Nathan T_ Freeman

I can think of 3 off the top of my head.. Shame on you Parents for failing to protect your children and sending them off to state indoctrination camps instead. Shame on you School for failing to protect the children and passing the buck. Shame on you State for murdering 10 times this many with drone strikes in Pakistan since 2009 But honestly, just that image alone strikes me as exploitative. It might just be my mood, but I wouldn't want to offer up a counter-meme using the same image.

http://realbeautysketches.dove.us/ Yeah, it's a commercial, but I still thought it was a beautiful demonstration of the incredible differences between how we see ourselves and how we see others. Man, wouldn't it be interesting to do that experiment with a group of sociopaths? Or politicians? But I repeat myself...

So what is it you think they're doing when they're using their iPad & other devices?

That's a terrible analogy. The gut has evolved to accumulate waste and eliminate it from time to time, usually according to a daily biorhythm and not "on demand". On the other hand, once you've learned to read, it's not a cyclic phenomenon. Then propose a better one. The underlying point is that what the viewer witnessed was not a girl who's unable to read but a girl who didn't provide a response when ordered to do so by a stranger.

*chuckle*Also, it was Tiffany, not Ivy, that was the victim of this particular tyranny.

If you haven't watched it yet, you really should. There's some world-class philosophical parenting from the Sparkling Martins. Regarding Ivy not reading the dishwasher, how do you know she couldn't read it? What you know is that she couldn't respond to being ordered by a dominating stranger twice her size to read it. That's not the same as not being able to actually read it, any more than not being able to poop on demand shows that you don't have bowel movements.

In May, there's an invite-only event for entrepreneurs in Toronto. http://event.mastermindtalks.com/healthy-wealthy-and-wise-entrepreneur/ I would humbly suggest that Stefan try to get an invite. If he gets one, then perhaps he can organize an interview with the amazing Suli Breaks. Here's Suli's latest, the opening of which is very nearly a transcript of "The Tyranny of Illusion". https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151571236019049 Please, take a look.

After spending the afternoon contemplating it, this was my reaction on Facebook. If politicians had souls...My fellow Americans, Today's events in Boston have taken a heavy toll on our nation. The horrific images of buildings exploding, people running in terror, the innocent wounded being carried away without the legs that had just run 26 miles, and blood literally running in our streets, have moved me in a way that I have not felt since childhood. As reports flowed into my office from the scene, I realized that this is what people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Syria experience every day. I had what alcoholics call a "moment of clarity" as I suddenly understood that America's policy of -- no, I'm sorry -- MY policy of targetting families with drone-launched Hellfire missiles was inflicting exactly the same horror on other innocent people around the world.As this revelation burst through my mind, I sank to my knees and prayed to God for his guidance. And I heard his response in the words of the Gospel of Matthew, "put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." These words finally made sense to me, that violence begets violence; and that, whoever the culprit of these particular crimes turns out to be, the blame rests with me.So it is with a grim but determined heart that I apologize. I'm sorry Boston, I'm sorry America, for having brought this violence to you. God had warned me of the consequences of hubris, but I did not listen. I am listening now. I'm sorry.Effective immediately, I am terminating the Predator drone program. All remote aircraft weapons platforms are grounded and will be scheduled for demolition.Further, I have ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to begin the unilateral withdrawal of all US military personnel from foreign territories. The United States will no longer pursue a policy of aggression and occupation against the people of the world.It is time to end the cycle of terror. In my solemn responsibility as the President of the United States, I pledge to take the first steps in healing the world. I only wish I had understood this sooner.Thank you for your patience and faith. I will not fail you again.-- President Barack Obama, April 15 2013

As long as you can buy goods with bitcoin, it will outperform fiat currency. As long as drugs and guns are controlled by the state, you will be able to buy guns and drugs with bitcoin. As long as you can buy drugs and guns with bitcoin, you will be able to buy other things that drug sellers and gun sellers want with bitcoin. Therefore bitcoin will actually crash when the Drug War ends. And as long as the state tightens its grip, more voluntary transactions and therefore more wealth will move to bitcoin.The fact that the total market cap of bitcoin allows it to be manipulated in measures of fiat currency just means that speculators can speculate. Well, let them. The truth is on the side of those who recognize that fiat currency is a QUADRILLION dollar scam, and so even if BTC turns out to be a BILLION dollar scam, you're still a million times better off.

