Marcus Clarke

Hello, I just wanted to share my FDR Gmail theme, which has a large FDR wallpaper in the background. Here it is:Click Here Marcus

Understand that all of these people who are abusing workers were taught by abusers that all relationships are abuser/victim relationships. The mainstream media calls the state-controlled market the “free market” like they call America the land of the “free”. It is just a lie. The current “market” is the murderer's market. The fact is that neither a resource-based economy nor a free market can be achieved without a stateless society, and a stateless society can not be achieved while the vast majority of parents use the aggression principle and hit their babies. The resource-based economy and the free market are not enemies. They play the game with the same fundamental rule: no one is ever allowed to initiate the use of force. They are competitors in a race that can not start until the contestants have the chains of their enslavement broken by those who are willing to stand up and act against the violence that parents inflict on their children.

No, do not Person X's parents near their children! Why would one let their abusers near their children? Remember that the fact that someone is your biological creator does not give them automatic access to your children. If your parent raped someone, would you let them near your children? No. If your parent abused you, would you let them near your children? No. Replace the word “parent” with “random person”, then you would clearly see this answer. However, the word “parent” is designed to disable your gut reaction to immoral behavior.

Friend, you need to call 1-800-273-TALK. It is a hotline provided by the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance. Just do it, now. Do not cut yourself again, and if you have that urge, do not pick up the blade, pick up the phone. You have the support of this community and the community at DBSA to continue to live and find a life free from abuse.

"Political Representation" is an illusion. Power of Attorney is an instance where a person can "represent" you regarding your life, your money, your property, etc. Would you agree to give Power of Attorney to 317 million random people? Could you actually trust every person inside of a population of millions of people to represent your mind? Of course not. You probably would not give your closest ten friends the Power of Attorney over you.

The "past" is not a living organism, so it can not create actions in the objective world. However, a living organism can have history that influences which action, of all possible actions that it could do at that point in time, is chosen as the action that is performed by the living organism. The past of an organism does not change the fact that the organism can choose any action that is possible for that organism to do, but the organism does use the past as a reference point for which action will most likely achieve the most desired preference of the organism at that moment in time.

What exactly do you mean by "everything we do" and "our past"?

Well, a stateless society requires people who use reason and truth in their personal lives. If a parent told a child that they were going to go to Church, and the child said “No”, then the parent would not take their child to Church. If a parent told a child that he must pray before dinner, and the child said “No”, then the parent could not hit/spank/assault their child in order for them to mutter words while in front of the dinner plate. It is important to understand that a permanent stateless society will never be created by unreasonable and irrational people. The state requires anti-reason and anti-rationality to exist, which is why the state thrives in this world just as much as religion does. Religious teaching happens in the home before public school. It never exits the home and then only exists in schools. Parents specifically design the minds of children to believe in God until they die. Public school simply does not turn religious children into atheists. Religious children inoculate their children against reason and evidence, which is why reason and evidence generally do not work/appeal to religious people. The state, and therefore state education is an enemy of reason. The church threatens you with hell, and the state threatens you with prison. I think that you are making an assumption that people do not want to be educated (this is not true! People educate themselves all the time in things that they have interest in). It may also be important to understand that the historical evidence shows that intelligence and education mean nothing against the power religion. Why are the top 20% of students not atheists if education can destroy religion? It is because religion is immune against education. To defeat religion, people need parents who love them (never hit/threaten them, [be the guide, not the ruler]), and religious parents simply do not love their children, they love the idea of children. Left wing, right wing. Same vulture, different colored feathers. I felt a bit anxious when you said "You have a reading comprehension problem". If you could, please refrain from insults in order to present what you have to say. College is way past the point at the religion virus passes from the parent to the child. We need to focus on the point at which the virus passes from one person to the other. The solution is to try to convince every parent and potential parent to stop hitting/threatening their children, and to start using reason and logic with them. Of course children do not deserve religiously deranged parents. However, it is people in the community that must do the intervention, not the state. The state has failed over and over and over and trying to stop immoral behavior (how many times does an employee have to fail before you fire them?). The state presents itself as the savior, and this blocks people from recognizing that groups of individuals could solve these problems. "Are you really that ignorant" is a statement designed to inflict emotional pain on the person that you are talking to. This is exactly what religious fanatics do to their children. Please avoid using sentences designed to hurt others. The pain that you just tried to convey is the pain that children can not deflect due to a natural lack of brain development. The pain is dealt, then the religious virus infects the child, and then it is over for that child, and thus over for us all as the power of religion grows.

