TheRobin

Well, is it true? What examples did he give? But basically, the argument is that, people usually don't want to be invaded and oppressed, so there's every incentive to pay some money to have some defensive tools. One that states don't use, but is very effective (also cost-effective) is the threat of assassination of whoever leader declares war against that anarchist society. Not like you can escape a good sniper or an engineered virus or somethign like that. So you can organize a good defense for a lot less than it would cost to invade, so it's not really a problem

Is that accurate though? Maybe you can help me understand it by an example? Say, if I want to play some video game for an hour this afternoon, what need would that underlie, or how would I figure that out if and what need underlies that want?

Man, sounds like a horribly destructive and manipulative clinic Not quite sure what that specifically has to do with IFS though. Oh, someone posted an article in the comment section of the link that EndTheUsurpation posted. Apparently the two main people involved (Mark Schwartz and his Wife Lori Galperin) pulled that hypnosis and false memory crap before Castlewood too. http://www.pitch.com/kansascity/could-it-be-satan/Content?oid=2161553 Just disgusting imo. Also annoying that IFS got mixed up with that, although it would definitely be about time they made some good studies about it's efficacy (the only one I found was in relation to Rheumatic Arthritis, not sure how that works exactly)

Something that bothers me reading it, is: Why only talk about needs? I mean, most of our day's problems and issues come with wants not needs, so it's seems kind of artificial.

The situation you describe is impossible, which is why I think you don't see how the solution would work. It's impossible, because on the one hand you say that the businesses only thrive because of the taxis, but then you say that investing more than 50 bucks would not lead to any profits. And they can't both be true, because if the existence of the taxi company is only leading to around 50 bucks worth of increased profits then they're not the reason why businesses thrive there. On the other hand, if the existence of those taxis does lead to the thriving then they're certainly worth a lot more than 50 bucks to each entrepreneur.

I don't know if you misse the question or if you evaded it on purpose, so again: Why not just sell your ideas to the tyre producer? If you can show them the cost-benefit analysis of switching to your improvement then they can figure out what it's worth. So you go around get some offers and strike whichever deal you find is best. (Or am I missing something here?)

Why not just sell your ideas to the tyre producer? If you can show them the cost-benefit analysis of switching to your improvement then they can figure out what it's worth. So you go around get some offers and strike whichever deal you find is best. (Or am I missing something here?) Also, and I wanted to mention that in the other thread as well: I think one of the best investment you could make at the moment is in self-knowledge. Though I'm not really sure how I'd make an actual case for that right now, ha, sorry about that. But I think as a general rule (and I think Stef even has an interview with someone about that) it is quite an investment with quite a good longterm benefit. (ah, yeah, there it is )

Well there seems to be some empirical evidence that correlates tatoos and body art with higher drug abuse and crime rates and higher promuscuity. I don't think there's a sllogism for that though. On the top of my head, I'd say maybe because, if something is that important to you that you want everyone to see it engraved on your body, then that might be an indicator of not being listened to a lot from the people who claim to care about you, hence the try to "write it down for others to see" cause speaking it would either get you attacked or ignored.

Because if you're in a slump and can't find a job, where do you go? The state monopolized the welfare for the most part, so there's barely any charities that actually could help you with that (or at least that's my assumption). Given that most of the problems of not getting a job (or there not being enough jobs created) also stem from the government, I'd make the case that there aren't really any other options. Now, simply getting welfare and not doing anything to get off it is certainly a bit scumbaggy, especially, if you actually can work (like, if you're not disabled or so), but it's still not in any way an ethical consideration, since you're neither initiating force, nor actively hiring people to do so on your behalf. But what's your justification for the principle of "profiting from the loot = being an accomplice"?

I whole-heartedly disagree with that. If you're using a road that was paid for by taxes, are you an accomplice of the theft? I f there's no other option available then there's no moral consideration.

Well, I certainly agree that god and afterlife aren't necessarily correlated. I grew up in Switzerland as a complete atheist and surrounded by mostly atheists and I still beliefed in an afterlife and was fascinated by the idea and read books about it etc. Though, in my opinion, these sorts of escape fantasies are usually correlated to a shitty childhood and being surrounded by jerks and or abusers that you can't escape when you're young and dependant.

@Wuzzums: I don't think that argument is necessarily true. In order for anyone to bother creating (and even more: maintaining) this simulation there would need to be a strong incentive, as that qould require a lot of energy and work. So I don't really think there are more simulations really. Also the simulation within a simulation arguments assumes that there's an infinite storage space on the oringial simulation (as all the data needs to be stored there and if you start adding simulation on top of simulation you'd get a very large number of data at some point). Basically, we can't be more accurate than a quantum, as that is the smallest unit, but wihtin a created simulation the smallest unit needs to be larger than that, so at some point you're running out of space (even assuming anyone would actually care to make these simulations)

So, jobs don't grow on trees, therefore we can and should use murderthreats against anyone who has a job to force them to give everyone else money? (btw, if you've never came across the argument (and I'd encourage you to google it): Automation is on the rise mostly, because of all the regulation and minimum wage laws and stuff. The moment you make it more expensive to hire a person people will try to find alternatives. Nothing to do with technology (although ofc that can happen as well, that technology becomes that much cheaper and easier or mroe practical to implement)

