cynicist

Yeah Stefan has brought this up a number of times. God/Jesus is your unconscious. Nowadays whenever I hear someone talking about "god" I just translate that word into "my unconscious" and it's almost funny, but also very interesting how much more sense their statements make. For example when someone prays for guidance or says god has a plan for me, I just hear them saying that they are expecting some inspiration from their unconscious soon.

You're forgetting that the reason you end up paying less is because your money is losing value. This means that everything else you pay for is getting more expensive over time. You are taking an extremely narrow view of currency. Deflation is a good thing. The more valuable your currency is the cheaper things become for you. It also makes more sense to save your money or invest it, which has a strong snowball effect on companies which borrow money in order to expand or start. This leads to more innovation and cheaper products in the long run since you have more competition. Inflation is only beneficial to people who control currency because they can spend the money before the effects of the inflation hit the rest of the market, and obviously for politicians because they can promise more goodies for "free" while the cost of inflation is relatively invisible for the majority of people. They just see the effects in higher prices and blame corporations for being greedy without realizing that they are just trying to compensate for how worthless the currency is becoming. Educating people in economics is a failure, most are just not that interested in how it works. It's much easier to use the moral argument since everyone is interested in being good.

I actually spoke to this guy on IRC in #bitcoin. It's really sad because his parents had to mortgage two homes just to pay his bail. (it was something ridiculous, can't remember the exact amount) He obviously didn't go into specifics in case the authorities were monitoring the chat but basically this is the result of an e-mail he sent that told someone how to avoid the mandatory $10k reporting regulation that is supposed to limit money laundering. He didn't actually launder any money. He seemed like a decent guy so I hope he doesn't get into too much more trouble over this.

Me too! Except I tend to watch dramas so it is a bit more expected. Sometimes I am really feeling for the character in the movie but other times it feels more like some aspect of myself or my life being reflected in what's going on in the scene. It's weird because I tear up but I know it was only originated by the film, and then I don't really know exactly why I'm crying lol. Something to explore the next time for sure.

I always viewed rewards as a temporary substitute for the times where your child is not yet able to understand the why. Eventually as they get older you can explain the reasoning and they can do it based on that instead. Edit: I just watched a two hour talk given by Alfie Kohn in 2005 called "Unconditional Parenting" (which you can actually find on Pirate Bay lol) and it was absolutely fantastic. A lot of it was on empathy and UPB, but he gave some pretty good arguments against rewards. Basically he makes the claim that it is a form of behavior modification (like punishment) which is negative because it teaches the child to be self-interested and doesn't involve understanding on the part of the parents, and is disrespectful to both the child and the parent. (due to the skinnerian carrot/stick nature of it) His argument is that they are suboptimal compared to reason and explanation. He also explicitly states that punishment/reward is effective in short term compliance/behavior modification, just not preferable in the long run if you want a healthy, loving relationship with your children. I don't disagree at all with that. He also changed my view on rewards as a substitute when he explained trying to uncover more about why a child is refusing to do something. It seems obvious now but even if your kid can't understand something you can try to figure out their resistance and work around it. I won't have kids for a while if ever but this is all interesting to consider in the meantime.

Awesome, I missed this post but I'm glad it worked out for you. I know it's been a while but I'm curious how you feel now that some time has passed. How has your experience been? What kind of issues did you run into and have they been fixable?

If you mean something involving mesh networks I love it and wish for your success. Unfortunately I'm not a coder or I'd help.

LibreOffice is a fork of OpenOffice. Basically Oracle controlled development of OpenOffice which slowed the pace of improvements by the larger open-source community so they took it's code and renamed it. I can't disagree with you on its state but it has improved and should be getting better all the time. Luckily I don't use boring office software often

Man that's really specific I'm not sure the community is large enough yet for your request but good luck in your search, and congratulations on the new job.

The part where she told everyone to get their parents involved was hilarious, and sad, but mostly hilarious.

