Pepin

If it is a work relationship, I personally wouldn't continue with that sort of conversation. You probably won't change her mind, you will likely make work very difficult and awkward, and you are likely to get a bad reputation. It's a risk of course, and if you are willing to accept it, continue the discourse. I might have a bias in this, as I don't like comprising my job.

I really like a lot of Objectivism. It really helped my thinking out, and it seems to have got you thinking too. To clarify one point though, Objectivism breaks philosophy into four components. They are intended to build upon each other in a dependent manner, with metaphysics being the base. FDR tends to agree with the metaphysics and epistemology, but differ in the ethics and politics. Objectivism bases ethics on being rationally self interested, while UPB bases it on the validity of univeriversal claims. Though many of their conclusions are the same, the method is completely different. UPB also is not a theory which covers metaphysics and epistemology, but rather assumes them. It could be said to be based on the first two stones of Objectivism, but it could also be said to be based on many other theories which have the same conclusion. Anyway, I hope you continue your reading as the subject is very interesting. Happy new year.

Imagine that there is someone who does not believe in a god. Can we assume that they believe this because they rationally weighed the arguments for and or against? Not at all, especially since many people become atheists for very dumb reasons. Not believing in a god is only an opinion until supported by sufficient reason and evidence. If this person were to force others to convert to atheism with the threat of force, though they are technically correct, can it not be said that they are wielding and opinion with a gun? Someone who claims that they are pro-science without understanding the scientific method is simply stating an opinion. They believe science is good not because they are judging the goodness of science, but they are just stating a conclusion that they agree with. If this person were to force other to agree with scientific conclusions, could this not be said to be an opinion with a gun? Why an individual would state a conclusion as fact when they have little to no ability to make an argument for the conclusion has many explanations, ranging from going with the crowd, to memetic replication. Whatever the reason, what is important is that though there may be justification on the state's part, there is no real valid ethical theory which supports it all. Even if justification can be made by some individuals, those who enforce the law have little to no understanding of their actions. They are in the same position as people who were given orders by "god" in the past. Do they enforce the law because the authority figure says the law is good, or do they enforce the law because they have a rational understanding of their actions? I understand that you are likely very intelligent and could provide great ethical arguments as to why murder and rape is wrong, but most people are rather unable to form any sort of coherent argument. It isn't that they won't have a list of reasons, but rather that the reasoning does not hold up to any philosophical scrutiny. Opinions and weak arguments are completely fine in most instances, but when it comes to the use of force, the.level of rigor is very high. Ultimately, the issue is not even that some laws are correct but not understood, it is rather that the laws do not apply to those in the government. Do not murder? Wars, police brutality, economic policy, and so on murders millions upon millions of people every year. Do not steal? Governments are funded through the theft of its citizens money. Worse, money is stolen from those not even born? Do not rape? Government law throws people in rape cells for drug crime. The military records of rape and sexual misconduct is also very bad. Do not pollute? Governments are the biggest source of pollution, especially in regard to wartime activity. It is also really difficult to convey the waste of energy that so many government policies create, such as the interstate highway program artificially lowering the price of living away from cities, or farm subsides keeping the meat industry in full health. I hope that all makes sense and at least helps in your understanding of why people here tend to say that. If you have any counter arguments I'd be happy to hear them, I posted a lot so you can choose to be picky as opposed to refuting every point.

I'm curious, why do you associate initiating arguments with initiating aggression? You may be right in your thinking, it is just that I don't know how you got there. Even if you are wrong, providing an explanation of why arguments are not aggression may not be too satisfying, especially if it doesn't address the reasoning behind your question.

The data can be explained by lack or reporting due to cops and others not reporting. Like how drug crime would go to zero if drugs laws were not enforced. We do not know if crime has lowered or gotten higher because there is no third party measurement, the numbers are based on police reporting, in which case of course the numbers has decreased when they purposely do not intend to enforce the law in most small crime instances.

