Pepin

Catfood, I would suggest taking a week or two of distancing from the idea, and then to reread what you wrote as if you were reading what someone else has said.

I am unsure about this as the question feels rather factious. I get the impression that the question is coming from a particular philosophical view that is not valid.

It really depends on the criteria or definition. I'd also need a way of checking that I wasn't dreaming or tripping on a combination of LSD and DMT with a pinch of crystal meth. If it is the God that created the universe and then stopped being and plays no role in human or physical affairs, then any proof would contradict the idea. If it is the God that does play a role in material reality, then the God sending me knowledge of the winning lottery tickets would work for me, provided that she allowed me enough time to buy them. Though I now trap myself in a bad situation, because if a voice came from within me claiming to be God and that these are the winning lottery tickets, I'd see that more is a mecosystem part going a bit off the deep end. So maybe if I am looking over a shopping mall, and right as the voice is talking to me, the people in the mall arrange themselves in a way that would spell out the lucky numbers. But in that case, I'd likely question whether I was hallucinating. Hmm... Perhaps the best proof I could think of would be being told knowledge of a physical theory that can be easily empirically verified with our time, and where the knowledge is far outside the current capabilities.

The example seems to be more about adjudicating responsibility than inflicting consequence, though poorly. The "I'm not going to buy you a new one" line is very weird. Why would a parent feel the need to say this? Do they think the child expects the parent to replace their property if they fail to protect it? Where would such a thought come from? I would propose that the parent realizes that they haven't taught their child enough about responsibility, that they have replaced somewhat expensive piece of property of the child's in the past, and are now attempting make the child responsible through a bit of a scare statement. It also reveals that the parent does not trust the child to take care of their property. There is certainly an age frame where expecting a child to have a rational understanding of responsibility in relation to their actions does not make sense. Pointing out consequences, such as potential theft, is needed for a child who is not aware of the possibilities. Going further and stating "I won't buy you a new bike if you lose this one" simply isn't trusting your child. Perhaps the parent misjudged the child's ability to understand the consequences. It is not then upon the child to live up to the parent's misjudgment, but rather for the parent to take responsibility.

I am not really surprised because I feel like I have an empathy switch. Its default position seems to be off, and self-work and therapy has helped a lot in turning it on. I can't really characterize my behavior as psychopathic though. Which makes me wonder if the same mechanism is being used by psychopaths and those with the lesser forms of autism, just with different results.

Why don't you believe an objective reality exists?

I'm not really sure what a feminine name is. The trend seems to add and "ine" or "tha" or "asa" or "dra" or some other short phrase at the end of male name. Though, Rose, Scarlet, and Sky seem pretty feminine. Could you define the traits of femininity?

If the concept of a deity is considered to be in a higher or non-physical dimension, the question is: how the person making such a claim know that there is this dimension? Furthermore how do they know that a deity is contained within it? If no experiment can prove the existence of a deity, if a deity is proposed to be in an un-accessible dimension, then everyone that currently claims the existence of one is making a claim without reason nor evidence and must be considered wrong in their claims, as what they are doing is the equivalent to making up a concept with no null hypothesis.

Is this like the full disclosure series, or is it more serious? I think the one you are looking for is "Christina and the Priest", but it isn't available. You can check out the two below just in case. One where he plays Jesus: http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed//FDR_841_Stefs_Miracles.mp3 One where he plays God: http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_561_Full_Disclosure_God.mp3

Can you expand upon this? I am having a difficult time understanding and I don't want to mis-characterize your argument.

That would be very interesting to watch. He has a way about talking about these subjects that feels a lot more human.

This is of course just my personal preference about something that I shouldn't care about that much, but having to give a reason for editing is a feature I absolutely despise. Also, having a time period where you are no longer able to edit a post also annoyed me quite a lot. I tend to edit my posts quite a bit, mostly to fix spelling/grammar mistakes, some of the time to rephrase or make something I wrote more clear, and some minority of the time expand or add something new to my post. I can't say the previous edit feature would be useful for anyone looking at my posts, nor do I have much curiosity to see the original post, but some might find it useful.