I can help with an example. What are the facts of your childhood? (were you lonely, was your family wealthy, did you live in a house or a box, etc) Will they change? So clearly statements of fact can be made of the future. So for example if you were hungry due to lack of food at the age of ten, that will continue to be true no matter how old you are. So facts of the past can also be facts of the future. The fact that I made this post will continue to be true even in the future. I know it may seem kind of cheesy or mind-bendy, but it does at least address the possibility.

You are arguing with the premise that everyone owns everything collectively before someone else claims ownership, but the truth is that until something is claimed it is unowned.

He says that Stefan's argument is circular, but then defines existence as "that which has actual being" or in other words, that which exists, lol.

I have those feelings too. I dislike applying for a job or working sales because I get the sense that I have to exaggerate to be successful, which implies that I'm not good enough as I am. So the idea is that you will put forward a certain image or expectation for others and then not live up to it, resulting in them being disappointed? It might be a good idea to explore why you feel the need to exaggerate at all, or why failing at something new is a bad thing. I know that when I start a new job that it doesn't really matter what I know about it beforehand, it will still take me weeks to get used to how things work and become productive, and that seems true for everyone else I've met too. Then there is the obvious question of where in your early life did you learn that you weren't good enough as you were, and that you had to pretend to be something more. I don't know anything about you or your skills but you are clearly intelligent and have a strong grasp of english. So rather than competence it seems like your problem is more related to finding the right path to productive work and the fact that you are afraid to try new things. I could see why you would be anxious because your fear is going to make it difficult to discover what you want to do. I can empathize, as I'm struggling with a similar issue. Like I need to find a purpose for my life and nothing seems to click for me yet. The fact that I also fear new situations (due to a fear of attack instead of disappointment) means that exploring my interests is more difficult when it involves other people. Your post is helping me clarify my own problem so thank you for that. I understand now that worrying about what to do doesn't make sense before I deal with the fear.

I'm pretty sure I've heard Stefan say in one podcast that social anxiety is partly related to self-trust, specifically confidence in your ability judge other people accurately, as well as trusting that your emotions are valid. In that vein, here are a few that I found helpful in regards to social anxiety that weren't mentioned above. FDR349 You Are Not Broken http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FreedomainRadioPart2/~3/lO7AZkcq9ok/FDR_349_You_Are_Not_Broken.mp3 FDR478 Freedom From Others http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FreedomainRadioPart2/~3/LUl1qXvlApU/FDR_478_Freedom_From_Others.mp3 FDR663 Unlearning http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FreedomainRadioVolume3Shows562/~3/6jkKBG4O2hg/FDR_663_Unlearning.mp3 FDR666 Be Nice! Part 2: Freedom From Others http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FreedomainRadioVolume3Shows562/~3/lXbwREW-zDc/FDR_666_Be_Nice_Part_2_Freedom_From_Others.mp3 FDR678 Everything You Do Is... http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FreedomainRadioVolume3Shows562/~3/nRFn-m7H1Ko/FDR_678_Everything_You_Do_Is.mp3

The first part of your post seems really disconnected from the second. You start by saying that you have a lot of free time and now must find a job since you are running out of money. Then, all of a sudden you are talking about some productive goal that you can pour your life energy into, which has meaning and purpose! Seems to me like you can deal with the former by getting any job available, and then deal with the latter while being financially secure. In my experience, when feelings of anxiety and paralysis are involved it's because you are dealing with an impossible situation (which itself is the result of trying to adhere to two opposing ideas at the same time). Perhaps you are telling yourself that you must find a job to pay the bills but that this job must also be meaningful, in effect setting this extremely high standard that is keeping you from even starting to look. I say these are opposing ideas only because if you will run out of money soon than it is rather short notice, and you aren't giving yourself much time to find this dream job. It could be another set of ideas, this is just one possible example. Your whole post makes it sound like you are just rushed, completely out of time. Why do you feel like things are impossible, like your life is over? Did someone give you an idea of where you should be in life by now? Or do you have friends who are well on their way to achieving their career goals?

That's funny, I was just about to mention Battlestar Galactica. Similarly, it was disappointing, and for the same reasons. (the ending was strangely religous/mystical and seemed to come out of nowhere with respect to the main plot) I was far more disappointed by Lost though. I would have been ok with a crappy ending if they had not left numerous mysteries completely unresolved.

