Josh F

The example you give is not fraud. If the broker said "gold is only worth $20" then he is engaged in fraud. If he simply says "I'll give you $20 for the bracelet" and the person agrees, this is a fair trade. Fraud is "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage."

I just want to add a big fat YUP!

No, thats a strawman. If your action threatens or uses violence against me, including my property, I can defend myself. If your actions inadvertently cause damages, under Civil Law, I am entitled to recompense. Playing loud music is not a threat against you, nor a direct attack on you and therefor it is not permissible to use violence. However, it could be argued to inadvertently cause damages, and thus if you can make the case you'd be entitled to arbitrate the dispute. You can request compensation for anything you want, it doesn't mean the other party will provide it, or that a third party arbitrator will support that request. If you can demonstrate loses, they might.

Finding music disruptive is an aesthetic, not a moral, argument. So, no and no. To "require" would be a euphemism to force, so that is an NAP violation. I understood the point, in so far as the letters and words made sense when strung together, but I don't accept that aggression is subjective. UPB is how one determines aggression and I sincerely recommend you check out the book, it is free on this website and might help you better understand the NAP. And I think another thing worth mentioning: moral philosophy is not about determining if it is okay to punch someone in the face because they spit on your property. In all cases, PEACEFUL NEGOTIATION is recommended as a first step to solving complex social problems and violent self defense should be reserved only under imminent danger and the breakdown of peaceful negotiations.

I think this is another example of spiritualism being a guise for escapism. Unfortunately, the things which happened to you in your life did happen to you, and they always will have happened to you. Thats an uncomfortable reality for some people.

The amount of pedophilia in those groups is staggering.

No, I was fairly clear on this actually. The NAP is not the entirety of Civil Law. If I accidentally trip while walking by your home, and crush your flower bed... I owe recompense but you absolutely are not entitled to shoot me with a shot gun. And of course, accidentally tripping is not immoral.

There is no doubt that PUA approaches are successful with some women, but its hard to extract that to all women, or to a necessary psychological condition of women. That is to say, perhaps in a world where children are raised peaceful, these approaches would sound absurd. As for the movie, it sounds half interesting but I cant STAND that "sexy voice" kutcher is using, its so practiced.

Honestly, I did not really think about that and didn't realize that it was happening in this way. I had a female friend who I was attracted to when I was younger. She behaved in the way you described, flirtatious and demanded a lot of my time. I was friends with her until I finally got up the courage to be direct. She became my first girlfriend. Now... my interpretation was that she liked me, but had a cultural expectation that I be more direct before we got romantically involved. I'm kind of becoming aware, now, of the other interpretation. That she was trying to just keep my attention by flirting and that she may have consented to going out with me just to maintain this attention. Our relationship was only 6 months long, and very difficult. It was on-and-off, with both of us breaking up with each other every couple weeks, only to get back together again. I've also been called flirtatious myself, and my own intentions were often to simply be charming or compelling. I'm going to think about to what degree I'm attention seeking, because I can't deny that I'm pleased to discover that women are attracted to me. Since my current relationship this behavior has completely stopped, so its been like 2 years now. I'm intentionally not flirtatious with women because I think that would be insulting and disrespectful to my girlfriend. I'll even say in the past I probably led women on, in terms of having a goal of sex and being very careful not explicitly express desire for a long relationship, but maybe let it be implied. I guess thats kind of the male equivalent... the friends-with-benefits zone.

Aggression means force or compulsion. It is the opposite of voluntary. I'm not sure what the ambiguities are... so if someone threatens your life you are entitled to defend yourself. If someone threatens your property, you're entitled to protect your property. If someone does something that inadvertently leads to the destruction of your property, they are liable for damages according to Civil Law. If someone does something you simply don't like, this is aesthetics and is not covered by the NAP. For example, if I create pollution not intending to damage your property, either through error or ignorance, and I damage your property you're entitled to recompense. You're not entitled to use violence against me. If, for example, I play music loudly and you find it annoying, but it doesn't damage your person or property you're not entitled to use violence against me. If you find it makes it hard to sleep and you're losing hours at work, you're entitled in Civil Law to recompense for lost wages. Personally, I'd encourage you to peacefully negotiate with that person. If I insult you, and it directly leads to something which damages your property somehow then you're entitled to make the case. You are NOT entitled to initiate violence.

I'm a total sports dunce, but I actually knew who she was just because she did a bunch of modeling. Interesting how the media is silent on a female sports star who committed BOTH child abuse AND domestic violence at the same time! Half the people reading the title are thinking Han Solo never hit Chewy!

Earlier this year, the star [goal] keeper was arrested for allegedly attacking her sister and 17-year-old nephew. The police report said Solo was "intoxicated and upset," and she allegedly called her nephew "too fat" to be an athlete. Also according to the report, the boy had blood on his shirt, and his mother (Solo's sister) was visibly injured. http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/11553070/why-hope-solo-suspended-team-usa-immediately

So when you talk about the slippery slope danger of verbal abuse, you're coming from a place with a very specific history of that exact thing happening. Telling me this really helps to understand exactly what you were trying to express, and I appreciate it.

