Pepin

Welcome to the forum. I will present to you an odd and random question: is it true that guitar is really big over there?

I wish I knew how to react to this. I'm not all surpised that the socialists are the ones to do it.

The form of anarchism described in so far as lawlessness is compatible with a communist dictatorship where the dictator is elected. It is not needed to use a single word to describe a political system, especially granted the schizophrenic nature of politics. The argument that you are free is not compatible with the argument that you are enslaved, as they are opposite characteristics. The ability to act in accordance to your preference only when it is an act your master allows/encourages is not an equivalent to freedom, as there is a master. You cannot consider yourself free if you have a master. A decent analog is free range farming of cows. These cows aren't given more freedom, rather their environment is less abusive than the previous. If the state stops initiating force in certain areas, this does not make more free, rather this lessens the force of the gun against your temple.

That creates some interesting incentives.

I love the statement: "he loves tyrannical regimes" as this is projection and is just odd.

The use of data and just asserting that the trends were a result of technological improvement was very disappointing. The entire talk was creating a problem through the use of assertions, not stating that the problems could not be solved through market forces and just assuming it, and then asserting that his solution was the best solution to his assertions. I'm not sure what there really is to argue with. This idea that any economists can fix/run any economy needs to seen as what it is: delusional.

I have an inclination to become an educator, perhaps to open up a school at some point. There are so many disincentives.

I've noticed a few interesting things about LBGT, that I feel would be helpful if addressed. For instance, there is the belief in the argument that focuses on being LBGT not being a choice. I understand fully that it iss almost a fact that LBGT is vastly not a choice, but the argument is detrimental when using in trying to convince someone is bigoted, as it implies that if it was a choice that there would be a something wrong with choosing to be LBGT. If someone says that blacks are [negative term], you ought not to respond with "they do not choose the color they are born with", as this would partially vindicate someone in their prejudice. Furthermore, it completely sidesteps the irrational and detrimental thinking that contributes to their prejudice. I get the sense that many people come to terms with their sexuality through the thought that it isn't in the realm of their choosing, and that if it was somehow proven that LBGT was a choice, that they would have a negative reaction. First, the idea of coming to terms with your sexuality does not make sense if it is a description of something you do not choose, and only needs to occur because of the culture, and to a degree some LBGT advocates. You should only have to explain to someone that they do not have control over the skin color only if they believe they have control over their skin color. Second, I do not believe the aspect of choice ought to at all be focus on how one feels about their sexuality, because this concept is never useful in regards to any other unchosen preference. There is also this idea of having pride in your sexuality, which really doesn't make sense, especially if a major premise is that it is not a choice. I believe that it is important to not frame LBGT issues around the current societal norms, yet rather to frame them in the way that they are likely to be presented in the future.

Emotions are involuntary, but you can certainly put yourself into situations that will trigger emotions that you wish to experience. Though the emotional response would be involuntary, you would be fully responsible the emotional response in such an instance. Listening to music, watching movies, going sight seeing, going on a rollercoaster, and so on would be direct examples. As far as relationships though, it is common for one person to trigger an emotion in the other, so they can trigger an emotion in themselves. This is a large part of the cycle of abuse, and it is very odd on the side of the victim. For instance: a girl might purposely trigger abusive tendencies in her boyfriend in order so that she can express emotions of sadness and discontent in context to the relationship. The emotions are certainly involuntary in that she is not able to stop herself from experiencing them in such a situation, but they are voluntary is so far as that she is choosing to remain with the boyfriend and is purposely triggering the abusive tendencies. I've been in a situation similar to the above, where when she wanted to be mad with me or threaten to end the relationship, she would try to trigger this in so many different ways. It was rather odd, because as she continued to escalate her triggering, it really seemed like she wanted me to yell at her or to hit her. In retrospect this makes sense in regard to her childhood as she had a physically and verbally abusive father, and she was attempting to act out her childhood dynamic through me. I was in a way acting out my childhood by be so willing to manage some else's emotions, and not at all considering my emotions in those moments.

Is there anything specific in regards to the social contract that you'd like addressed? I don't find debates on the social contract to be very useful because people tend to not even know what they are saying. I am quite certain that the argument isn't likely to go anywhere because nobody actually believes what they are saying, rather they get anxious at the thought of being in support of partial enslavement, and have to cover it up through rationalization of words.

