Pepin

If you pay close attention, the result is in relation to chronic disease and death. With that said, the article is a mess.

Lying in general would be APA. It isn't UPB because universalizing the statement "people universally ought to lie" can't really work for a number of reasons. The main being, how would anybody know not to lie if nobody can tell the truth that everybody should lie? There is nothing biological or instinctual that would lead someone to the conclusion that lying is UPB, and it is impossible to inform others that lying is UPB without violating the ethical rule. In a way, it is the same as saying "people ought to communicate solely through their psychic powers". Granted psychic powers don't exist, nobody will be able to tell you to communicate through your psychic powers because to do so they must do so through theirs, which just doesn't happen. Now in certain cases, lying would be unethical and force could be used in response, but it isn't the lying that is the cause of the UPB violation yet rather something else. For instance, fraud often composes itself through lies, but it is not APA because it is fundamentally theft and/or a violation of contract. In another instance, if you were to raise a child telling them nothing but lies, yes that would technically just be lying, but the aggression is in intentional brain damage that they are causing. The initiation of force fails the UPB test, but using force to respond against an initiation of force does not. I think the topics are covered pretty well in the book, so I'd recommend giving it a reread. I should probably reread it myself because I've forgotten a lot of the syntax.

Like xelent said, it would be a matter of APA as opposed to UPB. In other words, you could not use force against someone who does something that is non-APA. But I really don't feel like that matters because this is about argumentation and the validity of the ad hominem. An ad hominem argument does not focus on the argument being made, yet rather the character of the presenter to "taint/colour/slant/disqualify/discredit" another's argument. Most people who haven't been trained in formal logic think that all uses are invalid due to being irrelevant to the argument, but there are actually a lot of valid uses for it. If someone is charged of theft and claims not guilty and provides a lot of reason and evidence as to why, the prosecution does not need to address the reason and evidence and can instead focus on the person's previous criminal history and their propensity to lie. If a morbidly obese woman is selling a diet book, to say that the book is a sham, you do not need to make any argument against what is in the book, rather you can just bring up the fact that the woman claims being a healthy weight is good, but either her own plan didn't work out for her, or that she doesn't really believe in arguments or her values. In this case, the person's own actions and current state of being are used to discredit their claims, whereas in the last case knowledge of their previous actions is being used to figure out if there is even value to addressing the argument. In the case of parenting, well it depends. There would be valid and invalid uses of it, and invalid uses would only hurt the argument you are making if you were in front of a semi-rational audience. I do think in personal relationships that invalid and valid uses are much easier for people to identify, whereas in the political sphere, well any argument is about 20% invalid ad hominem. My answer is essentially is if it is a relevant and valid use.

In that case you might want to work a bit on your presentation and spend some time defining your terms. I say this because to be honest, I read the post I responded to about five times and I still interpreted it as wrong. It is not pleasant for this to happen to either you or the person who replies to it.

I know this isn't the best response, but I am having a difficult time understanding why it is moral to use force against someone who violates IP. I can fully agree that it ought to be scorned upon, that it can hurt the creator in significant ways, and so on, but I am not yet able to justify the use of force against someone who violates IP. To bring it to a personal level, I don't think I could respond to an IP infraction of my own IP with force and feel like it was just. It isn't like I need to feel good about it, just as you don't need to feel good about shooting someone who attempting to murder you, but you do need to feel like it was the right thing to do. Not an argument, just a difficulty. Part of my trouble is that in a free society, I think the issue would be solved primarily through non-violent methods, and also that I think people wouldn't have a much greater sense of justice with their more rational upbringing. This of course wouldn't invalidate violence being a possible solution, but it does shift my opinion. IP is something I still have a difficult time thinking about, so I'm not really comfortable in making a real argument for or against. With your example, I think it would preferable for the band to receive some sort of compensation for their work, I don't think it would need to be in full, but I think U2 ought to give them a decent sum of money for enabling such a success. But the band forcing U2 through violence to give compensation causes my mind to freeze up, especially since the ultimate threat is one of murder. Again, this isn't an argument, just an admission to the emotional barriers I am having in respect to the claim.