Actually you did and continue to do so by implication when you say they are morally identical. That is absolutely not true, because the extent of the damage is part of the moral status. That is the argument I am making. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I completely disagree with your statement. I think it does address it and I'm not sure exactly where the confusion is. To be fair about the animal example, serial killers are obviously not exactly animals since their intelligence prevents them from being morally neutral, my point was more that they kill without conscience like other dangerous animals and therefore are at least as much of a threat, though I would argue they are more for obvious reasons. As far as tracing it logically I can try. Self-ownership is a fundamental source of morality and without it morality is not possible. From that, it follows that violations of self-ownership are the most immoral actions possible. A murderer is not just denying/violating the self-ownership of others, but outright removing it from existence, making it the highest order of violation possible By denying others self-ownership entirely, he cannot logically claim that others should not deny his as that would be a violation of UPB (universal principles) Therefore, denying him self-ownership is not a violation of UPB (as he has already rejected the principle) Actually every dictionary I have seen defines assault as violent physical attack, with no mention of initiation, so I don't see that as a logical error. In any case, that was my intended meaning. You seem to be misunderstanding my position. I'm saying that someone who has violated the self-ownership of another individual so egregiously is logically saying through their actions that they reject the principle, so isolating them is not a violation of it. If someone lies to you they are rejecting the principle called honesty, and the effect of that is that there is no obligation for you to be honest with them. Morality is a two way thing, if someone else is violating it with you then you are under no obligation to uphold it with them. That's how self-defense is justified, so if you accept that as a concept then you already agree with my position. Someone who murders is obviously the initiator of force and the most extreme violator of the principle of self-ownership, so your position that their self-ownership must be respected while they are clearly not respecting that principle in regards to others is confusing and honestly makes me feel quite uncomfortable. How someone who has demonstrated the lack of empathy/respect for principle/capacity for self-restraint required to murder another human being could not be considered a threat when they are in your presence is one of the most puzzling ideas I've heard in a long time. A wild grizzly is lacking in the same qualities and is quite capable of killing which is why if you met one in the wild you would consider it a threat. Do you exempt humans because of intelligence? If anything I think that makes humans more of a threat than wild animals. This is just bizarre to me. You are concerned about the morality of 'inflicting' a non-invasive brain scan to determine the likelihood that someone might murder again. If a person is convicted of murder in a DRO trial or whatever you might call it, and they are allowed to reenter society without a thorough evaluation of the future risk they pose to others and they murder yet another human being, I would hold the DRO just as responsible for it as the human being who performed the act, since they recklessly endangered the lives of others by letting a predator loose. Maybe it would be better if you explained what you think is valid from a moral standpoint in regards to dealing with murderers, because from everything I have read so far it appears that you think taking any action outside of immediate self-defense if they are attacking you is immoral. Am I understanding that correctly?