If I was on my deathbed and I started spilling dirty little secrets of my life, I would expect my friends and family to change the subject to something they cared about, like my impending death and the relationships we shared. Unless I hid millions in the wallpaper, I can not see them even wanting to hear about the various secrets I had. Is the question "is it healthy for me to keep secrets now, and to plan to never tell them?". Depends on the contents, but certainly yes for those examples. If it is something like "the buisness I am leaving behind is a sham, I cooked the books", then that is different.

I thank you for your response, though I am confused as to where my lengthy "post above" refrenced in that post is. It contained my actual argument, while that was a response in regard to prefrence and action, which is why it did not really focus on information. I remember posting it as it gave me that annoying "needs approval" message. I do not assume it was censored, but maybe they accidentally rejected it or have not approved it yet??? Eh, I am a bit annoyed because it took me over half an hour to write. I think I will try rewriting it when I get a chance.

I appriciate the time you took to write this and your humble approach. I am having a difficult time understanding exactly your argument because I do not think you have written it for an audience who is not familair with your ideas. Like if Einstien made an arguement for special relativity without laying a solid groundwork for the subject matter he was addressing and why his theory is needed to explain reality, it likely would be a bit confusing to others who did not specialize in physics. I think you are presenting ideas that make sense in your head, but you have not quite converted them into a form others can follow. This is probably the most difficult part about theories, explaining them in a way which make sense to others. Hope that makes sense. It is likely the rsponse you wanted, but it is better than being misunderstood.

I would be interested in a rebuttal to my arguements above which conclude the opposite. I do think there is some grey area, like someone saying off the cuff "the world would be better off if someone killed them", but I am interested that if my argument holds up in the more serious cases of advocating murder.

What is a moral exactly?

If I understand you right, I think I would agree that consent might be more understandable in the context above. My intent was to use UPB type language to imply that UPB was the ethical standard.

I generally agree with the article. Stefan has said much of the same as well, that contracts are not enforceable and that social ostracism is a possible solution. Another solution is the idea of a contract rating, which is similar to a credit rating, but for contracts. When you fulfill a contract, it adds to your reputation, and when you fail to fulfill the contract, it leaves a negative mark. An individual who breaks many contracts will not be able to find to many people willing to contract with them. I am a little confused about the problem below.

He probably does not anymore, but it really doesn't matter if he does, as his standards and advice is pretty realistic for drug free lifters. Being enhanced doesn't discredit advice at all, unless you're a bodybuilder, in which case you likely shouldn't be giving advice.

I do not think I understand your post above J-William. I understand the social pressure from friends and family is there, but if a memory is literally sealed off from a person's conciousness, it is nearly impossible to distinguish the real recovered memory from a false one. The social implications and assumptions would be shared by both, so it is difficult for to see it as evidence for either. As I stated in some posts above, some sort of effective methodology needs to be in place to give credibility to memories. Even if repressed memories have validity, the ability to distinguish them from false memories is important. I think a large advantage to ifs and other therapies is that they do not treat memories, but rather the effect memories have. Whether something actually happened does nor matter as much as whether they believed it happened.

I think Elliot is a decent example of a rational spirituality. The rational part may be hit or miss, but I think the subjective aspect of our mind and body is given too little attention. I am very science oriented, and most claims made by Elliot are not scientific at all, but I think there is a role for that kind of thought. Mindset shifts are quite important in life and in fitness, and they are not directly measurable. For instance, with pull ups, you might think about pulling the bar down to you instead of pulling yourself up. There is no real difference in the movements as you are essentially doing the same thing, but changing your perception can make it easier and result in more gain. I find this to be the same with self help advice, like seeing problems as opportunities does not change the circumstance, but it certainly affects your perception of it and how you handle it. There may be methods which really ought not to work, but for some reason do. You might not have emotion pent up in your body, but attempting to release emotion and stress through vigorous shaking might still provide a large benifit. I hesitate to call this placebo, but rather mind body management. I think there could be studies that show the effectiveness of particular methods, but since much of it deals with subjective content, it might be difficult to quantify the gains and losses.