I'd look into the Trivium learning method. There are a bunch of podcasts that talk about it towards the bottom of this link. The School Sucks podcasts on the subject I found to be quite informative. I also think it is important to go through The Introduction to Philosophy series which will give you great insight into what you are actually teaching. In my public school education, what screwed me up to no end was how I understood reality and concepts, as it was rather backwards. Also, as another thought, I think incorporating relaxation and meditation into your child's life at a young age will be helpful. There is a lot of research showing the benefits, and the largest affect will be gained while the brain is the most plastic. Concentration and the deferral of gratification is key to success in general, which meditation trains. To put it this way, they find significant changes in the brain structure. Also, learning tends to occur best when a person is relaxed and more towards the alpha brain waves. Teaching someone how to relax is also just a good life skill. It is something that most people have to learn much later in life when stress if overwhelming them.

I really like the advice that affects my life. A lot of the more self-hep and finance stuff helps me a lot, even if it is stuff I already know or have heard elsewhere. In my mind Stefan is a sort of authority figure, and I find that when he confirms ideas I've heard elsewhere, I have a much easier time fully accepting it and putting it into practice. It is a role similar to my therapist has been playing. I really enjoy the Truth About and current news podcasts because it is difficult to keep the subjects out of your mind until you get some clarity on them. I mean personally I was quite apathetic to the Zimmerman story, but I kept finding part of my brain thinking about it regardless. It is kind of like when someone makes a bad argument and there is this sort of reactionary rebuttal that happens in your head, and you may find yourself arguing against it at random points in the day. Upon watching these videos, that part of my mind gains some sort of clarity and I don't think about it anymore. I want to get the point where I just don't care, but from where I was before in spending a lot of time thinking about these subjects and arguing against them, having some mental quibble and then having it undone by a single video helps me quite a lot. I like interviews and debates because it gives me a model on how to convey myself with interacting with others. I also tend to feel happy and accepted when Stefan is having a conversation with someone like Jeffery Tucker. It somewhat feels like I'm apart of those conversations. Also the listener convos have really helped me in talking with friends and people about these sorts of matters. I really had no ability to do this before. I will admit that there a lot of of convos I don't enjoy, which is more the fault of the caller. I really like dream analysis because it helps me to hone my metaphorical skills. Just through listening to Stefan do it, I have gotten pretty decent at analyzing my own dreams. These sorts of segments also allow me to try to figure out the dream at hand myself, which is pretty fun to do. A lot of my reasons my sound weird. In the past the intellectual and "I've never heard of this" components were the main reason I listened. Now that I have a pretty good understanding of FDR, it seems to be something a little deeper.

My social planner tends to come out when it comes to topics of space exploration and colonization, not because it isn't cool, but because I think the money would be better spent on earth. Clearly not an argument in the least and I can completely understand why others are so excited about the prospect and would be wiling to fund it. Part of my apathy to space travel is that it isn't something I'd feel like I'd do. I get really anxious and dizzy just thinking about being in a zero-g environment. I also don't really feel the importance of putting so much time into going to the moon and mars. Again, not arguments, just my preference at the moment. I somewhat assume that if this were to become big in my lifetime that my opinion would flop harder than Obamacare.

May I suggest like the others here is that what is really eating at you is your brother's willingness to use force against you. Forget whether he is right or wrong, rather focus on what you know is true: the ethics. Put into real terms the force he is willing to initiate on you. In your talk with him, really push for this clarity It is much easier to ignore and to abstract this away with those who are less educated and have little influence on popular thought. Having a Doctorate in philosophy demonstrates his ability to understand reason and evidence in clear terms. His eagerness to involve himself into politics is a clear indication that he is willing to use force to achieve his ends. As a last stitch effort, give him the book UPB and make it extremely clear that it is very important to you for him to read it. Trust me when I say that it is extremely important to you, so this will not be a lie or manipulation. If he doesn't or if he disagrees with the implications of the theory and is still willing to initiate force against you, then you know that he has an understand of ethics, he knows good from evil, and chooses evil. What you do with this knowledge is your decision. You can continue to interact with him like you would before, but what is more likely to happen is that you'll have an involuntary change in the perception of him, and your actions will follow. When you see the gun, you can't not see the gun, you can't pretend it isn't there, you can't pretend that this is an abstract mental belief that has no affect on reality. I'm so sorry that you are in the situation. My post likely feels dramatic and perhaps somewhat abrasive, but I think it is very important to be very clear about the cognitive dissonance that many people experience when they begin to accept universal ethics. I've had my own experience with the dissonance and am willing to offer any support I can.