I have considered that my way of thinking is only a veil for behavior that actually prevents me from doing things that would make me more satisfied. And what was your conclusion?

Because really smart, insightful people can still make errors. That would echo other criticisms of her. However to say she developed philosophy as a child and then claim she is not a philosopher is a self-detonating statement. If she developed philosophy as a child, then she was a philosopher. That great thinkers might not have a full understanding of their own premises. "Atlas Shrugged" is really about the rejection of unchosen obligation and deFOOing. Galt's Gulch is not only an anarchist society, but it's also a place where "anyone would consider it monstrous to present a child with a suggestion of the irrational." Rand might have thought she was imagining a world with a constitution, but what she was imagining was a world without hegemonic power, even with children. She is not the first thinker to misunderstand her own grand vision.

What feedback could I provide that would motivate you to chase this dream with your whole heart? I think there is a great opportunity right now for comedy that pokes at hegemonic power. Some random thoughts... 1) You mentioned Stanhope in another thread. I find him absolutely hilarious and EVERY person I've shared his YouTube clips with agrees. His observations on the absurdity of government are not fringe. People get it. 2) While Carlin is widely regarded as a brilliant comic, one thing that isn't widely known is how much effort he put into his craft. Research anything you can find on his process. He was deliberately subtle and poignant at the same time. He was never openly anarchistic because he wasn't trying to design a system; he was just trying to mock the one that was already there. This resonated with audiences for 30+ years. 3) One of the reasons that Stefan is successful with FDR is because he's funny. He's not successful standup comic funny, but he's got a quick wit and a great sense of irony that, coupled with his flair for dramatic language, makes him a great improviser. Listen to his podcasts with an ear on both the meaning and the delivery because if you can turn up the humor dial while sustaining the truth dial, you will be amazing. 4) One of Carlin's great lessons is that everything is funny. He even made jokes about rape. (It was very difficult for him to do it; he took it as a great personal challenge.) Religion is fucking hilarious. The State is even more hilarious. Schools and parents are completely absurd. Everyone knows this and almost none of them admit it. Play those strings and people will trail along. 5) My favorite example of a mainstream comic unknowingly promoting a pro-freedom idea is Louis C.K. (Well, he knowingly promoted it with his "pay what you want" album recently.) He has this bit where he talks about yelling at his daughter and having this realization: "I am her first asshole." He didn't finisht the thought with story about what he did differently, but I really think that someone with a clearer sense of philosophy could have. 6) Remember that every joke doesn't have to be about philosophy. You can say something that's just funny, even if it isn't about the fundamental philosophy of freedom. Don't obsess and don't constrain your creativity. 7) The internet is your friend. You can test drive material in your living room with a cell phone and a YouTube account. I promise you that people on YouTube will not hold back from giving you their most direct criticism. :-) If you can establish some emotional separation from your material, it's a great testing surface. Just remember that negative feedback can be about theme, content, or delivery -- and you shouldn't assume any particular one of those. The audience is unlikely to know which they are reacting to. That's all for now. Please, please, please pursue this idea. I really want to see it in practice!

You're looking for integrity from a mega-corporation that has received massive protection and subsidies from the US government, deals with a union that's as corrupt as any local city council, and who's primary goal relative to its employees is to avoid a lawsuit. I respect your desire for consistency, but in this case it's a fool's errand. If you want to stay in this job, you'll need to shift your expectations pretty significantly in order to be happy. If you find you cannot change your expectations regarding your employer, you'll either have to suffer continuous disappointment or quit your job. Changing Boeing Corp's policy without an army of lawyers on your side is as likely as ending the Fed.

I didn't realise donations could be made conditional on such minutae as the documentary's title. Are you suggesting that I'm somehow obligated to donate regardless of my evaluation of your proclaimed "minutae?"

Honestly, my only surprise is that you're still engaging in a relationship with these people.