Stefan doesn't have an answer to how to divide land that is claimed to be owned by government, though he has mentioned it in the past (sorry can't remember the specific show/podcast). It would be really hard to determine how to do that. As far as property in general he has tons of material on it, but a good place to start would be the video below. I see what you are saying, but it's an oversimplification. To continue with the car analogy, I can argue that a vehicle is either pristine or damaged, and that any level of damage is worse than no damage (which is certainly true, just as what you are saying is true) but that doesn't mean that there is not a meaningful difference between a car that is totaled and one that is scratched. They both fall under the category of 'damaged', but to say that they are in an identical state would be recognized as an insufficient level of detail. This is as important when determining restitution for an owner in a traffic accident as it is when determining restitution or punishment for a crime like murder. So yes, they are identical in whether they are moral or immoral (the basic categorization) but that is not the only consideration that matters. (when considering justice) You are combining two separate questions (Is it immoral? / How immoral is it?) as if there is only one that is valid. Both are valid and objective. Ah now I clearly see where the issue lies. I think you are mistaken in your view of morality. For example, I could take your argument here and apply it to self-defense just as easily, as in: If Bob is attacked and the struggle that ensues escalates to the killing of the attacker, would you say that what Bob did should be treated as a murder? Personally I would say it is complicated and the judgment depends a lot on the circumstances, but as he did not initiate the violence it clearly would not be treated the same as murder. As soon as someone commits murder they are saying through their actions that they do not respect an individual's right to own their own bodies, which means they can't expect the rule to apply to them either, since they are violating it. That doesn't mean it's fine to murder them, but it does mean that their moral status and how we interact with them is going to be very different than that of an innocent person. A commonly used example would be whether or not lying to a Nazi who comes to your house in search of a Jew is immoral. With the knowledge that they are coming to do harm to the Jew, and that you would be assisting them if you were to reveal their presence, you could actually be considered immoral for being honest. (this is a bit vague, since you are also under threat of force, but certainly you would not be condemned as a dishonest person for lying in that particular circumstance) Saying that denying someone their self-ownership after they denied someone else's self-ownership (like isolating a murderer) is ethically questionable is equivalent to saying that paying someone to recover your property from a thief who claims ownership over it is ethically questionable. I don't think it is propaganda, it's just the universal nature of morality. We recognize that when a liar criticizes someone for being dishonest, this is hypocrisy, because they are expecting an exemption from the rules that they think apply to everyone else. I think that recognition is objective and consistent. (if you break the rules then they are less applicable to you than they are to someone who doesn't) Just to address this point, obviously we would have very high standards for a conviction for exactly this reason, and in the event that a mistake occurs there would need to be compensation. However, the alternative to the risk of harming an innocent through a false conviction is to risk an innocent being harmed through a lack of action. (If we were to choose not to isolate a murderer and he continued to kill others) Personally I think the odds of a murderer with the freedom to move unhindered killing again are far higher than the odds of innocent people being imprisoned in a free society with high standards, but there is a more objective reason that I will outline below. Consider this, if a murderer starts killing and we react by not wanting to trade with him, what happens when he just kills people for the resources that he needs? To me expecting people to only react in defense if he attacks them personally is just a type of pacifism that invites further immoral behavior, since it indicates to an attacker that he will always be free to do what he wants as long as he picks targets weaker than him. Allowing a known murderer to walk freely implies that he is an exception to the rule, since he is allowed to violate the self ownership of others while preserving his own self ownership. (So I think this justifies having a trial, even if that includes the risk of a false conviction) I know that was long but I wanted to be thorough. Let me know if anything was unclear.

I'm a cynic so here goes my theory: Since men typically bring economic resources to a relationship and women bring their looks and ability to bring children into the world, when women give away that 'resource' freely it devalues other women and brings their ability to attract and retain men down, in the same way that government money devalues what men bring to a relationship, which is a kind of economic stability. So women who do that get shamed as sluts, while men don't because that's not the primary reason they are sought out in the first place. I'm sure that if there were lots of men who just gave money to women who got pregnant, other men would shame them, (similar to white knights) though right now since it's the state doing that it's too abstract for most men in society to know who to blame exactly.

I'm glad it was meaningful. Another thing to consider is that whenever Stef opens his mouth he has hundreds of people like you and me who are intelligent, critical, and naturally cautious when hearing others make broad statements about important things like truth or morality. I feel quite secure knowing that if I miss some logical inconsistency or don't have particular expertise in what he happens to be talking about in the moment there is likely someone on the boards who will catch it and bring it up. I even nitpick'd Stefan about the NSA-key thing in Microsoft Windows, about how it doesn't actually have anything to do with the NSA and how even if it did theoretically the security implications are basically nonexistent, since I happen to have some knowledge of computer security and had an inclination in the past to look into that issue. I wouldn't be surprised if Stefan constantly received e-mails from listeners who are experienced doctors/lawyers or whatever, and he just makes corrections on his videos if they invalidate his point rather than if he gets a minor detail wrong. If he made a major error on something I don't doubt there would be a topic on the boards immediately. I'm with you brother. The next step I'd like to achieve is getting like minded people around me to help me when I stumble, though I think that is a greater challenge than even understanding this stuff in the first place.

