Marcus Clarke

Does person A not trust person B? If B says that they had an event happen that was more important that building a shed, then does A believe this statement, or not? If A does not believe this statement, then why did A expect B to come by on Saturday? If A and B are friends, why is respect the goal, and not trust? Why would A and B try to defend themselves against each other if they are friends? I do not see how a reassurance that God was going to "fix" the arm would make any non-theist's concerns go away. The "agree to disagree" is one of the series of recommendations that he had in the video. It was not necessarily the solution for every "power struggle". I am not certain that rational people just "suddenly" start to act irrational. Your example shows an irrational person who continues to act irrational in thinking about how to fix their arm. Do people tell you that you are a bully, or is that something that you describe yourself as? Your statement makes me think that for you, either you think they are the bully, or they think you are the bully. Why is the bully a constant?

Hello from Southern California!

What are the "different feelings" that you experience when you try to make conversation? Do you talk to your parents about this, or do you feel the same when you try to talk to your parents? You said "When I ignore or give them small responses and they stop - then I sort of feel independent and recognized": what do you mean by "recognized" in this sentence? Do you want to learn more about having conversations, or do you want to learn more about having less conversations?

The real question is why do parents allow their children to grow up without the skills and training necessary to obtain a job that is worth more than the minimum wage? It is a constant thought in my mind that my children have to build up knowledge, learn skills and acquire habits that can allow themselves to make money or to make money for other people in the form of a job.

http://rss.infowars.com/20131213_Fri_Alex.mp3 Stefan is introduced at 2 hours, 8 minutes.

Just out of curiosity, why would you love to see a chat between her and Stefan?

The idea of "Normal" is created and used by abusers to invoke our universalization processes with the goal to create a false universal identity that everyone should conform to that has no logical or rational basis. The purpose of this is to help them control their own emotional reactions to people who do not fit in to the “Normal” identity that was imposed on them as a child.

Do you think that weirdness is objective? Why is the word "weird" used instead of the word "abnormal" to potentially describe the opposite of normal? What is your definition of "weirdness" in this context?

I misunderstood the "when people come to me for help that I ask them to review the thought train that got them to me" as something different than "I ask them if they have tried step a, step b, step c and then they answer the questions or tell me they have not tried.". Good idea. Also I find that some people might have a hard time relating why they think something like that. How do you know that? Did you ask someone and they told you that they could not describe it to you?

What do they say to you directly after you ask them to review their train of thought that brought them to you? Why are you guarding your knowledge from fellow employees?

Assassination might work in a free society to help keep statist societies from attacking free societies. However, it can not work in a statist society because another person will always take the place of the ruler. There will only be no rulers when the majority of people want no rulers. Basically, this "service" is entirely set up to take away your money from something that is effective to something that is not effective. We will not live to see the free society. Our children will not live to see the free society. This does not mean that we should not do the things that are necessary to lay the foundation for the free society. It does mean that we have to find satisfaction with every small victory over illusion, and it does also mean that we should spend our resources on people who specialize in advocating the end of violence against children.

Do you know a solution for this problem? The government does not seem to provide the solution.

Use the argument for morality. It is immoral to use violence to force someone else to pay a certain wage to someone. One can not morally put a gun to head of my boss, and demand money from him. Likewise, one can not morally hire people to point guns at business owners across the "nation", and demand money from them.

The couple living only on Bitcoins was a great test case. However, when we are looking trying to sell Bitcoin to a large group of people, Bitcoin, like any other product, needs to be something that can be easy for people to use. That couple drove 50 miles to the nearest Bitcoin gas station. That impracticality is where most people just say, look, I'm not going to use Euros, Francs, Pounds, Krones, Pesos, Yen, or whatever other currency is not commonly accepted. I am going to use the Dollar because I can spend it anywhere. This does not mean that there is anything wrong with Bitcoin, or that Bitcoin will never be adopted. The original question was "Are people ready for bitcoin?", and due to the inability to spend it at the places that people spend their Dollars, people (consumers) are not ready for bitcoin. I do believe, it is sellers that are ready for Bitcoin. They just need to have people teach them what it is and how it will save them money.