"We need to get the money out of politics" Great, we can start with taxation. "I fought for your freedom" Wait, who are you? "People have died for your freedom" Or they died for a concept. Liberal - "Support the troops" Me - "These sorts of human classifications are determined by action, therefore you must support the actions of the troops" Liberal - "Love the sinner, hate the sin" Me - "Love the rapist, hate the rape?" Liberal - "You're grilling me about supporting the troops, and you support rape! Tell me what you think is worse?" "[Any argument about the financial crises that talks about regulation without mentioning the Federal Reserve and the Greenspan Put]" So we are just going to ignore all of this? "Businesses want to make bad investments" This is a large argument in regards to the financial crises. "If us liberals don't do it, then the Republicans will and it will be far worse" If we don't rape this person, another person will rape this person, and they will be far less gentle. Liberal - "Conservatives are owned by cooperations" Me - "Don't liberals receive just as much donations as conservatives. Obama received more than Romney I believe" Liberal - "To win the game, you gotta play by their game"

The site was rather handy when I was in college and was assigned books that I had no capability of reading in a week. I quite liked this article about the minimum wage, though they really lost it with the conclusion.

So if these events did not happen to you, would that be a disproof of a diety? On a bit of a tangent, I had an instance in college where I began to have an odd experience where I experienced my perception of God. I considered myself Christian at the time, and I certainly believed in God. It manifested visually in a blue aura around my sight, but mostly internally, with the communication without words. I knew it was God, in a similar manner that you just kind of know something in a dream. It was very weird, and difficult to explain. My reaction to this was "oh no, this isn't happening is it... uhhh this is so corny.,, uh, I just need to get to bed and this will go away". I treated it like any other hallucination or irrational feeling, and though I was large annoyed with having to deal with it, I was also kind of frieghtened because the presence of God was rather overwhelming and powerful. In retrospect, I had an experience that most people would have taken to be ultimate proof of God's existence. Thankfully I did not. This is an experience I don't really share because it is difficult for others to relate to, and to understand how my actions made sense granted that I believed in a God when it happened. It is like I am crazy for having the experience, or I am crazy for not accepting the experience to be a proof of God. Though I know I don't need to say it, but I am an atheist.

This video series motivates me to apply these sorts of prinicpals in my next relationship. I found the discussion about humor to be very interesting and creative.

This guy really goes for some weird arguments. He seems to think the NAP is intended to apply to any situation, which doesn't really fit in the idea of there needing to be choice in how one interacts with another. No amount of benefit of one or more parties can change whether the benefit was the result of force and that force is immoral? What the author suggests is that something immoral can become moral if it benefits enough people, and this associates morality with gains. Kind of similar to "what is moral is what is best for the majority". This is a question where the answer is intended to be embedded in the question. This is much like "if there was a bomb that a terrorist planted, and you had this terrorist in custody and torture was the only was of getting the information out of the terrorist as to the location of the bomb, would you not agree with torture". I don't agree to assess fictional scenarios with a binary choice and pretend like I am talking about ethics. I am not following this at all. I want to pick this apart, but I'm not sure what is being claimed and why. It is written rather poorly, and if there is an argument being made, it isn't very clear. Feels like it is similar to point 1 where it is based on a word as opposed to reality. This argument is a little difficult to believe because the author quotes Rothbard and others, they are aware that libertarians argue that the NAP applies to fraud, yet the author just dismisses whatever argument the libertarians are making and say it only applies to physical violence. It is a pretty blatant strawman or perhaps a lack of understanding of what the NAP is. A would not be aggressing against A as A is not aware that the field is owned. The NAP is only capable of evaluating chosen action, in that A is aware that the field is owned by someone else, and chooses to go through it.

The NAP allows for responding to aggression on someone else's behalf. If you are walking down the street and see someone being mugged, you have the ability to use violence against the mugger in defense of the person being aggressed against. If you choose not to involve yourself in the matter, someone cannot aggress against you for not taking action, as there are no unchosen positive obligations. With the care of a child, the caretaker has claimed a monopoly over taking care of the child, and if they do not take care of the child (like not feeding them) or do the opposite (abuse), anyone has the ability to use force against the "caretaker" and to remove the child from the home. It would be completely legitimate to hold the "caretaker" accountable for any damages had suffered. The situation is no different than if it is known that a man encloses a woman in the basement and uses her as his slave. The conclusion is not that is it immoral to free the woman as that would entail infringing upon the man's property rights, the conclusion is that the man is initiating force against this woman, therefore aggression against the man is valid. It is important to realize that taking care of a child is not only a positive obligation that the caretaker agrees to, but is also a claim to a monopoly. If the caretaker wish to relinquish their chosen positive obligation, they simply cannot just neglect it (as is the same with other chosen positive obligations), but they must go through a process to relinquish the obligation they choose. In the case of a child, they choose the positive obligation of taking care of the child, and this is not voided by acting in opposition to the obligation.