That makes no sense. I don't know what you are saying here, at all. It's actually nonsense. And comparing rape to spankings makes you so inept at understanding the difference between the 2 that you actually tried to "enter" rape into the realm of this conversation to draw some parallel with a spanking. You must not have any idea of what rape is to say something so ignorant. Oh man, thank you so much for validating my intuition to ostracize you. I sincerely hope that you can someday observe your argument here in light of how you address your girlfriend, how you address your own parents, and how you address your situtations with your kids. All of this needs dramatic inward reflection that can probably only be achieved through therapy. Seriously, I hope you seek it. Please let me know if you ever start the process. You have a keen, insightful intelligence. When it has been freed from the propaganda of parent-worship through abuse, I imagine that it will be incredibly engaging. Best of luck to you.

I'm not interested in debating the merits of the name with random people. What I will say is that if you change the name, I will withdraw my funding. The goddess of philosophy does not deserve hesitant respect.

Sent you an email. I live in Cherokee County. Can't be more than 30 minutes from you. Maybe we can meet up in person sometime.

Personally, I really enjoyed the movie version of House of Cards. But for a completely different reason. :-)

This is an intriguing notion. Could someone create competitive advantage by making a store and stating "you are responsible for paying the sales tax?" This was an early idea at Sam's Club, but I think the idea got drowned by legal implications. At the very least, we could support a retailer who CLEARLY LABELED THE TAX on goods. I'm thinking Whole Foods might be the place to pitch this idea.

First 20 seconds, giant props for using a Rush riff as your transition music. What's hilarious is that I'm sure that this is from Clockwork Angels, even though I've only listened to the album twice in my whole life, simply because it's so obviously Rush and I don't instantly recognize the song. :-) Okay, now I'll unpause....

A wonderful response Arius. I'm not sure if it's what you intended, but my take away from your analysis of pitting employer against employee is that they would do the dance of scheduling. Someone who's costs went up 20% would find themselves scheduled for 20% fewer hours. So they'd go from 40 hours to 32 hours, and still net the same pay. (But "feel" like it was more because of the hourly increase.) If the employer can't fire people outright, he can at least schedule fewer over them at the same time. The net result is the same, but no one actually lost their job. This would explain why increases in the minimum wage don't increase unemployment directly. They simply increase underemployment.

Sure, any quantity of force is bad. My point was that anything can be a negative at sufficient levels. Simply increasing the quantity of a thing to a point where it becomes negative does not show that a small amount is also a negative...thus, water. I'm just trying to keep logical falacies to a minimum. In the case of the trillion dollar coin, even a single penny of debt monetization is bad. The coin is detrimental at any dollar value. It doesn't show it if you're unused to thinking in terms of principles, as most people are. Still, it has use as a rhetorical technique. Reductio ad absurdum is a valuable debate tool; it resonates with most people even after the initial conversation. We aren't debating the truth value of a $9 minimum wage or a trillion dollar coin -- we're debating the best approaches to putting the ideas in other people's heads that these are invalid ideas. Demonstrating the absurdity of their logical conclusion is a good way to do so. You can respond with "most people don't think in principles, and they will therefore argue back that when a thing is bad in excess, it's still good in moderation," and that's certainly an insightful reply. I would ask what rhetorical technique you would use when confronted with that counterargument.

Since a swimming pool full of water will drown me rather than cure my thirst, all water must be bad? No, but even a glass of water forcefully injected into your lungs will drown you. It isn't the water that's the problem. It's the force. So let's change the original propostion from "a little intervention" to "a little violence" which is what sprale really meant, I think.

Did you read the thread at all? I must have said 5 times in just this thread that you must define it. For example, from the very start in this post: "What do you believe is the probability that there is a God? (of course, providing whatever definition of God you want to know someone's belief about)." Ah, now it's full circle. If sociopathy is determined by genetic disposition, and genetic disposition is determined by the omnipotent creator, then sociopathy is caused by the omnipotent creator, and therefore human judgement on such an outcome is impossible. After all, we cannot know the mind of God. There it is all wrapped up in a neat little bow. Thanks STer, for making it clear. Perhaps now people will get it: DO. NOT. FEED. THE. TROLLS.