I do not think that the majority of people would understand the link between using Bitcoin and weakening the state. That is to the benefit who can see the state's actions as violent, so I do not know if it is something that should be advertised. One of the major, valid complaints about Bitcoin is that you can not do your everyday purchases. To solve this, I think that Bitcoin needs to be marketed to businesses on a massive scale as a money saving tool (Coinbase does this). Transaction costs using credit cards are just ridiculous, and the reason why many businesses started using ACH payment processing (digital checks) was because a credit card charge fee could be 2-5% of the entire payment, but an ACH payment fee could be $0.25 to $0.50 per payment. However, because ACH is not an instant payment (it takes several business days to clear), it stands at a technical disadvantage to credit cards. Bitcoin really provides the best of both worlds (low fee and instant transaction). The more businesses that accept Bitcoin, the more people will use Bitcoin. It really does mean something if Walmart, CostCo, Target, and places that people physically go to start to accept Bitcoin. They could also give discounts for Bitcoin users like Target does for their ACH users (the Target “Red Card” processes your payment through ACH, which is why you get the 5% discount on all of your purchases.). The fact that Bitcoin can allow for businesses to save money and offer incentives to their buyers to use Bitcoin is an important message to spread when talking about Bitcoin. This is the “real-world” application that people are looking for.

If we are using the same word “morality”, but we are not using the same definition, therefore we can have a different basis for morality. If you conform to religious Christian morality, then you have categorization of human actions based on the Bible, and then those actions have the attributes that say that they are moral, immoral, or neither. However, the stories in the Bible are not real, the consequences of immoral actions are not real, and thus the theory of religious Christian morality fails for many reasons. The theory of scientific morality requires rationality if you are trying to develop morality in the context of science. Morality can best be compared to Biology. I do not know if I can convince you that modern Biology is the best methodology for categorizing biological organisms and characteristics because you personally will gain some material advantage from this. However, I can tell you irrational biology could have you call dogs and cats the same animal, fish and dinosaurs the same species, etc. Irrational morality would say that spanking is not hitting, kidnapping is a moral punishment for non-violent actions, and that war is peace. When you leave out science, you leave out your guards against crazy. Crazy should not infect your life and mind: it is not healthy, not satisfying, and can be dangerous to your self. Crazy takes your individual life, and puts it in jeopardy in quite a variety of ways. If they are barbarians (in the context that I think that you are thinking), then they already have a theory of morality that says that they can murder and steal from whomever they want to. The argument for property rights does try to stand against people who want to ignore the property rights of others or frankly do not care it. There is no magic switch to make people just start caring about morality (and especially not right before they are about to violate your property rights!). No one can make someone care about biology or evolution if they believe in a god that circumvents all the reasoning for those arguments. People who commit immoral actions are not rational because they have decided to violate property rights, which are rational and logical. If the criminal does this action, then they have decided that their right to someone's property does exist, and that that person no longer has a right to that property. However, this is a self-destructive statement. If no one else owns anything, then you do not own anything either, and thus would not steal it because it will not be yours. You can not create a valid theory of morality where stealing is moral. So, you can steal the item, but you can not pretend that stealing is moral, logical, rational, or scientific. You could also state that morality does not exist, and that you are going to take whatever you want, but if I present you with an argument that morality does exist, then you are either need to try to understand the argument, or just say, to hell with you, I am going to steal your stuff whenever I want to and I do not care what anyone says about it.