Infidelity may be a result of a lack of honest communication about one's thoughts in an environment where one expects to be attacked physically or mentally in response to honesty. What I mean is, if you had a loving, honest relationship, why did you not tell the person that you were interested in starting a relationship with the other woman? I would think that emotional pain was not something that is dealt with while you were were growing up, or you were attacked for expressing emotions or feelings. Perhaps any attempt to deal with emotions and feelings were shut down by parents who generally wanted you to stay quiet so that they would not have to deal with emotions ("calm done", "stop crying", "how about we watch TV or play a game to take your mind off of it"). However, when you do not process your thoughts and feelings with others due to fear of attack or neglect, then you start rationalizing and normalizing deception to avoid attack. When you have honest conversation in a truly and loving non-violent relationship, even when topics are hard, the pressure in your mind goes down, and it does not activate the flight-or-fight mechanism. Recognize that you have probably have never seen a relationship where two people are totally curious and nice to each other, even through hard, painful topics. Your model (father) for how a relationship works with a woman is that honesty is not required for the relationship.

I think that it is important to remember that you do sign a contract with a homeowner's association, and that you are bound to that contract. The "social contract" is a phrase designed to avoid the argument that you have not signed any contracts with a government.

To say that the style was not "appropriate" seems like an attempt to rationalize and defend how FreeEach switched to a bullying demeanor after you found potential empirical evidence for FreeEach's argument. This is not a "secondary thing", and it is a part of the presentation of the argument. However, when people start to bully, they are repeating this childhood terror of angry reasoning such as "my reasoning + my evidence + my conclusion = you are an inferior stupid ignorant animal of a child, and I can now expose you to your friends/siblings as a stupid idiot and gain the respect of all because I know so much compared to you". The moral way to teach people is to be kind, present your argument, present your evidence, and answer questions about your argument without trying to project pain onto people (pain might result from truth, but you should not use name calling in a discussion in order to produce pain in someone else). So, after I saw abuse being used instead of argumentation, I did point it out. I do reject the assertion that this was brought up because I was trying to "bury" the argument. I spoke about it because when people are abusive, they need to see it to have a chance at not doing it again.I did find the original argument interesting, I honestly think that anyone could kindly talk about the original topic again by starting a new forum post. I think that I would even be interested in that participating in the discussion.

Rational principles will only be followed by those who are rational. Remember that this conversation is about the following the NAP (and UPB) because they are rational and logical. In that case, we are not talking about the state or corporations or neighborhoods, we are talking about the fact that it is immoral for individuals to initiate the use of violence against other people. Try this: imagine the situation again where the true physical ability to initiate the use of violence is impossible (some physical law of nature prevents it). If you want someone to move out of your neighborhood, how would you do it?

Perhaps you are dealing with people where in their childhood, the way that their parents would "make them understand" things is to yell at them, curse at them, or called them terrible names in order to control what they were doing. So, you are trying to reason with them, but since they were not reasoned with as a child and have not experienced an awakening from that abusive method, when you start talking to them like that, you are actually bringing them back into their childhood comfort zone. This is not great or ideal, but it is good to know when you are trying to figure out how to understand what other people are experiencing.