I'm having a difficult time responding understanding the theory in the concrete. Can you provide one or two blatant examples and the sort of appropriate action that can be taken against it? Can you also provide a more extreme/unexpected application of the argument that and the sort of action that can be taken? I don't feel comfortable making an argument against your position at the moment because I feel like any example I'd make would be seen as a strawman, so seeing the extreme of the principal and an easy to digest example will likely help me to understand you position more exactly. I might even change my mind.

Ethics is a system based on knowledge. A doctor before the advent of antibiotics is not immoral for prescribing them for an infection, while a doctor in the modern age is immoral for not prescribing them for an infection. Someone who does surgery without any training or knowledge of the human body is knowingly doing harm to a person provided that they know that they don't know. A caregiver who parents without knowledge of parenting is like someone doing surgery without training. If a caregiver hits a child with the claim, the caregiver is immoral either for acting against their expertise in parenting care giving with concludes hitting is bad, or for conducting experiments without any sort of training on a live subject. In matters outside the context of parenting, the caregiver would be informed of the reason and evidence for the correct action to take by a proper authority, and if the action is not taken it is assumed that the caregiver wishes to do harm to the child. For instance, if a child is quite ill and needs a shot otherwise they will die, a doctor would explain the reasoning and evidence as to the action that needed to be taken, and if the caregiver refused after understanding the consequences, the doctor would understand that the caregiver wants to kill the child and force can be used to provide care for the child. Though the focus is on the caregiver, it is really on the child in this circumstance. Does the caregiver need to understand the pathology of the infection, or just the consequence? I'd claim just the consequence, and I can support this claim if needed. The expert of course needs to understand the pathology. There is a grey area is more controversial areas and in intelligence, which is why a rational society with authority figures that can be trusted is vital.

I seem to have gotten quite a different message. The wonder of the modern age is the ability to shape yourself into the persona of who you want to be, and people would prefer to look at who you want to be as opposed to who you are. As opposed to accepting yourself the way you are, changing the opinions of others in how they relate to you through your self image has real positive consequences, as can be shown in the episode by the girls being seen as having higher worth due to their protected selves as opposed to their actual selves. When Wendy points out the physical reality, it isn't that people deny the facts, it is rather that everyone would prefer to believe in eachothers' image. Kayne is established as a character who is almost entirely ingrained in image, so much to the point where he doesn't realize Kim is a hobbit, and the effect it has on him his great. In the end, Kayne tells a tale about having to accept Kate for who she is, a hobbit, but till has a preference to believe in the unreality. Kayne essentially represents an exaggeration of the claims people like Wendy make. All other characters in the show provide the counterbalance to this in that they know that it is manufactured as illustrated by Stan asking Wendy to photoshop herself, they aren't lost in this unreality, but that they don't have a problem with it. Of course the theme described by the two posts above me is present, but I think this counter theme is certainly present. It is something that South Park really excels in. On the other hand, I might be completely insane and picking up anthills off a piece of paper.

I don't at all understand the post nor the question. I'd suggest working on your writing ability because argument isn't very clear. Your audience isn't likely to spend much time considering your argument if they have to put a lot of work into understanding what your argument is.

