Lians

I'm sorry, I should have clarified that my questions weren't directed at you, but the FDR ladies in general. The feelings I expressed at the beginning are the only part of my post that is related to what you said.

I got a little angry when I read the text in bold. The anger was immediately followed by self-attack and anxiety about bringing this up. I found this very interesting and decided to mull it over while I was preparing my lunch. This definitely isn't the first time I've felt this way and I'm not sure why that is. I also discovered a lot of bitterness and frustration. When Stef first brought up these issues and started inviting people like Karen Straughan and Warren Farrell to the show I felt invigorated. "Great! An issue that's being bugging me for a long time is finally on the table. Now I'll be able to look at the other side's perspective!" I got on the forum and started looking for ongoing discussions. I knew women with self-knowledge would be the best source of information and I wanted to get their feedback. Much to my surprise, there was nothing. A few threads that died quickly and that's about it. I fully admit that I may have missed such a discussion. However, in the few threads that were created I got this lingering sense of indifference and defensiveness. As if people were saying: "Yes, we get that there's a problem, but can we please move on and stop bringing this up?" Take this thread for example. We all understand that it's impossible to have conversations about general problems without some degree of generalization, right? By now, we should all know that general statement don't say anything about specific cases until those cases are explicitly examined. Most of you are old-time members, I'm not saying anything new here. Having said that, why do you feel like you have to decorate your arguments with so many disclaimers? What are you afraid of? Every disclaimer makes our trenches deeper and it's not bringing us any closer. "Women in my childhood harmed me, but I understand not all women are like that." If the first part is true, why do you need the second one? I've also noticed some comments about Stef being out to get people's girlfriends and women-bashing in the chat room and YouTube. Do you think this is true? More importantly, do you feel that it's true? All this may be a projection on my end, but I still wanted to bring it up and get other people's feedback.

I wanted to bring up the last quarter of the podcast. When Stef said, "Fuck you world," a strangely familiar feeling of anger arose within me. His comment on boys reaching around and destroying the future when they're denied attachment also resonated very strongly with me. Upon some introspection, I realized that much of my childhood existed in a duality between the desire to create and a dark, vengeful urge to smash everything into pieces. "If the world can't accommodate me then to hell with it all!" I used to be an angry cynic. I know where much of this comes from, but does anyone else have similar experiences? How common is this?

That's not the issue here. The podcast points out the reasons why men are, generally, not capable of doing the things you suggested. Apart from Stef and some other guys on this forum, I've never known a man who could truly connect with someone on an emotional level. What's worse, we tend to get attacked by women and other men if we ever try to do that. While I was growing up, the only time I've shared my honest experience (mind you, not even emotions) was with other male friends. It's happened a handful of times when I could hardly bear the things that were happening with me. We never spoke of these conversations ever again. It was a dirty secret. Conspiratorial even. It wasn't right... Why did we feel this way? For the most part, I've been able to turn this around through work on self-knowledge. There's a lot more that needs to be done, but assigning proper responsibility, to me, marks the beginning of the healing process. This podcast gave me a good starting point.

Good point.

I've listened to a podcasts in which Stef talks about the lack of women in the libertarian movement. His arguments came down to women not being particularly interested in dry abstractions (politics, economics and so forth). I'll link to the podcast if I remember the name. I've never found that to be the case. In my experience, women are perfectly capable of handling all these abstractions. The left is full of women and they seem to relish in all the abstract ideas. Karen Straughan (girlwriteswhat) pointed out that the libertarian movement is male dominated because the state serves most women quite well. Why would they oppose it? If I remember correctly, she makes the case in this video (or in one of Stef's interviews with her):

This is definitely one of Stef's best videos. I'm not an exception to what he's talking about either. I can relate to the sadness and anger you experienced while listening to this podcast. Ironically, just before I listened to it, someone posted a video in the chat that got me a little angry: I've been quite sensitive to things like that ever since girlwriteswhat illuminated the disposability that was instilled in me. It's frightening to see how these ideas are so deeply embedded in our culture. I think most people, especially women, instinctively understand how dangerous men can be. That's why they have to put us down and belittle us in times of almost universal hypocrisy and evil. Didn't Mao use China's youth, particularly the boys, to put a smoking crater in the country's history? On a side note, an older podcast complements this one quite well: http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2081_which_war_are_you_bred_for.mp3

Player One Machinae Supremacy Lyrics: A misfit to this space no religion no real place I grow weary of these walls so tired of it all Dull gray and endless days here where evil has no face It is hidden from my eyes unseen or in disguise Welcome to a world where you always get the girl You may lose a fight or two but you'll win if you get through Face up and challenge all you ever knew since you could crawl Always looking somewhere else when it's all inside yourself I wanna play until I die don't wanna lose my reasons why I race towards the sky in a world that never ends I keep coming back for more keep coming back until I score always stronger than before in a world that never ends now I feel like that again! Tomorrow I will be here, and I won't be the only one. Our dreams will always adhere to a world beyond this one Meaning: There's not much to analyse about this song. It describes my journey towards philosophy and self-knowledge very well.

Just you wait! Quantum computing will bring about the true communist utopia. That and, eh, glow in the dark rats...

I had a quick look at the comments and holy shit... They seem to be handing out these philosophy degrees like candy on Halloween.

