cynicist

In other words, truth is up to individual standards/interpretation and therefore inherently subjective. Once you say that there are different and equally valid standards of truth you are saying that truth is equivalent to opinion, or to simplify: that there is no such thing as truth. This trick is what enables you to believe things without that pesky problem of having them disproven.

He could make that argument but he would be incorrect. The rule is you can do what you wish with your own property, not you can do what you wish with any person's property. Someone would need to ask permission only when they are not the owner or do not already have the owner's permission. There is no violation of universality there. Those who argue against UPB are affirming it by doing so, meaning that you can't say it is non-universal without adhering to universality to do it, specifically: Admitting that both of us exist The senses are valid Language has meaning Truth is preferable to falsehood Truth is objective Debating is the best way to resolve disputes It's certainly challenging but Stefan has done a great job of avoiding jargon in his book. If he tried to simplify it any further it would lose its meaning. I'm sure if you started a thread asking about some part of it there would be people such as myself who would be happy to clarify it for you. It took me a long time to understand it but that had more to do with propaganda getting in the way I think. The idea itself is actually a lot simpler than it seems, it's the implications of it that short circuits our brains.

I think you handled yourself beautifully in that conversation. Multiple times you can see that she is implicitly admitting to being uncomfortable with the idea that parents (and especially mothers) can be abusive towards their children. She uses euphemisms like 'whooping' Admits that her parents hit her but says she is not mad about it Claims that physical abuse from husbands is 'different' Points to an example of a friend who was hit and 'gets along' with her mom anyway In all of this she is essentially denying your experience, telling you that what you feel doesn't make sense. And when you don't agree with that, she falls back to 'you don't talk about someone's mother', 'you aren't listening', 'I'm protecting people's feelings', and when none of that works she leaves. Unless it's missing from your post, it seems like this person did not make an effort to understand what you were saying. I think you just have to keep moving until you find people who want to listen to you. Trust me when I say you will know when you find them because the experience will be unlike anything you had before.

It seems that I'm off topic so I'll just leave a few thoughts below and end my participation. If consent were present the person wouldn't be complaining about fraud. If someone takes something from you, how would bystanders know whether it was theft or not? Since you've already decided that consent is always present when items are exchanged without force, there isn't much to argue about. If you are curious I would ask yourself about situations where people are stolen from without their knowledge for example.

Yes, it's basically a trap designed to paralyze people.

Can you really blame someone for 'not understanding' an exchange when the other party is purposefully deceiving them? Why is it worse to reneg on a deal once it is agreed upon than it is to lie about it beforehand? In either case you are trying to steal from the other person. In fact I'm not sure how you can even say it takes place with consent, because if consent were present then how could you call it fraud? The way you phrase this is very important because fraud is not when someone misunderstands an exchange, it's when someone deliberately misrepresents what they are exchanging in order to deprive the other person of their property.

I consider dreams to be communication from ones unconscious mind, but even those are not direct feeding tubes of growth. You have to work hard to understand the meaning behind them in order to gain anything of value in terms of self-knowledge. The problem I have with drugs is the idea that they are some kind of automatic substitute, as if taking them opens up some shortcut to really know yourself.

This is confusing. You argue that people shouldn't say it's not a valid question, and then proceed to explain how it's not really a valid philosophical question? If you meant that people should explain the reason why then I get that, but the trolley problem definitely has nothing to do with philosophy. It's more in the category of games that kids in school might play. (Would you rather do X gross thing or Y gross thing? Why do I have to do either?) Not to mention that the guy is trolling. The trolley problem occurs everyday? Really? Well in that case it shouldn't be hard to dig up a few hundred cases to show everyone how important this 'philosophical problem' is. Taking this thread seriously is insulting posters who actually do research and spend some time thinking about the issue themselves rather than demand answers to masturbatory theoreticals...

You may have some entertaining experiences, which is perfectly fine, but the idea that you will gain knowledge or wisdom from a drug induced state seems rather silly. I enjoy the musical style of Tool myself but I can't help cringing at some of the mystical, eastern religious material that finds its way into their lyrics. What ritualistic stuff did you mean in particular? I'd agree that art, music, and dance can be both therapeutic and relaxing as well as great complements to the more rigorous practices of journaling or therapy though. What are these natural, mind-expanding substances that you're talking about?

Can't believe I missed this response... glad you enjoyed it man! I really loved that Jack Garratt song as well so I'm glad you linked it, it brings me feelings of joy and has me thinking everything will be ok. As you say it's not necessarily a message to live by but there's nothing wrong with getting a feeling of relief from a piece of beautiful music. Thanks for the feedback

Gave me chills

That's certainly how I define it, but in terms of the NAP it seems to be limited to the initiation or threat of violence against a person or their property. I'm just basing this on sources like Wikipedia or Libertarian articles by people like Stephan Kinsella, though it seems pretty common in other Libertarian literature on a cursory Google search. I think the reason it's done is because it's harder to draw the line where defensive force is acceptable in other cases. Violations other than direct force are more subtle and harder to explain. I'm assuming that's probably why my other post was downvoted at first, because I mentioned that I thought it would be ok even in cases like stalking. I think it's a reasonable thing to do given how even that iron-clad argument is argued about or rejected by people.