Never heard this terminology, but provided I understand you correctly, I don't have an issue with LSD provided it is funded voluntarily. Like investing in stocks, you put the most in the least risky options and make good gains, put less in the semi-risky options, and put some in the risky options and hope to make it big. To borrow an idea from Richard Feynman, all scientific claims are based on guessing. Einstein made a guess that laws of physics are the same in all reference frames and that the speed of light was the same in all reference frames, and though he had reasons for this guess, it was a guess in the end. Physicist Paul Dirac guessed that anti-matter exists and just so happened to be right. In hearing far out theories, I think people miss the reality that almost everything they currently believed originated from a far out guess that just so happened to be right, even including Newton's laws. I can understand your apprehension in making this topic and I hope you aren't misunderstood. Something strange about the libertarian community is that many don't like quantum mechanics and general relativity, I'd imagine because it feels like intellectual nonsense spouted out by a postmodernist tripping on acid while spinning in an office chair. In a free society, I'd imagine that science would be quite an area of interest and that people would invest into it in similar ways that they invest into stocks. I think the SSD would have the largest market share, but there'd also be a lot of interest in the LSD. I'd certainly invest into LSD.

I'm having a difficult time in being able to formulate a response. Based on the post, I am having a rather difficult time of getting an impression of what you are like. As your post indicates, you are also pretty confused. I am not sure if you will get an accurate answer on a board for these reasons, so my suggestion would be to ask the people who called you intimidating why they think that. Ask for examples of behavior so that you can get a good idea of what they are talking about. If that sounds too intimidating, ask a few close friends who know you quite well about it. It may happen that they are misinterpreting you. For instance, a lot of people initially get the impression that I am talking down to them. After talking to a good friend who knows me quite well, he told me that he can understand how people might interpret that, but that it isn't something I do. What is really happening is that I simplify matters to an extreme point in my head and I explain it how it is in my head, and when I explain things the way I understand them, they think I am choosing to explain it in this way because I don't think they are intelligent enough for the fast explanation. Essentially, I've internalized the "explain it to a five year old" principle, and so by its nature the explanation sounds like it is meant for a five year old. It really isn't that bad, but upon realizing this I've worked to improve the translation of my "five year old style understandings" into something that sounds more adult. Of course I am dramatizing my example, but I suggest being open to the remark and being willing to change, but to also to identify what they are seeing. Again, I think the most important thing to do is to talk to someone who knows you well, or better, the people who made the remark.

Is there a particular goal? Like being well of financially? Learning a new skill? Loosing weight? Changing yourself in positive ways? What specifically are you having issue delaying gratification with? Is the challenge technical in that you don't know what to do, or is it a psychological problem?

I remember a line from a FDR podcast that I think rings true. Why do they think that they can do this to you? At some point a few years ago, I stopped interacting with people who would do this kind of stuff. Now I really don't have that problem. I can tend to sense when a person is going to be like that, and I generally avoid making plans with them. Also, I am pretty sure that I put am now putting out signals that informs others of my standards, and so those people I can assume pick it up and know either not to do that to me or to not makes plans with me.