I'm not going to read 3 pages of comments, but I'm going to say that even though logic has a mathematical formulation, you can't just randomly throw mathematical terminology in the mix. The definitions of negative and opposite are context specific. The invertibility property of addition generalises the concept of negation. The concepts of negation and inverse (opposite) are functionally equivalent under addition. However, when it comes to a multiplication operation, the inverse is the reciprocal, not the negative. In other words, invertibility is also a generalisation of a reciprocal. In a binary good-evil context, I don't see any problem in using these terms interchangeably. You are, after all, assigning a moral value to specific actions, not a class of actions. Giving and taking are distinct actions even though we tend to generalize them as opposites. The opposite/negative property doesn't apply to the class that includes both giving and taking. "Refraining from theft," refers to a class of actions that excludes theft. That's why Stef implies it's impossible to assign a moral value to it: "We can think of it as a “necessary but not sufficient” requirement for virtue." EDIT (A more mathematical explanation): You've got a set A that contains actions and a set M containing only "good" and "evil". UPB defines consistent rules for assigning members of set A to members of the set A x M (Cartesian product of A and M). Negation/inverse are properties defined on the co-domain (A x M), where the negative/inverse of (good, action) is defined to be (evil, action). UPB also introduces a set of operations (tests) defined on the co-domain. These operations (2-men-in-a-room test, coma test etc.) have the goal of determining the internal consistency of a particular moral proposition. This is why UPB is a framework for evaluating moral propositions, not a rule book for proper behaviour. Stefan uses UPB to prove the validity of certain moral propositions, but that's only an application of UPB. The distinction between theory and application isn't well defined in the first edition. The second edition should mitigate this problem.

I appreciate the apology and I accept it. I know Agilistas can be frustrating to deal with. I'll provide some clarifications since my fortune cookie type of answer wasn't enough. Whenever you're communicating with another person, you're encoding some kind of information (what I called "knowledge claim") into words or other appropriate units. The other side then decodes that information and processes it in some way (reply, change of behaviour and so forth). A meaningful exchange of ideas/communication is therefore impossible if both sides don't have the same encoding/decoding algorithm - definitions or common experiences. In other words, in the absence of agreed upon definitions and/or common perception apparatuses, communication is an exercise in futility. Definitions in a debate aren't provided so that people can argue about semantics, they're a way of establishing a common ground of understanding. Of course, you can then use tools like reason and experiment to evaluate the consistency of the definition. People usually get stuck endlessly arguing about definitions because they aren't interested in a debate. They want the other party to unconditionally agree with a certain proposition. You've already seen that in the case of Agile debates. Here's what's different about the situation we're dealing with. Since you decided to engage in a debate, you've implicitly accepted the value and validity of the process. As a side note (in case you find the previous statement questionable), this idea is formalized in the study of human action - praxeology. When you refer to the idea of "God" in your arguments, you're encoding some information (meaning/signified) into a particular form/signifier (the label "God"), which the rest of us automatically decode based on our subjective experiences. To achieve a certain standard of objectivity, we have to ask you for the definition that you're using. When you refuse to provide a definition or claim that a specific definition is impossible/impractical, you're essentially saying to us that the signifier you used carries no meaning. This defeats the entire purpose of communication, let alone debating. To put it in Stefan's terms (I reckon I can do this since I explained the argument in a lot detail), you're putting forward a self-detonating proposition, because the act of debating invalidates the argument. This is why Wesley said the following: If we were to argue semantics, we'd be examining the meaning behind the signifier. In this case, the problem was with the signifier/form itself. That's what I meant by: "...you don't debate with people who can't even get the form of their arguments right," in my first reply to your post. Admittedly, I phrased it in a provocative manner for which I apologise. I was quite annoyed at the way powder conducted himself in the prior exchange and it spilled over to you. Now, you chose to debate, you're clearly able to encode some information into the "God" signifier and you can distinguish between this particular knowledge claim (God) and other kinds of information (apple). That's how we know, objectively, that you've used some definition (the encoding algorithm) to communicate the "God" idea. Why this definition is not consciously available to you is a different matter altogether. I know you're able to reason about these kinds of things, so I suspected there might be emotions involved (hence the "know thyself" bit). I hope this post makes things a bit more clear. I wrote this wall of text to explain a 6-sentence post... Perhaps I should stick to fortune cookie answers after all.

So, the only counter-argument you could come up with is that you're right and I'm nit-picking semantics? Let's add to that a generous amount of straw men and ad hominems. 1.5 years and 436 posts on this board and you consider this an argument? Yes, I'm making myself look foolish.

I love this. Using a specific knowledge claim (God) while avoiding a "narrow and specific" definition. Do I get to put whatever I want under the label God? Is an apple a God? This is why you don't debate with people who can't even get the form of their arguments right. There's a reason why the aphorism "know thyself" became popular amongst the ancient Greeks.

Excellent points. I have very early memories of my parents telling me I should always take care of my sister. They also told me I should personally deal with anyone that bullies her in school. When I look back, it's quite funny that these big, strong, knowledgeable adults relied on a kid to do their job.

This sounds like a pretty major breakthrough. Congratulations! Is it reasonable to say that you had assumed the role of a father with regards to your sister? When you're 14, you're not responsible for protecting your siblings. You have very little capacity to that (both legal and physical). That's the job of the parents.

Guys, don't get sucked in. This is a guy who comes to a philosophy board and says this: And in the same post continues on to say this:

Welcome to the board! That's an impressive conversion!

I want to know the facts and I don't have the time to do the research? The facts give me an estimate of how bad things are and how I should prepare.

That's a wonderful approach! Statists will never be able to prove that I'm wrong! Mwahahaha!

I see... If I don't provide a definition this means there's a possibility of what I'm saying being true. I'll take that!

Look at the number of views her videos get and the number of subscribers to her channel. Now compare these numbers to the FDR channel. *weeps*

Ubisoft is full of closet anarchists!

Thanks! I've been looking forward to this one.

There are limitations if you care about the truth. If you don't, I don't see why we should continue discussing this. This is a philosophy board after all. Logic is illogical. I knew it!