Wesley

I enjoyed your earlier definitions. They were very useful.

It is a major show topic. Either they didn't focus much on the order or it is of more interest to the forum users than philosophy or it was some order in which the topics were added from older board software that wasn't changed upon importing it. I think it is very valuable. I realized God didn't exists largely thanks to Stef's arguments.

I feel like almost every debate, at some point, is helped along by putting out definitions of terms. Defining terms is not equal to twisting your words or classifying what you are saying. It is defining terms to make sure everyone is on the same page as to what is being discussed. Hmmm other terms... Fact? Science? I could keep going. You make statements about reality as in "God exists" then it is no longer a personal belief, but is open to criticism with reality as the measuring stick. A personal belief is something this is in your person and you do not state as a fact of reality. Also, I do not have a belief that there are no leprechauns. There just are none. Same thing with gods.

It seems that he just defined words. I do not believe that he was twisting anything that you said.

Yes, we're all godless over here, but we're not commies! Is what the description says. It is a joke because of the number of people who consider atheists to automatically be communists. As a joke, I would not take it very serious as characterizing or propaganda or anything. It is just a joke. Atheism only has killed a bunch of people if you consider statism to not be another religion- worship of the state. Finally, theism has killed many, many millions. The true atheists who also are anarchists as they do not worship the state- at least I do not know of any murders. I am sure there are a few, but it is much more rare at least.

Hmmmm... I am confused by "shared exploitation" as a term. I would think it would be almost an exchange of value in a weird way. Like they both ignore or change their values so they can retain comfort that everyone is virtuous enough to see. I am sure it is possible, but I am having trouble figuring out a situation where mutual and chosen exploitation could exist.

So then you will have no problem reproducing the experiment and posting a video. I am interested to see it.

I specifically advised against it in my post. It is possible to make money, but you have to really know what you are doing which the average person entering bitcoins at this point is no where close to knowing what they are doing. Nowadays they are using ASIC miners and not just nice GPUs. You will lose money using a GPU. However, an ASIC is only useful for bitcoin mining and you cannot sell it after the fact to computer people. Now, before you go out and buy an ASIC, be aware that the current batch of ASICs you may not be able to get before that generation is obsolete. In order to be profitable, generally you need cheap electricity and to be an early preorder for the next generation of ASICs. Before you preorder the next generation, realize that some of the companies suck. I ordered an ASIC from Butterfly Labs at a time when I had free electricity. Every month they said it was coming soon. I got it a year later. Luckily I was able to sell it on eBay to break even. If I had got it when I ordered it, I would have made more than I make in a year because of the current rise in bitcoin. Since I got it a year later, I barely broke even on the deal. Now, you could buy a miner for the profitability in that you think in the future, bitcoins will be worth more. However, speculation would be more efficient to just buy and hold some coin. Mining for a loss may be profitable, but not compared to buying bitcoins for the price you paid for your mining rig (probably). Someone else linked a site where you could get a certain hash rate by paying money and other people mining for you for 2 years. While a good idea in theory, the difficulty will go up and probably the last year of that term that hash rate will not be very much as the next generation of ASICs come out. Thus, you need to calculate profitability much earlier. I am not discouraging all mining. It is possible to make a lot of money from mining. However you very much need to know what you are doing. The days of taking your computer and mining your GPU are over. If you wish to mine, you need to spend some time on the bitcoin forums searching them, seeing what is working and what isn't, and knowing what good companies are, and planning for the time you want to enter mining. Do not start mining until you have researched and know what you are doing. The current preorder is almost 5,000 from Butterfly Labs. If you get that past it's profitability window, then you will have a useless piece of hardware that does nothing that you blew a ton of money on. I am very much cautioning mining unless you know what you are doing. At least currently, you are more likely to make more by just buying coin. If you still want to enter mining, please put in a LOT of research time.

I'm not picking and choosing. You picked what you thought were good passages. I analyzed to see if they were actually good passages. That is all.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is generally good to assume it is a duck.