I can't say that being deceitful is at all a good strategy, because it colors your character and your reputation from others. People will pick this up, perhaps not consciously, and it is very likely to be exposed with any idea that is more controversial.. The way you present your opinions or arguments is very important to how people perceive them. It essential to frame what you are saying in the best possible ways because of the framing effect. To make an analogy: when a chef cooks a meal, they make it look really appetizing because not only does it make people want to eat it but it also makes the meal taste better. Being curious about their views and their arguments also helps a lot. I've found that there are many people who aren't very good at presenting their views will have an idea that turns out to be great, but it takes a little bit of effort to understand what they are trying to say. I'm very understanding of this as a person who spent most of my time in school presenting ideas, concepts, and arguments that people wouldn't at all understand. What is also great to do is to give ideas that have logical implications, and not state them. If you are really being convincing, the person will likely figure out these implications out themselves, and that is far more satisfying for them as opposed to having someone tell your them explicitly. There are also times where people draw great implications or ideas that you hadn't, which I just love. The toughest people to do with are people who for some reason think they can reason, but make a whole lot of nonsensical arguments that appeal to others. It is important to have strong posturing in these instances, and to just keep asking questions. It is really difficult to do, but be confident in your position, and when someone says something in response that is difficult to answer or that you can't answer, don't become anxious, rather become more curious and ask questions. Lastly, be in the moment, and be aware of what you mind and body are telling you. Don't attempt to be central planner/controller of the discussion. I sometimes find that I can get into this zone where it doesn't feel like I am not doing much at all, all of my focus is on the other person, and the discussion is incredibly insightful and productive. It feels like the other person is convincing themselves through reason and evidence and the role I play is more like a lifeguard.

The laughing is a release of anxiety, especially from members of the audience who haven't dealt with their past, and even more from those who reenact it. They are very eager to find a joke in it, to find an opportunity to dismiss the reality of the situation. The laughing is more to do with them than it is about Olivia. I think another factor is that though it seems like she has dealt with the issue to a decent point, the self-defense are still present.There is for the most part an emotional distancing and dry description of the events. There is also a willingness to laugh will the audience, to smile, and to make light of the situation in the portrayal. If there was a real emotional tone and dictation to what he said, the audience likely wouldn't be able to laugh, rather they would experience a very uncomfortable silence. Despite the last paragraph, I'd say she did a really good job in talking about it. Anyway, that is my analysis of the video. When I talk about issues in my past similar to these, I have a tendency to smile and to take a tone that people decipher as being non-serious, or being manipulative. I also have a strong bias to dismiss what I am saying as dramatization, over-reaction, or as being kind of funny. When people see this, it isn't something they really understand.

Learning that they were there to help me, especially the "negative" ones, and that I could not get better by continuing to repress them. It might sound odd, but being aware that I was repressing emotions and the mechanisms behind it really helped me to want to stop. Mostly relaxation techniques, deep breathing, and doing self talk before hand if I a going to be in a rough situation. Also being aware that there is no danger, and that the sense of danger I am experiencing is the result of repetitious behavior, or past trauma. I find that doing some self talk in these situations, where you try to figure out what your body or part of your mind is telling you, and you talk it out. This might be me own personality bias, but information about the psychology and psycho-neurology helped quite a lot. This I got mostly from browsing the web.

I am quite sorry for what you had to go through. I have had issues in the past where I would have psychogenic seizures rather often, to a severity where it cut me off from the rest of the world for a year. I have also had many issues with dissociating from emotions. I have mostly overcome the issue of anxiety and stress coming out through the body. I've also made a lot of progress in connecting with my emotion. This is just to say that I've had experience in combating these types of issue. What I would recommend is to regularly practice progressive body relaxation. There are many guided relaxation sessions on youtube that are good to get started. Learning to relax helps in so many ways. I would also combine this with starting a meditation practice to help clear your mind and to slow your thoughts down. The basic idea is to spend 5-15 minutes a day not doing anything, clearing your mind when you become distracted. I recommend this because you will likely become more aware of your thoughts, introspection will be easier, and you will gain more control over what you think about. Accepting the current state of how your brain is structured and the reality of your situation is paramount. Realize what you are working against Realize what has been ingrained into your neural structure repetitively. Identify scar tissue where you see it, and never fault yourself for it. What you are doing is very difficult, and the progress you have made already is quite impressive.