Do people in this community ex post justify not having friends? Perhaps if I am feeling down or going through some depression, but not really. I think a lot of the thoughts and feelings used to explain why you don't have any or many friends likely have some truth to them. As someone who has a high IQ and vast amounts of self knowledge, the possible circle of people you can really be yourself with diminishes greatly. It is kind of like speaking a different language, and it is very difficult for you and for others to understand each other, which makes connection rather impossible. Also I think many smart people recognize the emptiness in contained in most friendships and want something more substantive. Does this mean I have to improve my social skills... How? I'd say no, but it'll help in the game of luck and you're likely to find more friends if you do. Having social skills is a great way to get along and to be liked by people at work, which I think is worth the investment alone. Also, expanding your network is somewhat dependent on good social skills, and the larger the network, the greater the probability of finding one of those people you can really connect with. In a large way it is a demonstration of value and a way to show off your personality. If you haven't had that much social interaction in your life and you had some unconscious desire to be isolated, you likely have to be aware that you putting out messages that tell people to leave you alone. If you talk to people and show off your personality, this counteracts it. If you are not very talkative, like a reflex, you will begin to send those "don't talk to me" signals out. Practice with people who are forced to have a conversations with you, like cashiers, preferably not those locked in your basement. Be aware of how you are coming off and try to make a goal, like to make the person smile or laugh. Talking to yourself when driving I think is a great way to get good at communicating clearly and sounding good while doing it. I'd advice you take the Stefan approach, where you attempt to describe a difficult abstract concept to a 7 year old in as many ways possible. Though you aren't likely to be doing that a whole lot, you really gain an ability to articulate your thoughts and ideas clearly and spontaneously, and if you ever do need to explain something complex you understand how to get it across effectively. Honestly, have conversations with yourself when you are driving. Do some mirror work. Make expressions and do poses and try to get them down. People really like it when you can contort your face in a specific way, and some practice helps a lot. You can also test yourself by joking around with coworkers and see if they interpret it right, like if a coworker says "I didn't eat the last cookie", put on a skeptical expression. I think with people like us, we tend to forget to use our face a lot. Also, mirror work increases your ability to correctly interpret the expressions of others. Realize that to some degree you are moving out of your comfort zone and expect to be uncomfortable. Lastly, take a few seconds to understand the circumstance. In high school there is this odd sort of hierarchy and feeling of inferiority that makes socializing difficult. I am having a difficult time describing this in concrete, but it is talked about a lot by others and is somewhat of a trope, so I'll assume you know what I am talking about. At least in my experience, this is completely gone in the adult world. I find it about 100 times easier to talk to any random adult than it was to talk to somewhat at school, and adults are far far more forgiving of communication errors and nervousness. Of course there are the occasional jerks, but instead of being down on yourself after the encounter, you are more like "what a douche". If I have more self knowledge than others why can't I use that to help me? Help you what? Make good friends? It will. In a large way it is a sort of bad friend filter because you'll have a very difficult time liking people with high impassivity and little ability to self reflect. Like I said earlier, it is kind of language barrier, and you'll have a really tough time even understanding the person, let alone connect with them. Also, in your post you said that you aren't picky, and I would say that you are but that you don't know it yet. I guarantee that most of the new people you will meet you won't want to be close friends with, which doesn't mean you find them intolerable, you may find the to nice and generally likable, but you really won't be wanting to hang out with the person very much. Hope this helps.

Are the violent thoughts triggered by anything in particular? Like is it any group of people, a certain groups of people, or does something need to happen to trigger it, like someone making fun of another, or is it just being in the group? Do you ever have violent thoughts when you aren't anxious, or is it almost always paired with anxiety? Do you feel like these are emotions make sense, or do they feel like they come from left field? Sorry to ask so many questions, but I think violent thoughts are good to get a hold of, particularly what triggers them. Also, it may happen that the unscientific portion of my theory may only apply to me, which is how it is seeming right now .

Thanks for the reply. I find the part about lacking an inner life really interesting. What exactly is the context for the term "inner life"? Is this in the mecosystem/IFS way, or another use like to describe the ability to access thoughts and feelings? Thank you for the encouragement and advice. I will take it.

I didn't start listening to music until 8th grade. The two bands I listened to at the time was System of a Down and Blink 182. Blink 182 I think really captures the thoughts and emotions that one has when going through puberty. I quite liked System of a Down likely because a lot of their lyrics are either ridiculous or focus on something political. I was probably somewhat the opposite of what their messages were, the lyrics really didn't influence me or get me to think, though I feel there was some small part of me did understand and listened for the message. It is always strange looking through my old papers because I find that I had all sorts of libertarian/anarchist/atheist type thoughts that were communicated in my essays, but they were in complete contradiction to myself at the time. I then began to listen to a band called Hawthorn Heights and Silverstein coming into high school. They were emoish screamo bands, but the content wasn't really that bad. I really liked the guitar and screaming in the music. The screaming I just found interesting. Though perhaps the music represented some of my internal struggles, I can't really attest to it very much. Metallica was next and I got quite into them. Around this time I stopped caring about lyrics so much, unless they were really good, and instead began to focus on the music. Metallica brought me in the the guitar, and actually influenced me to buy a guitar. I remember being so confused about how they even did what they did. Soon after that it was Pink Floyd and Dream Theater. I think my somewhat heavy use of marijuana at the time may help to explain the Floyd as well as my friends being into it, but I am pretty certain I loved the music because the music is amazing. The song "Hey You" and most of The Wall really spoke to me, not at all on the level of consciousness though. Dream Theater really impressed me with their compositions and musical ability, it is difficult to say if there was anything deeper. In more recent times it has been Rush, Yes, Led Zeppelin (in regard to really getting into them), Steve Vai, Yngwie Malmstien, and so on. I am somewhat in love with the guitar, so I think most of the music I listen to is influenced by how good it is. Just to contradict myself, not too long ago I was quite depressed and stressed and I was listening to the concept album In Absentia by Porcupine Tree. A quote as to what the album attempts to do Not that I am a psychopath, but I did have a lot factors in my childhood that could have lead to that. Perhaps not a serial murderer, but maybe something a little more sociopathic.