This sentence is not logical. If you say "Please don't say UPB" and then "instead of referring me to someone else", you have implied that UPB is a person, and that is not true. UPB is a system of morality that is scientific, logical, rational, and empirical. I feel like this sentence was intended to disarm the arguments in UPB without having to do the work to disprove the system. The term "better off" is totally subjective. I would say that you are not better off because you would have allowed your mind to decay to a point where it could not process rational thoughts. However, you are ignoring this person's property rights to their own body while asserting that you have property rights over your own body. How can you logically claim to own your body if you do not recognize that the other person also owns their body? Yes, it is irrational. That free chocolate comes at the cost of your logical, rational mind. You could tell yourself that you are being rational and logical, but people tell themselves lies all the time to justify their actions. Yes, thieves, assaulters, murderers, and rapists do material advantage, but that advantage is multiplied hundreds of times when people can not see or understand that theft, assault, murder, and rape are immoral. That is the society that exists today. The science of morality is not about figuring out how to gain the greatest amount of materials for the least amount of work (see the economic sciences), it is about researching which human actions can truly be called moral, immoral, or morally neutral. You are not "stunted" in your mind. I would argue that it requires a great deal of intelligence to never steal. No, it is not rational to ignore the losses of other people, and no, no one is “retarded” for acting morally. So, in the scenarios you present, you exempt yourself from retribution. Basically, you say, well I do this, I benefit, and no one can hurt me after that. Well, that is not reality. There is no reason why the family of the person that you murdered would not murder you if they found you. The science of morality serves a fundamental and nearly impenetrable defense against murders, assaulters, thieves, and rapists. It goes beyond the concept of the “Nuclear Option”. It attacks these immoral actions not with physical force, but with mental force. “Mental force”, or course, would mean rational argumentation. Once it is understood to most people that scientifically-based morality proves that beyond a shadow of a scientific doubt that murders, assault, theft, and rape is immoral after someone reads the Morality Science textbooks, then your defense, your shield against the immoral people no longer requires armies, tanks, battleships, and nuclear weapons. It will only require a scientific, reasonable, logical people, and the arguments for scientific morality. But, here we are in the world of unscientific, unreasonable, illogical people. I would rather be in the peaceful world, but I am glad to be helping to build the peaceful world. Otherwise, if no one tries to build the peaceful world, then it will have a true zero per cent chance of occurring. The fact is that the chance of it occurring is much more than zero right now.

I think that you need to be careful about arguing from within the framework of Statism. "Rights" do not exist. They are created by humans for one reason or another. They are not scientifically tested (by the general population). Morality is not an action that "does not require energy". If I let my children starve, even though it took no energy on my part, that does not make that action moral. What we need to do is expose the violence of Statism to people. Once they agree that violence is immoral and that Statism is human organized violence, then they will necessarily understand that "free healthcare" is not a valid argument.Remember that when you bring up the thoughts of "cost" and "shortage of resources", then you are skipping ahead in the development of the argument. Once you bring up the disagreement that healthcare should not require violence to obtain, then you must argue on that point until it is solved (by the way - if you do solve it by agreeing that healthcare should be solved by violence, then you should make a post about that one!). When you talk to others, I think that you should assume that they assume that the government can actually achieve the goals that it sets out to do. So, let's pretend that the government can provide awesome healthcare to every single person. Let's also pretend that they can make everyone feel happy with their life, and when they need more money, they get it. Let's pretend that government makes certain that no citizens (non-goverment persons) steal or kill. Do those ends justify the means of the government? This is the "Brave New World" scenario. Another way to phrase it might be, "How much murder, assault, and theft should humans do to solve all of the problems in the world?" The moral answer is "None.". This is also why parenting is such an important part of nonviolence. Parents terrorize children because the "ends justify the means". "My child will be a better person if I just hurt her a little right now. She will thank me for it later." The child grow up, understanding this logic through the observation of their senses, and prescribe it to their fellow humans. In a sense, when you try to fight this antilogic in other people, then what you are doing is you are activating someone else's defense mechanism against the moral crimes that have been commited against them in their life, which they have masked by illusion that the "ends" (who they are now) justified the means (the violence they received).