Absolutely, I enjoy it because it helps me to see flaws in my reasoning too. Even though I have been listening to FDR for a while, there is always room for improvement. The fact that you are new and yet understand the nature of improving society through peaceful parenting and what effect that would have on future criminality is amazing to me. Reminds me that Stefan's material draws a lot of really intelligent thinkers. In my example I said after someone has already been established as a murderer intentionally (they are already in violation of the self-ownership of others). The goal is not thought-crime type perpetual monitoring but a basic check to see if the person is a psychopath or if they have a conscience and are able to exist in society without having to be constantly watched as a possible danger to others. Someone who murders in a highly volatile situation is still dangerous but a lot less dangerous than someone who has the ability to habitually kill people and not feel bad about it. I'm not for capital punishment btw, I view a psychopath as in the same category as any other dangerous animal: Avoid if possible, kill if necessary in self-defense, otherwise use precaution and isolate in order to protect people. Unfortunately since human beings are so much more intelligent than other animals we can't just relocate people as a solution (like we might do for say, a polar bear) so some type of confinement seems like the only compassionate and safe way to deal with the problem. Value is indeed subjective (like how much compensation should be given for damaging a car) but extent of damage is not. If you put two cars in front of people where one is scratched and the other is totaled you might get different responses as to how much the owner is owed in either case but the fact that one car is in a worse state than the other is objective (if you are looking it in the context of the function of a vehicle, obviously they are both just a pile of shaped metal otherwise). No one is going to think that a scratch is worse than your car not being able to function. Similarly, I may not be able to quantify in something like monetary terms how much worse murder is than rape, but we can both agree that losing your life and all ability to think/function is worse than the physical and emotional pain associated with rape, as horrible as it is. (if you look at the human body in terms of property which you own, destroying is worse than damaging, since damage can be repaired to some degree) And since the body is the source of all external ownership it takes precedence over all material possessions, which is why crimes against the body are considered worse than crimes against lesser property like pencils. The nuke part is simpler. If murder is immoral, then just mathematically you know that murdering more people is worse than murdering less. It's not a matter of subjective value, but of logic. If I start with the premise that sitting on a couch is an act of laziness, then clearly what follows is that someone who sits on a couch for eight hours a day is lazier than someone who sits on a couch for four hours a day. I hope that helps, let me know if something is not clear or if I'm wrong somewhere.

Well habitual murder would be self-evident, but I could imagine a brain scan and tests being done if someone commits a crime like murder or rape to determine the likelihood of a repeat offense. You can only objectively determine intent from actions and context, but clearly it would be an important factor. (Simple example: Attempts were made to hide the body or otherwise obscure evidence vs what appears to be an emotionally driven decision, can't determine the latter but could detect the former) I don't agree with your example, precisely because the degree matters; I don't know how to calculate the difference but we know logically that the more damage you do to a person's property the higher the restitution must be to compensate, so they can't be morally identical. However, it's one of those problems that seems moot. I don't exactly worry about murderers when I'm going out despite how violent society currently is, so by the time we're free I imagine this will be mostly an academic exercise. (I mean getting a precise measure)

I think we view things differently. To me, a psychopathic mass murderer walking around freely is like allowing a wild lion to roam among humans (in that morality is not a consideration for them when it comes to violence). Since there is no internal restraint for their behavior, the threat is omnipresent. I imagine you wouldn't agree, but at least I do agree with you that it would be a non-issue by the time a free society is possible. I'm just a little sad I won't be there lol. It's ironic how they are arguing against the state as much as you are without realizing it. As dsayers points out, if they are so afraid of evil people then having a place where they can get together and raise armies to do colossal amounts of damage is the absolute last thing you want. You may be able to make headway one on one, but it sounds like their responses are too emotional for a group discussion to be productive.

Oh I don't doubt it. I'm not saying he is consciously trying to manipulate people, I'm saying that he is manipulating language to make his point. A natural consequence of adopting irrational ideas is having to invent fantasy justifications, as much for himself as for everyone else.