My post has nothing to do with Stefan nor is it related to UPB. I'm not even making an argument. I'm attempting to put myself into an application of the theory to see how it feels and trying to make sense of the feelings. If I and other people are hung up on the issue of animals rights because of emotional reasons and most of us are simply coming up with rationalizations to fit our conclusion, then it is vital for animal rights proponents to understand that our arguments are not at the root cause of the belief, and that instead the focus should be on addressing the irrational emotional content. To a large degree this is already being done with all of those videos about slaughterhouses, dogfights, poaching, and more; it engages primarily the emotions as means of bypassing the rationalizations. I also think it is important for those who claim that animal abuse is a violation of the NAP apply the theory to various situations and scenarios in their head and to see how it feels. Paragraph four of my post gives a good example to use, though put it'd make more sense to put yourself in Joe's shoes and to ask if you'd shoot Steve. Even if you wouldn't, it has no bearing on the validity of animals rights, but it would be something to think about. In case you're wondering why I am insistent on shooting and murder, it is partly to be dramatic, but more because the threat of murder is always the underlying threat in regard to the application of force. Though I don't feel like it would be as much of a issue with animals because simply getting the person away from animals would suffice. But ultimately the point is still true. Hope that helps to clarify my intentions.

Thank you for your reply, it does make me feel a lot better. Also really liked the part about getting a sugar momma.

Oh my, I am laughing so hard Wesley.

I think the other posters may of slightly picked up on this, something interesting I noticed is that bridge between love and aggression, which psychologically is a fine line. I think this is a great example of how love transforms into aggression. Here is a good article to get an idea of what I'm talking about. I feel like this is something you are now beginning to experience, and it likely isn't easy. I am mostly speaking from my own experience, so of course I might be wrong or projecting, but I'll keep typing to see if my theory sticks. Over the last eight months I have become increasingly emotional, primarily in regard to positive emotions. As I begin to approach connection, the feeling of intimacy, I find the smallest negative event can turn my thoughts and feelings quite negative and violent. It is like when you are approaching these really nice feelings of warmth and connection, stubbing your toe can convert all of that into the opposite, and the outburst is likely far more dramatic and emotion filled if you weren't all warm and fuzzy beforehand. Though I can describe smaller instances, I'll make it short. I decided to give my dog a massage, and I the emotions I was experiencing were of compassion. I achieved a sort of feeling I hadn't had before. But the dog then suddenly decided to bite me for some reason, not all hard but enough to hurt, and a well of violent thoughts and emotions sprung up with the main theme being wanting to kill the dog. I had never experienced this level of want to commit violence with that sort of powerful emotion behind it. It felt so out of place and was frightening. As far as my relationship to violent thoughts and inclinations in the past, on a scale of 1-10 I'd score a 1, so now having this experience at a score of a 10 was completely new and jarring. I think my main questions are, have you been experiencing more positive emotions with others which you did not in the past, and can the weight of these positive emotions all of sudden shift into negative ones? If you read this and think "what the hell is this guy talking about", then feel free to ignore my theory as I am likely projecting.