Haha, little did you know that I was inspired to write that last line by the very same video.

I think this is the reason that the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle is specifically limited to force, threats of force, and fraud (theft). Aggression certainly includes harassment, yelling, stalking, bullying, or intimidation of any kind, but not all of those situations justify violence in return, and that's mostly what the NAP is trying to establish. (I do think that insults are a form of aggression, but only when aggression is defined as a hostile action, which is not the definition used for the NAP) I've thought about something similar as well, the edge cases. What if someone placed a boombox outside of your house every night and actively tried to prevent you from sleeping? Or gas-lighted you 24/7? What about stalking? In any of these situations I don't think the use of force would bother me, even though they don't fit the literal definition of the NAP. I think there is a strong desire in general, and in particular in this community, for hard and fast rules when it comes to things like morality even when there are all kinds of exceptions and special cases that make such a thing near impossible. I think the best we can do is use the NAP as a guideline and then evaluate things on a contextual basis. It may seem obvious to us when looking at a specific case but hard to turn into a general principle.

That which is seen cannot be unseen.

I'd like to tell you what I think of that quote, but how can I trust my ability to read it when my eyes were not designed for such a thing? How can I know for sure this message will even get to you? Is this a computer? Am I real?

Edit:

Part of the reason for this is that women are put on a pedestal in our culture while men are perceived as dysfunctional but useful, so women are trained by their environment to expect this kind of treatment and men are too. I think if the communication in our society changed then the reverse would be possible. (though neither are desirable) The idiotic ideas floating around in our culture around success even cause these men to be 'grateful' for the sad situations they find themselves in, thinking that they are lucky to snag such a prize. It blows my mind.

Oh yeah absolutely. You can get paid that much to work at Costco or any cellular carrier in the US too. I'm not sure if there is a significant cost difference to operate in the US but it could just be a matter of having a much larger supply of labor driving down wages here. More employees competing with each other for the same jobs means employers don't feel pressure to increase wages in order to fill positions.

Questions are helpful, but I would probably ask only to get the conversation flowing and then listen a lot more. All the subtle things like: How they present themselves What topics are most interesting to them Whether they stop talking and do any listening themselves Do they ask questions that surprise you or show attention to detail Whether you disagree on anything and how that goes Whether they are engaged, lively, and interested in you Passionate about something that is not trivial by your standards Qualities they take pride in Qualities they expect in an ideal partner Do they speak in euphemisms or are they clear and concise Are they direct or do they leave a lot of hints instead ---<add more stuff here>--- You can learn all of this without asking about it directly. If you listen carefully people will tell you everything very quickly, and you'll eliminate probably 95% of candidates before you even get to the serious questions about core values and family history. Remember that these are markers for how they will be in a future relationship, and if anything they will be slightly exaggerated since everyone is excited at the possibilities of a new romantic relationship and wants to put their best qualities on display during the first date. I don't like interview questions. They are vague, subjective, boring, and everyone has heard them from managers before which leads to rote replies. What do they actually tell you about a person? How do you evaluate their answers? If I ran into someone who asked me those questions during a date I might just get up and walk away, because my first thought would be: "Are they so lacking in imagination that they can't even come up with original questions?". Kevin made a great point about checking in with yourself though, which I think is the best source of information about the date that you can get. Edit: I'll actually add one more tip that is very specific. Try mentioning your feelings during a date and see what happens. Many people respond negatively to the simple expression of your internal state, as if your feelings are: an imposition on them, manipulative and loaded with hidden meaning, something to ignore, or just plain terrifying/uncomfortable. If you are feeling extraordinarily brave you can even ask them about it. I'm not saying rule anyone out straight away based on this, but it could hint at what kind of background they grew up in and might lead to other avenues worthy of exploration.

It's not about what you say, it's about what you do. I know you said that you stopped yelling, but besides withdrawing a negative, what other ways have you changed your approach? How do you respond when they want something from you? You exemplify values through how you treat others, and people naturally want to reciprocate.

Did you go to college to be challenged and learn? Or was there a particular thing you were interested in pursuing professionally that you need a degree for?

Unless you have amnesia you will retain the memories of over a decade of experience with your parents. You will always be influenced by them, but that doesn't mean they are controlling you or that you will become them. If I said something like, "I don't want to hit or yell at my kids because my parents did that to me", would you say that this is bad since the parents are still relevant? That stuff aside, I think it's great that you feel free of your parents now and that you can do things you would previously deny yourself.

Why would you blame yourself like this? You mentioned preventing several prior attempts by your mother so she was determined to carry it out despite your actions and the effect that it would have on you. Were you supposed to live your life as her permanent suicide watch? What a cruel burden to place on your own child. So what excuses ('reasons') are there for the abuse they inflicted on you?

Damn, I'm really sorry to hear about that. That's a pretty scary situation to be in, assuming that you have few to no people you can rely on there. Careful with those euphemisms! You can get other people to like you by providing value through trade too, while manipulation is the strictly the currency of the bad and insecure. Why Vegas btw?