Trying to understand a "centralized monopoly of force" is a bit hard to pin down on meaning. One definition for the "centralized monopoly of force" (state) might be "a group of humans who institute the most threats of and carried out murders, assaults, and thefts in a geographic region.". This is not compatible with the NAP. Many of the words the come from violent language: "organize the society", "monopoly of force", "flat tax", "age of consent". "Taxation" necessarily requires murder, because those who do not want to pay and do not want to leave the arbitrary geographic region will be killed if they try to defend themselves. "Organize the society" has no objective meaning, except that if someone does not want to conform how society is organized, they can be murdered. If people got together to pay people to do stuff without the threat of murder, they would call it a "monthly subscriber fee" or a "monthly service charge". They would not enter into contracts where their children can be murdered if they grow up to not want to sign the contract and not leave the arbitrary geographic area.

I think that you should ask yourself if you are speaking the truth. If you have reviewed the facts in your mind, and find that they are true, then you are probably speaking truth. When people speak truth to abusers who continue to try to hide or falsify the truth, then the abuser may try to make emotional arguments against you. There is a possibility that they know that you are afraid of being a bully, and then use that knowledge along with false statements to trick you into thinking that you are a bully, and then they disable your ability continue to conversation. I do also want to remind you that empathy is one of the most important traits to work on as you think about these things. Try to really understand the other person's perspective, even if that person is someone that is trying to claim that you are bullying them. Never call them a name, never say a "bad word" (sorry for the subjective nature of the phrase) against the person, and never stray away from the argument (it can be a very emotional experience). The purpose of speaking truth is not to cause pain, but to identify the damage caused by lies and to try to prevent future damage from happening. A true conversation will not end with people yelling at each other and calling each other names, even when they get hard to process and emotional. If you never allow yourself the mirror the bait of escalation by the other party, then it is going to be that much harder for the other party to escalate it. They want you "to start it" so they can be allowed "to finish it".

I do understand your thought that a fear of the truth could result in an accusation of a personal attack, and that could apply in other cases. Please note that the only quotations that I made in my prior post involved you using the words "chumsky" and "alpha ape" to describe a person. I did not say anything about your argument against Stefan Molyneux's integrity in the conversation with Chomsky. You are using the word "fangs" to apply the idea of animal-like or non-thinking behavior to other people. This is not fair. Did anyone call you an animal?You say that you have to be "cunning" to deliver the truth. Well, that is not true. If you have the truth, then all you need is to be consistently nice. If the truth was that Stefan had a lack of integrity, you present great argumenation, and you stayed consistently nice, then you could bring the truth to people. Once anyone starts to call people names, the conversation is destroyed. You said that you "will continue to speak the truth... with politeness", but you did not do this previously. Therefore, the word "continue" is not true.So, you use the word "sheeple" in an attempt to apply the idea of mindlessness and non-thinking to a group of people. It always bothers me when people, including libertarians, that use this word to describe the majority of people in the world. The word "sheeple" is used by an intellectual bully to make themselves feel superior to others. That superior feeling may feel real, but it based on nothing. Everyone is an individual, and to try to attack their self worth or person hood is just wrong. Please stop. I might have appreciated your recommendations to the books that you listed if you were not insulting people in the same paragraph. I would like everyone to stop for a moment, and think about their next possible response. While you are writing it, if you are calling any person a name in any way, then delete that sentence, and move on. You can not figure out whether a person has integrity if you do not keep your own.

At this point, your conversation has moved into a personal attack, which is not only an insult to philosophy, it is an insult to truth and falsehood. I want to also point out that you are crafting a statement in a warlike way, which is frustrating considering that war is immoral. Again, you are using words that (I theorize) are intended to entice other FDR readers to say things that are anti-philosophical (which is what you might find in other forums). However, many of us can now see the words fashioned by bullies and tormentors as empty and null. Those are the words you add to this anti-conversation.

Is there a particular instance where you think that this may have happened? In your history with your parents, did they ever make you feel like you were in a position where you were standing up for yourself, but they told you or made you feel like you were being a bully?