People do not have philosophy, they do not understand what the words describe, nor the logical framework that supports the concepts. I would put forward that many people tend to live in a world of words because it is a major mechanism for inflicting propaganda, and because most teachers do not understand what they are teaching. I've had this experience quite a lot in school, more in math and science classes, where it becomes apparent that the teacher does not understanding what they are teaching. They might be able to teach you a trigonometric identity, but they have no idea what it means, where it comes from, and why it must be true. They would lose all understanding of the subject without words. Many students take the teachers level of understanding to be a form of understanding. Going into University with teachers that actually understand what they are talking about made me extremely happy.

Interesting. What I'd find helpful in the video is an explanation of the results. Why would a diet of soft foods cause this effect? Why would a diet of raw fruits and vegetables not cause this effect?

Most micro-controllers are programmed in C. There are technical reasons for this, such as: speed; size; and stability. There are practical reasons, such as: micro-controllers applications tend not to need any of the extended functionality of C++; and micro-controllers that use C exclusively are inexpensive. Though I didn't attend any higher level course in programming, the impression I got in talking to those that were was that: most people weren't very competent in their basic understanding; or that the teacher would design a course that nobody could pass and that you wanted to avoid these teachers at all cost.

I like it, it has a clever vibe to it for some reason.

There would be a large economic correction that would take many years to reach a point of stability. Certain goods and services would subject to almost immediate impact, while others will change over time. The issue of roads, especially in the US, would take a bit of time to change. Roads that were used constantly would likely be maintained for quite a long period of time. Roads that were not used very much, or were located in the middle of nowhere likely would not be taken care of for very long, and would be abandoned with enough time. Economic factors would cause people to migrate towards living in closer proximity, likely into apartment complexes. A single approach for privatizing public property would not exist, and the process of privatizing the same or similar good or property would vary greatly. There would be thousands and thousands of different proposals and agreements met. Some resolutions would be rather straightforward and take the basic homesteading principal, while others would be debated for quite some time. There would be a lot of failures and attempts to exploit the circumstance. These would diminish and be corrected with time and negotiation.

Honestly, I tend to think about arguments more in terms of math/logic than words. For whatever reason, it is just how I think. It isn't really helpful in talking to other people because though my rational sounds far more simple and straightforward to me, that doesn't seem to be the case with others. I am interested in how they formalize various ideas and concepts and what the applications are and what the constraints are.

Philosophy are claims about reality through empiricism. Religion claims are opposed to reality as they are anti-empirical, therefore they cannot be philosophical. Spirit is a general concept in regards to the mind that describes overall well-being and affects long term development. A study of the spirit could be done internally by analyzing the subtle processes of the internal world, or could be done through feedback from an external source trained in psychology or a similar discipline.

It sounds like either you aren't doing a very good job of presenting your arguments, or that this person is not understanding your arguments. Murder is initiating force against someone with result of death. If initiating force is immoral, then the phrase "moral murder" is equivalent to "military intelligence". Though the argument they are putting forward is nonsensical, whatever they are responding likely isn't within the context of the debate. I can guess the sort of argument you were going for, and though I might be wrong with my guess, it doesn't really make sense to bring up given the opponent's position. The claim is essentially a description of ethics in the present and in the past, and it sidesteps any sort of rational discussion. I don't really understand the line of thought on this. Feels like a terrible straw man, the phrase "arbiter of all morality" used to characterize your argument, and to insult you. Human concepts cannot be universalized? This is likely a good point to focus on if you think this discussion has the capability of going anywhere. This is a chance to just ask questions and to have them back up their claim. Be curious.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you define some terms and expand the question?