When it comes to other people's memories about you from long ago, I would be pretty hesitant, especially in regard to their perception. For instance, at a restaurant I worked at, I once went to to get some water and the faucet ended up flying off to across the room. After the initial surprise, I turned off the water and started laughing. I wanted to share what had happened before I repaired it. When a coworker came through the kitchen door I showed them. The guy asked what happened and put the faucet back on. Later that night he told the story to everyone, saying that he came on the scene to find me horrified and in a daze, and that I ought have been so lucky that he came to my rescue. Point is, that though the same events were the same, his perception of the event totally changed the tone. I could be pretty certain he was wrong about his perception for a number of reasons. I could have put the faucet back on myself. It is beyond simple. I would have no reason to be afraid. If I didn't find it embarrassing or some negative term, I would have put it back on immediately instead of waiting for someone to see it. The idea sounds comical to me in my head, so it is likely that I would have found it funny if it actually happened. This man has a reputation for exaggerating and making up stories. In your situation, you might want to take the commonality of events and make a guess as to what actually happened. You not remembering the events, or not having a good idea of what you were like might make this difficult and very inaccurate. What I find to usually be the case with memories that I can say are true are that they tend to have a lot of unrelated information. Like, my parents were talking about an old friend's dead dog's name for some reason, and I said "oh, Luke?". They were confused as to how I knew, which I explained they brought it up a few years. Now I just don't remember the dog's name, but the whole memory is being in the back seat of the car, my Mom in the driver's seat with my Dad in the passenger's seat, we were stopped at a stop light across from a skateboard shop I like to visit, and so on. Similarly, I find that if I remember something someone said, I tend to remember what else they said around that time. In many ways, more data is just a means of invalidating false memories. Things that don't quite make sense will kind of stick out, especially when you tell other people. It might also be a good idea to do calculation on how much knowing something actually matters. With that said, I am unsure of how helpful my post is. I tend to have a very good memory and a good idea of what I would and would not do partly because I decided when I was around eight to be consistent. It wasn't fueled by a will to be virtuous or anything, rather a fear of being caught in a hard to explain situation and some other irrational ideas I can't remember... As a result though, I am very capable of assessing my own memories because I changed very little and was always very aware of what I would and would not do.

I would disagree, as preference is what is measured to determine the ethicacy of an interaction. What distinguishes rape from love making is not the interaction, as sexual intercourse is common to both, but rather it is the opposing preferences. As argued in my post above, releasing information to people with immoral intentions is not ethical as it is somewhat equivalent to conspiring with a hitman. An intention is a promise to act in a particular way in the future. Selling firearms is typically amoral, but if someone were to state their intention to shoot up a school to the shop owner, this would be considered conspiring. To give another example, if two people are fighting on the street, and you throw one a bat, you are conspiring with them. Though it cannot be said that you are completely liable for damages or the fight, you involved yourself in the fight by giving someone a bat. In an everyday context, giving someone a bat is amoral. A getaway driver may have not robbed the bank, but they knowingly aided the robbery. To generalize this idea, when you are aware of a person preference to act against another's, and that they intend to act on that preference, providing the means and resources for them to do so supports and encourages their preference. Knowledge of the intention is the determining factor in this.

I liked the article. Never really thought about picture and furniture placement. I would say I am very good at reading people, though I can be become disconnected in conversation due to anxiety. Most people are not so good at reading me, but my coworkers and close friends are better at it. What I find useful is to notice body language when people are being obvious, as then you'll notice it in other circumstances, and you'll have practiced. To put it this way, if you don't put in the practice now, can you really expect yourself to even be able to focus on body language in the moment when it is important? Mental models are also useful. Try to predict what people will say or do, and be aware of it.

He is not exactly selling his audience any product, but rather hope in quick and dirty fixes for their lives, similar to lottery dealers. Of course he is actually selling products, but his audience cares more about information that will not actually change their lives, as opposed to the common sense approach of "eat better, exercise more". It has its roots in mystical potions.