I second the notion of clarfying what you mean here a little, but just to respond to the question in the title. There's no "no god" theory. There is a "god theory" which can be shown to be by definition self-contradictory, so we know it's false. The afterlife, isn't by definition impossible, however there is absolutely no evidence for it. (I know there's lots of people claiming otherwise, but I haven't found an experiment that was meant to proof the afterlife that didn't have signifacant flaws in its design or execution). So sure, there could be an alternative realm of matter and energy (albeit not exactly identical to what we call matter at least) and sure, it could be that our brain patterns get uploaed into a new body after death, but that makes about as much sense as saying there might be some invisible alien spaceship hovering around earth that uploads our brain patterns into a virtual reality network after we die. Sure it's probably hypothetically possible, but as long as there's no evidence it would be completely insane to assume it's true. Reincarnation makes even less sense as that would require brain patterns to be implanted into a new born (or fetus), but I haven't met a baby that had capacities like a grown old man or memories like one, so I think it's safe to say that this idea is disproven. I think the more relevant question might be, why is that important to you?

I wouldn't agree to that. I just recently listened to one of Sidney Roc's shaving philosopher videos, where he makes the arguments, that since, the welfare state doesn't differentiate between poor by habit and poor by accident, they do support he bad habbits of people by unconditionaly paying for them. And it only gets worse if the person in question has kids who then also suffer from their bad habits (like say alcoholism, drug abuse or such), so one can rightly argue that unconditional social programs directly enable child abuse in that manner.

Well, most parents seem the walk a line of either neglect of violence when it comes to teaching their children stuff. And I have no problems accepting that neglect makes a child more prone to not want to succeed that much later as it fundamentally undermines motivation. But concluding that spanking causes success later just based on that correlation I think is entirely unwarranted.

Hey Walt, I think you've come to the right place then. First of all HUGE respect for your honesty and courage in writing that post. I also want to start by saying, I'm currently also a bit short on empathy, so I can't really give you the emapthy you'd need and deserve at the moment, BUT I think I can still point you towards some very useful recources none the less. You guys probably haven't heard of the so called Internal Family Systems approach (short: IFS and here on the boards often also called "Mecosystem"). The basic premise of that model is that we're all composed of mulitple parts or aspects and that there's nothing fundamentally unhealthy about that. The problem only comes from when the parts are fighting each other and don't communicate and negotiate. For most people this happens unconcsiously ofc, but once you start looking it's very esy to validate that claim. Stef actually did an interview with Dr. Schwartz who discovered and/or came up with that model (found here ) and if you search for podcasts with the term "mecosystem" I'm sure you'll find some too. Also a book that gets recommended here a lot is "Self-Therapy" by Jay Early (http://www.amazon.com/Self-Therapy-Step-By-Step-Wholeness-Cutting-Edge-Psychotherapy/dp/0984392777/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413969865&sr=8-1&keywords=self-therapy+jay+earley) which is a very good introduction both to the theory but also how to practically work with multiple parts. In general I've found honetsy, curiousity (which, in your situation, would probably mean a lot of listening on Sams part) and negotiation is key in any relationship, be that with yourself or others, so I'm happy to hear that you guys started talking, which is big step in the right direction I think and I'm sure you can find something to works to your mutual benefit. Hope that helps and wecome to the boards

Wow, I have never ever seen anyone do so much stuff just for shaving, haha. I usually just take the razor and start without anything at all. Then again, man your chin looks smooooth Maybe I should give it a try sometime. Anyway, cool idea and definitely subbed here, looking forward to eharing more of you. Also I really enjoyed the Liberty & Gaming podcasts, very intersting.

None of us here are doctors or psychiatrist (I think), but for what it's worth, it seems very reasonable to me to make sure that there's no physiological reason for certain problems. For one thing, it would only waste time to try and cure a physiological problem with talk therapy (can't talk away a bacterial infection for instance) so if there's a possibility that some of your issues are physiological then it would certainly make sense to check that out. Also that, once you know what and what isn't physiological in origin you can then rest assured that the talk therapy actually treats the right problems. Edit: Certainly nothing lost to go for an appointment. Also that way, you can ask the psychiatrist directly to show or reference you some studies that prove that the drug works and that there's indeed a clear physiological test they can do etc.

Well, as the saying goes, what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I wouldn't put the snark aside. Actually, I think it's probably the most important part of the post to listen to

Cool. That was the first anarchy book I ever bought. Still consider it one of the best introduction to the topic.

Maybe a step back from he wrong direction more than a step in the right one. Like, if you get beaten ten times a day and then that changes to only twice, it's still not right, but at least less bad.

The difference between pseude science and science is that scientific theories can be falsified. And if a theory can't be proven to be false then by defintiion it can't be known to be true. One can have an inspiration that leads to a sceintific theory (the DNA double-helix comes to mind) of course, as well as just doing something "weird" cause of a gut feeling that you can later test to be either working or not (stuff like meditation or dancing or chating or that geometrical stuff you were talking about) regardless of whether or not you have a clear idea about why it is working (to a degree I would say psychology is also part of that category, cause you can't falsify subjective experiences, but you can test whether or not a certain experience has a certain outcome on behaviour or mood or well-being).

Well, as a seller of products or services I'd use whatever works to sell stuff. If people can't really think critically at the moment, the only place to look is the failed school system (which ofc, isn't free market). Once children actually get educated instead of indoctrinated the advertising will change too, cause the current methods wouldn't really sell that well anymore