Kevin Beal

An emergent property isn't independent like it exists without it's component pieces, but it is absolutely independent in quality. Atoms don't have color, water molecules don't feel wet, particles don't smell or move of their own volition, pinky toes don't think or choose. But obviously, empirically these phenomena exist. To say that a thing is a way because it's component pieces are that way is the fallacy of composition. (Lol, I posted this in the wrong thread before).

Emergent properties absolutely can have properties independent of their component pieces. No atoms have color, no water molecules have the quality of wetness, no molecules smell, no particles move of their own volition, toenails don't make decisions. Most everything in the universe is emergent dependent on it's component pieces but completely different from those component pieces. In fact if you don't accept the theory of the god particle then everything in the universe is necessarily emegergent. That's what reality is. The argument that atoms don't have free will therefor humans don't is the fallacy of composition.

You brought it up...

Lol. Okay, it's not all that important whether or not it's a science. How about the simple proposition that a theory has to be internally consistent at a bare minimum and if it isn't then we don't need to go looking for evidence? Because that's the implication here.

Lol. You should check out the first couple chapters of Human Action by Mises. He explains in great detail how it's a science and later how economics is a science based on praxeology. I understand that the scientific method stresses reproducability in observation and is very empirical. I understand that. Just read the first couple chapters. The audiobook is free thru Mises.org which you can get via iTunes. I would highly recommend it. It might surprise you the importance of apriori reasoning as it also goes into the old battles between the empirical school and other philosophical schools back in the day and the limitations they bumped into. It was a real eye opener for me being allz about the empiricism, baby. UPB is very apriori and I would call it a science, or at least it's very science-like. One of the biggest differences between austrian economics and all the pretenders to the throne is that austrian ecnomics is apriori. It's just that the evidence also supports it. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!

praxeology is an apriori science

If you want another argument, then another argument is by Nathaniel Branden in the 2001 edition of The Psychology of Self Esteem starting around pg 52. Enough for what? Arguing for a conclusion requires reasons. If you are arguing something, then that's what we're talking about: reasons.

You can define choice as determinism, but then you're contradicting yourself saying that choice is the opposite of choice at the same time, hence the yelling at the moon and the smoking doctor metaphors.

If you support his work, but all of his work is based on free will then, . . . that's a problem for you that you need to work out.

Arguing that "determinism is true" is necessarily saying that you prefer people accept determinism on the basis that it's true, because truth is preferred over falsehood. The person can be (and is) wrong or they could be manipulative or something like that or whatever other unfalsifiable motivation we want to give them, but it's the act of arguing that's being looked at which is something we can look at and evaluate. They cannot continue to argue without accepting the premise that truth is preferred and thus their argument false apart. Determinism is just lazy: "There is causation, therefor free will doesn't exist" or some other convoluted way of saying essentially the same thing. These same determinists talk about the irrationality of god as being some kind of "uncaused cause" without looking at themselves freely accepting the "logic" of determinism. Nathaniel Branden also has a good argument against determinism in The Psychology of Self Esteem.

Most people don't believe that they are harsh and forceful with children even when they definitely are, or they have a million and a half excuses or call things grey areas etc. Maybe I'm being needlessly pessimistic, but I know people who don't spank and yet are very controlling or innapropriate or an infinite number of other ways that they treat children like their not people. I don't know much about him, and maybe Kevin Spacey is (or would be) a great advocate child advocate, but I'm not convinced by a quote by Plato. Sorry to be a wet blanket

Apparently another study here says that people think they are more attractive than they are. I can't find it right now, but I believe the Dove campaign is based on an actual study with scientists, double blinds, the whole deal. I don't think that they just pulled this idea out of thin air. And just anecdotally it seems true given quite a few conversations I've had with/about women who don't think they are as attractive as they actually are (with some notable exceptions). Maybe this is a specious argument, but if women don't undervalue their looks, then why is there so much makeup being sold and worn? I don't even like makeup. But to Stein's point, I might not mention blemishes and things to a sketch artist about another person, so I think it's both things.