One particular question to ask is "what is real?". Try to figure out what they mean, and just be a five year old. Most people put forward ideas like they make sense and are evident, and simply questioning what does not make sense to you is a way around it. It does not mean to disagree, as you can't disagree with a claim you don't understand, but just to figure out what they mean. You may find that they have a great idea and were not able to articulate it, or more likely, that they don't even understand what they are saying.

Season Finale Spoilers!!! I loved it. Loved it so much. It was the perfect end to the series and everything just made so much sense. But to delve into one aspect a little further... The theme of the season is family bonds. That between Toph and Lin, Asami and her father, Korra and her friends and family, Suyin and Baataar, Suyin and Kuvira. Opal and Bolin, the airbender siblings and so on. Kuvira is the only one without a family, and is unable to restore any ties, so she sets out to become the "Great Uniter" and to create her own family. This is echoed in various lines, but in particular, when Baataar said "Kuvira is my family now" in the episode before the finale. Though the idea is downplayed, the lack of family connection is demonstrated very well artistically. In many ways, the uniting of people and provinces is similar to becoming a dictator in IFS. She is very calculating and in control of herself, and having no real internal family herself, she externalizes her family upon the external environment to create a psychological unity. Due to her controlling nature, she expects voluntarism from others, but often resorts to force and coercion to achieve unity, outcasting those who do not bend to her will. The choice of Kuvira being a metal bender from a city whose focus is defense makes far too much sense, as it is symbolic for her psychological defences. She rips apart her home of Zuofu to turn what used to be a defensive mechanism, into a weapon. Worse, she finds a way to channel spiritual energy into a very destructive force. Her controlling the giant mech from the inside, making decisions about who lives and dies, is analogous to the relation between her and her body. She is able to attack from the inside, because her outer shell is nearly impenetrable. I could go on with these ideas, perhaps many not being so good, but I think there is a lot of symbolism and subtext to Kuvira. I wrote up this sort of prediction on a few videos a week or two ago, and it seems to line up as true. Also... Korrasami!!! This is one of the first times I've ever shipped something, and I am so glad it happened. EDIT: To add this I found posted on reddit: That to me suggests that the projection goes deeper. Since the state is a projection of the family, it is only natural for Kuvira to see Suyin's refusal to take care of the kingdom as a refusal to be a parent. Kuvira steps in to play the role, fearing that she would be abandoned again, only to encase herself in her own defenses.

I would agree. I use the term to mean having no physical basis, in other words, if you were to describe a system in purely physical terms, it would not describe concepts. Data is a good example of this, where you can describe the differing magnetic directions on a hard drive which make up a particular program, but be unable to derive the existence of the program from the magnetic directions. Perception and conceptualization are the methods which allow for abstract properties to be applied to any real object.

Bob Murphy isn't an expert in Austrian economics? He teaches multiple classes a year on Man Economy and State, which is regarded as the definitive source of Austrian economic theory. even by Mises. He has written a number of books on economics, including an introduction to economics. Of course he only understands a small subset of economics, like any other expert, but he is still very well versed. He's not any sort of Rothbard, but he is still a very good source. Not sure what debates you saw, but the ones I've seen he has killed it as far as arguments. He is more like the average intellectual in terms of speaking style, rather than public figures like Peter Schiff or any news personality, which could make him seem less intelligent. Often times, the way you talk can determine whether people listen or not.

Certainly positive. The aspect of dissociation is there, but since it is paired with self inquiry, it is advantageous. Gaining self knowledge is a very dissociative process of disconnecting from your current self, looking at: emotions, thoughts, and desires from a outside vantage point, and using reason and evidence to come to conclusions about the content. There is healthy dissociation and unhealthy dissociation, though the term is used mostly in conjunction with unhealthy acts. Heavy thinking, day dreaming, reading books, and driving tend to be dissociative acts, but they certainly aren't unhealthy.