If the principal is valid, then all implications from the principal must also be valid. In theories of physics, laws and theorems apply not do to logic, but because laws and theorems are posited to always apply. This is going into the "not everything is rational", which tends to just be an admission of a belief they hold, and can't argue for in rational. It is important to assess whether aggression is present in the enforcement and/or funding of minimum wage laws, public schools, taxes, and so on. If the reasoning and logic follows, why isn't it applicable to situations in reality? What does history, sociology, and empirical economics have to do with the validity of the NAP? What theory from such a field invalidates the NAP? Is that theory logical? Also, the ending sentence makes little sense in context to the subject. Non-aggression is not a solution to any problem beside aggression. The minimum wage is claimed to be to a program to solve the problem of poverty, and to provide a proof as to how the minimum wage is not a solution to poverty is not a solution to problem, but an invalidation of what was thought to be a solution. So the NAP does not apply to all situations. The claim here is that Pollution is universally immoral according to the NAP One must pollute to live Everyone is in defiance of the NAP since they pollute If one must pollute to live, then pollution is not an ethical concept, as it would be a description of what people do. I realize that the author claimed that "one must pollute to live in the modern ear", but since time is irrelevant to the NAP, including it in the argument does not make sense. To go further Large industries release pollution into the atmosphere These industries are in violation of the NAP Burning wood on a fire releases pollution into the atmosphere You are in violation of the NAP This is an argument based on the word pollution, and it does not follow as there is no context, just a rather a broad definition based on association of a property. The author claims this to be an implication, yet implications cannot be willed through words, yet must be proven through reason and evidence. I can go further with the article if anybody wants me to.

So the cops not only accepted a tip from a psychic from as fact, but they also reported it to the media, and were also willing to involve them in the destruction of the couple's home. Uh... I hate these types of stories, because I can't make sense of anything, especially in respect to so many other things.

Why is there so much focus on this one girl?

It is quite startling to recognize, to know, that delusion has been forced upon you. That till now, a lost sea of white mist has covered your eyes, as you only had been able to stumble with the aid of vague shadows. If lost in the fog for too long, the shadows become what they describe, and etches into the mind. Upon finding a path free of mist, to not see the farm in front of you, is to see delusion as reality. To see the farm is to open up the gateway to virtue. To learn of true virtue, is to act in reality in accordance with reality, to see beyond shadows. To know virtue, is to recognize the mist, the dead ends, the circular paths, and to know at last: that you can now be free.

Can you expand upon what you mean in context to "slowing down the state". Also, are you describing a political process, in that the state will slow itself down due to political pressure or other similar factors?

It isn't a conclusion so much as an observation of past behavior. It is something that I have a drive towards doing, but wish not to do. I don't think the focus of the conversation should be on the word "chick", as it was meant to exemplify the behavior I was describing. Using the word "woman" would be in conflict with the behavior and part of myself I am describing. I don't attribute these aspects of myself to the self, but rather one of the many parts that make up me, especially in that this behavior/impulse is opposed to my values. The behavior is of course irrational and I wish not to act on it. Part of its origin is the biological drive to mate with the most attractive female. Another is to show off that I am with a attractive woman, so some form of social validation. Another is feeling as though I am likely to be criticized if I am with an unattractive woman. Another being the companion to someone who needs superficial support. I could go on, as this is a subject I've thought about a lot, but I think that is enough.

I understand that your actions with not censoring music from your kids is in junction with the statement "that nothing is wrong with music", but why do you believe what you believe?

The language used in my post was purposeful and in support of the context of the content. I'm am not going to hide this part of myself through a viel of words, yet rather admit to it fully.

I tend to have a bias to look over far more if the chick is hot than if she is not. If a very atrractive, semi attractive, and not very attractive chick were to do something on a date that I did not like, it would stick in my mind the most with the least attractive chick, it would be something to get past with the semi attractive one, and I'd likely be able to move past it with the very attractive chick. To put it this way, my standards go down when I have something to look at. I think this is called thinking with your dick. I don't/can't think badly of myself for this, but rather it is something I try to be very aware of when interacting with attractive chicks. I've gotten a lot better with this, especially with a lot of thought.