I think it is excellent technology for all kinds of alternatives to government. I think critics would describe is as non-democratic, and they'd be right, because any system based on the ledger would be more like a "vote with your dollar" model, since there aren't a lot of ways to limit it to "one vote one person". It would be more like the stock market, where the largest collection of shareholders have the most influence on the company. I don't personally have a problem with this, but I can already see the statist talking points that this is a "government run by the rich" etc. I love this idea, but would approach it with extreme skepticism. Saying it can act as an insurer, or provide marriages and divorces, or manage land ownership.... the state's monopoly on those services make doing those things extremely difficult. Imagine... for example... buying property through the system. The previous owner would still be the legal owner under the eyes of the law, unless it is done within the state system, which would defeat the point and make the ledger fairly useless. I also don't really like their approach, creating yet another altcurrency. I would prefer is that backed their system through the bitcoin ledger instead, as altcoins rarely get the miner base required to keep them secure. It makes me skeptical that is just another altcoin firesale. I would need to know so much more information on the people in the system and how, exactly, they plan to provide those services. When I click White Paper, it goes to nothing. The FAQ is sparse. Lovely website, but nothing otherwise convinces me these are the people capable of making this a reality.

I can relate in a lot of ways. I spent quite some time just culling my list of contacts, ultimately revealing how few friends remained (and how few family remained). It was lonely for awhile, but I've managed to build some good new relationships. I wasn't married at the time, though, and was already very distant from most of those friends and family emotionally and physically. I can't say exactly how I coped, except that I began to refuse to self-attack. It took a LONG time to stop, though. I can only really explain the feeling I had which was a resolution to resolve these strong feelings no matter who I had to cut out of my life, and to hold all the new people I met to a rigorous examination of their character. Eventually what seems to have happened is that healthier people are just more attracted to making friends, and its gotten easier. I have a small collection of new friends in my new country who are very open and considerate and understanding. We've had deep conversations about our families and emotional struggles. I don't really have advice though, except to say that its important to communicate with yourself peacefully. It took me years of a nagging anger to finally confront my family, and the amount of self-attack they would have triggered with their responses was mitigated by the strength I built waiting. I highly highly highly recommend calling into the show!!! VERY helpful!

yeah I agree 100%, he also makes these GREAT youtube videos about John Taylor Gatto that have great music and editing, too. As for FDR, whoever edited that "ooohhh waterfall" video stef just made did a great job too

ahh thats a whole other level, and horrible. Sorry to hear that. I'm curious, can you go to jail for being a "shirker"?

Great!!!! I tend to jump around. I've been loving the Thaddeus Russell history stuff, its been very very enlightening. Have you or Patrick listened to any of those podcasts (Behold a Dictator is one)

You must be familiar with the arguments for UPB, right?

I just wanted to enlighten people in this community to this podcast, if they hadn't heard of it. Brett, its host, is a fan of FDR and talks often about issues like peaceful parenting, libertarianism, anarchy, etc. He has done an exhaustive historical series with historian Thaddeus Russell which I found very challenging and inspiring. He also does great videos of John Taylor Gatto, and is extremely critical of public education. Anyone else a fan?

Scientists tend to flock where the funding is

So i sent my message to the people from that page, and I dont know if that is related but suddenly a slew of topics regarding men's and boy's issues has popped up, to my utmost happiness!!!

This is disgusting race pimping, and its super racist, exploitive of children and deplorable. Racism absolutely exists, but to say only white people are racist is absurd and racist. And to profit off it selling tshirts... its trashy

Yeah certainly. And to expand on that point, whats the most fascinating is that after each iteration of a new Dictator in Egypt, the population is divided further. When Mumbarak was in charge, the Muslims, Christians, and Students teamed up with the Muslim Brotherhood. When Morsi took power, those two groups began fighting one another in the streets. The United States is exceptionally divided, everyone neatly packing into some meaningless ism ready to attack "the others" at a moments notice. The Government didn't have to attack Occupy (though they did), because Fox News and others were already well on their way to attacking it. Obama didnt have to use the IRS to attack the Tea Party (though he did) because the Mainstream Media was already calling them Tea Baggers. I'll give it up for our overlords, they've got a very well oiled system of horizontal power that makes the idea of Divide and Conquer look easy.

These two topics sparked a fantastic conversation with a couple new friends and some strangers, who ultimately all came to agree that child abuse is exceptionally monstrous. Its helpful, like you said, that these two stories broke at the same time it really helps to highlight the issue. I wonder how many other great conversations this has inspired on the topic. I mean this, of course, with the utmost sympathy for the kid who deserves so much better.