maimed, how can we be free to act upon any principles we hold? Without life principles are just abstractions, words on paper slowly fading away. I enjoyed the story in that video. In it, he gave the mugger exactly what he wanted in the moment to avoid danger and then only when there was no longer a knife pressed into his back did he try to make a positive difference. That's exactly what I mean.

Well with respect to this quote: I don't believe that following the principle of non-aggression or supporting the against me argument requires that you refuse to pay taxes. In fact I don't really think taxes has much to do with it. Once you have a situation where aggression is being used philosophy isn't really going to help you, at that point it's more about self-preservation and limiting the damage done to you. A concrete example is that if I'm in the process of being mugged by someone with a knife or gun I'm not going to try and reason with them or appeal to principle, but do what I need to in order to escape the situation as unharmed as possible. Afterwards I can focus on spreading the message of non-violence. In the situation of taxes I try to pay what is necessary to avoid risking imprisonment but I see that as an act of self-preservation that does not contradict the values of non-aggression or any moral values that I possess.

For some people, certainly, but for others I think it's just a way to communicate with what they perceive to be an incredible external source of wisdom that is actually just their own subconscious thoughts. Like how I imagine early humans marveled at the first examples of fire before the phenomenon was understood. The only difference being that no one indoctrinates children with myths about fire today.

Why are you considering asking him?

Holy shit that's messed up. The truth is that when someone puts a gun to your head you are not free. Whether you choose to comply with his demands or risk being shot through refusal, I don't think particularly matters. Self-preservation takes precedence because dead men make no choices and being in prison is less freedom than simply paying taxes. You can always make more money if you aren't locked in a cage. Anyway even though I disagree with you I can respect your integrity, that's a really serious loss.

I tend to vary between INFP/INTP/INTJ, with most results saying INTP and that's the one I can usually identify with when reading descriptions of it. It's a fun test but be careful about defining yourself by it. I think we all vary at times, I know I can be more or less extroverted/introverted depending on the circumstances.

First of all your english is fantastic, so don't worry about that. Secondly I'm glad you didn't kill yourself. You would have deprived the world of a brilliant thinker and morally good individual. I feel comfortable saying that about someone who has listened to FDR for over a year and is actually pursuing therapy to deal with his problems. As to your issue with the therapist, if you think they have been helpful in other respects then you might want to confront them directly on this issue of your parents. I would approach it like this. Ask him what he would say to a woman if she complained about being abused by her husband for a period of years and the husband said that he was doing the best that he could. Would it be the same advice he gave you? This accomplishes two things, it forces the therapist to take a moral stance on the issue while also taking him out of the propaganda around the family. If he is evasive or defensive then you know he is not going to be able to help you with this issue. On the other hand if you think he is incompetent already you might want to just seek another therapist...

Actually what you just did there is strawman his argument, because that's not what Stefan is saying. He is saying it is true on the grounds that you could only be making the argument against property by exercising ownership over your own body. It's a self detonating argument. I could try to argue that using my voice to communicate is impossible but if I use my voice to make that argument there is no need to disprove it, because I have done so in the utterance. (love that word)