I was just curious why they pay for you to live in another city if you are not employed. Meaning, why would they not just have you live with them to save the money?

If this guy is just beyond reason for you and the group, why did you/do you stay around him? Is there money involved, or is it a voluntary project? Is there any want to get a group discussion without him to potentially remove him from the project? There is a certain point where if you try to be kind to people, and they simple continue to be mean or possibly want to be tyrannical in this case, that you just ostracise them (preferably with anyone who agrees with your reasoning for the ostracism). Back to the original topic, I do not see how you can be a bully by defending yourself against a bully. However, you still give them false justification by using swear words, and even giving them false justification is a sour thing.

If someone is irrationally screaming at you, then they being abusive/bullying. In my opinion, I do not think that you should ever respond with words like "douche" or other adjectives that are used to invite other people to attack you harder. I would recommend saying that a specific statement or set of words is not reasonable because of whatever your reasoned opinions are. Honestly, I still do not understand how one goes from the "etc etc" to him screaming at you. However, I would like to point out that the second conversation you seem to serve Man A instead of having a more fruitful discussion because you are not addressing his to definition of the words in the discussion. He says "Yeah, but we are trying to be serious.", and then you say "Sometimes people forget stuff.". The word "serious" is defined as the objective of the event, and it is subjectively defined. So, when you pass that up, he believes that you agree that the Man B is not "serious". However, "Man B" is obviously serious with his kids if he tucks them into bed at night, and them comes over to work on the movie. He says "I spend a lot of time trying to make this thing work", then you say "Okay, meaning what?". If I heard that statement, then I would probably reaffirm that I agree that he does work hard to make this work. Mirroring that opinion does not mean that other people are not working hard. It is just recognizing his input into the project. You said "meaning what" almost in a dismissive way. Then you say "Yeah, I get that, but do you want to get mad about it or do you want to be productive?". Notice that you are telling him that he is becoming "mad" without him telling you first. I know that there is body language, tone, and what not. However, that person may not actually be becoming mad in their mind. So, to accuse someone of becoming "mad" might actually trigger them to become more so that way. It may be better to allow them to express that feeling to you first, or pose it as a question. That may be why he says "What?" right after that sentence. I also just wanted to point out that earlier in the conversation you said "I get that" after he said "he should put in the same effort as me", but then near the end, you say "So just because he doesn't want to contribute the same percentage as you he should leave? That's not cool.", which contradicts your earlier statement. I am only pointing this out so that it can be thought about. I still feel like I am missing the point where it goes from a discussion to someone being a bully. You say that the discussion devolves, but even at the point where the conversation was at in the end, the destination of the conversation was not necessarily to end with the use of power. I am also curious as to why you define bullying as non-negotiation followed by the use of power. It seems to me that bullying would only require the use of power (verbal or physical abuse) against you. So, the non-negotiation is annoying, but not necessary for the bully. I mean, he might let you pick your poison, right?

Your defensive actions are not an offensive actions. Defense is not offense. If no one is on offense, there is no need for defense. The offense might be tricking you into believing that you are also on offense so that you will self-attack and defeat yourself, and therefore the true offense wins while the true defense loses. Would you mind giving a real-life referense with conversation examples where the other person is "monolithic to you" and you are "monolithic in your response". Specifically, I am curious as to what dialogue is considered "monolithic".

"This video has been removed because it is too long."

Maybe an online turn-based game so that everyone can take their turn whenever their children are asleep. Might take a few years to finish though

Your DRO would offer to handle crime that not only happens directly to you, but happens in your local area. I would not want my children living anywhere near an abuser, and if I found out about it, my DRO would need to handle the situation, or they would not be my DRO anymore. I would have no more assumption of safety for my kids if they want to go outside to play, and this guy would be in the proximity to hurt them. Why wouldn't I have a DRO that would handle that situation?