I'm not Stef obviously, but I had a thought or two about this I feel like sharing. I like it. I hate those voices in our heads that make us feel like we're less than we actually are. Or rather I hate the people who originally fostered these insecurities in us. (I'll just speak for everyone, lol.) I was actually talking with someone the other day that was claiming that with men the reverse is true: that they think they look better than they actually do. This was a mental health professional who told me this referencing a study that was very similar to this campaign. If that's true I wouldn't be too surprised if men's insecurities were simply to do with something other than their looks (generally speaking). I know for me it's had to do with competence, thinking that I wasn't doing things well enough and getting discouraged too quickly, when actually I'm pretty decent at what I do. This voice whispering "you're doing it wrong", so familiar that I forgot it was there. I like this Dove campaign and other reminders that we can be our own worst critics. Reminders to be empirical, really. And as isolated as I have been for most of my life I've been seeing lately just how much of an impact it's had on having ideas about how I am or look that aren't very empirical at all. I got this fortune cookie the other day that I really like that said "one cannot know the best that is in him". I don't know that this is strictly true, but it really struck a chord with me. (And btw, isn't it funny how almost no fortune cookies have actual fortunes in them?)

OMG, that is like cartoonish super villian kind of evil. Of course the money was stolen in the first place, but wow.

I usually don't like violent TV shows, but I've seen every episode of GoT so far (except yesterday's), and it's one of the most violent shows I can think of. It would be interesting to get Stef's take I think, but what do you think of it Xelent? I literally had to turn away for a lot of the first season when all these people get graphically murdered, and yet I keep watching. I think it's actually a lot to do with rage, personally. I just listened to this awesome sunday show from 2009 FDR#902 where Stef talks about the distinction he makes between hatred and rage and that really resonated with me. Like trying to get the bad guy instead of getting the bad guy the hell away. I notice I have this tendency to want to get the people that are spreading pretty toxic stuff, and through a lot of the GoT series I kept wanting the Lanister family to pay for the fucked up shit they did. Vengeance is probably the core theme I would say. Even the snow people were getting revenge by the end. I must admit to having a couple revenge fantasies of my own, which may be the reason I am so drawn to the show. I don't know if that makes much sense, but that's where I would go with it. What do you think?

I just donated yesterday and didn't get any kind of errors. I have heard that paypal has a lot of issues, or used to anyway. Maybe it's just a temporary bug?

She tried to publicly humiliate and shame someone for making a penis pun.

I checked out the Good Men Project and the article "Letter to My Son About Consent". The reason I don't like sites like this are articles that equate to "remember not to rape women!" I just found the site, but just browsing it seems like there is a lot of this "you need to treat women better guys!" thing that really annoys me. I realize there are a lot of different writers talking about very different things, probably some really great stuff, but no thanks. Article: http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/a-letter-to-my-son-about-consent/

Whatever the intention, it is a comparison, one of several you've made so far. And you keep saying that it's not the point, but keep bringing up more comparisons. [:S] Probably? [+o(] The video with Dr Farrell is about boys and men, why are we even talking about women? That is another reason I thought your posts were about comparing men's and women's issues. Your very first post in this thread has at least one objection based on a comparison between men and women's lived experiences used as a crticism of the video.

Honestly, I don't know what you should do. I don't think you need to confront her necessarily. I just get frustrated with activists who talk a big game but don't really bring those same values into their personal lives. Not that I always do that, but I do think it's valuable and I'm getting better at it

Could you give me an example of what this might look like and what might be a likely outcome? If, for example, you were treated like you were disposable (male disposability) by your mother then you could RTR with her explaining that you have certain feelings about it and that you aren't wanting to have relationships where you are treated like you are disposable ("I feel frustrated when you simply expect me to do difficult or dangerous tasks, and/or praise me for it"). The likely outcome is probably denial if she's the type to treat you as disposable, or she could shut down and say that you are hurting her feelings, or maybe it will be a productive, positive and bonding experience, idk. In any event it will make it personal and (hopefully) cause actual change instead of what happens with most activists where they don't really accomplish anything. This way they actually do something about male disposability instead of just talk about it. Does that answer your question?

I agree completely as does (apparently) Stephan Kinsella:

The rule: people who call other people trolls are trolls You proposed this rule and by doing so called someone a troll. So by your own standard you are a troll. The shakespeare quote "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is to suggest that there is a distinction without a difference. Or in other words "lacking integrity and honor in a debate" is actually not different from "troll" (hence the first line of this response).

Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Do you have knowledge that science doesn't have? You claimed that cooperation coming out of competition was extremely rare. That proposition is what I'm addressing. Do companies cooperate with each other and do employees cooperate, or not? Obviously they do and this is about as universal as it gets so you're simply wrong. As to the other proposition that the state comes out of this kind of competition, you need only look at the fact that the state owns a monopoly it protects through violence in these areas I mentioned as evidence this claim is false. Why would it protect it violently if healthy competition was all they needed to root? And yes, I absolutely have knowledge that "science" doesn't have because science is just a concept. It has no mind to think or know. The dating thing might be (understandably) confusing and it's not really necessary to get into anyway so ignore that one.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.