It has changed over time, but I mostly enjoy the things that I am the least familiar with. Namely mecosystem podcasts and dream analysis podcasts. I agree about the "Stef blur" that is hard to pick them out (and I am still working through the podcasts- about halfway through from the beginning and I've listened to all of the most recent ones for the past year.) Two recent ones in my historical listening that fit the categories that were really good: Dream Analysis: 1145 A MUST LISTEN - Falling Stories - A Dream Analysis http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1145_Falling_Stories_Dream_Analysis.mp3 Mecosystem: 1149 Inner Critic: The Role-play http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1149_Inner_Critic_Role_Play.mp3

http://www.godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/#.UoNyuiedfUI Thou shalt have no other gods before me Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. 1. There are no gods, so this is erroneous at best 2. God doesn't exist, but he is jealous. So if you praise Cthulhu, he will get you!!! 3. God dammit. I just took the guy's name "in vain". His feelings get hurt. 4. Hmm, so if I work to make sure I have enough money then I'm bad. Awesome. 5. These were evil people. I do not honor them 6. Yay! a good one! This is covered by UPB though. 7. Um, sure it may be bad or at least dishonest. However I am wondering what the punishment would be. I'll consider this a maybe, just to give them the best possible rating. 8. Also a good one, and covered under UPB. 9. Fraud would be covered under UPB, but I'm not sure all lying is evil. I will consider this a maybe as well. 10. Um... So I want nice things I'm bad? I think this is a fail. (By the way- this totally views slaves and women as possessions which is pretty messed up). Oh wait! There's MORE! A. Love thy neighbor How do you know? What if my neighbor is evil? What if he is a murderer? Love is just granted to people and not earned by virtue? This would be another false one. B. Those who live by the sword, will die by the sword I think you misunderstand war. It is often a form of suicidality and this would prevent nothing. I would recommend going here: and scrolling all the way to the bottom to listen to the audio book of Lloyd Demause's The Origins of War in Child Abuse. C. The wages of sin is death Uh oh! I said the lord's name in vain earlier. This is defined as a terrible sin. Looks like I need to die.... D. All good things come from evil for those who believe There are many good people here who have suffered terrible abuse and are suffering. Good things come despite the abuse, never because of the abuse. Evil people do evil and often are rewarded. Bush is set for life after ordering the deaths of millions on bullshit evidence. I have a lot of anger toward this one. So, out of the 14 proposed rules you gave, 2 are true and covered by a rational system. 2 are possible and maybe could have breach of contract or fraud implied. So lets says 4 out of 14 rules are good. This is about a 28.6%. Thus, I think this would be an excellent system and would be much, much better and have much larger percentage of rational rules. Or we could just use the "binding of pure philosophy" as you derided it would be far better than this proposal...

Yes, in current society they do. Whenever I can I prefer to buy grass-fed, though. I would be interested to know what percentage of farming goes toward meat versus what goes toward humans. It may scale down some of the difference. However you would think they would have compensated for that already.

I am sure one could be empathetic and figure out the child's needs in other ways. However, it also can be very difficult, especially for new parents who are trying to go through the checklist of a baby crying every time and figure out what things mean while working most of the day. Adding ways to communicate I would think would only help improve communication and empathy with a better communication of needs and to allow needs to be communicated more quickly. There is a good chance that it was done when parents do not spend a ton of time with their kids to learn the signs and want to expedite communication, but now I am going off into theory land. I can see no negatives with improving communication, or even giving the child a sign to figure out the meaning of as a mental and motor challenge.

Well I could survive without a society. That's what the theoretical "living in the woods" would be. However, my arm cannot survive without my body.

This may be over-simplifying, but the individual cells would cease to be alive if they were separated from you, thus that is what makes you a "self" as as long as the vast majority of your cells stay attached in their current configuration (with a steady loss/gain of new cells) then you remain alive.

I do not have kids and do not know a ton in this area. However, Stefan is working on a parenting book and put the first draft in the Gold + section (which I see you are good to view.) If you don't mind the occasional mistakes that happen in a first draft, I am sure it is a quality book with some good information. http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/36941-peaceful-parenting-by-stefan-molyneux-first-draft/

Personally, if I see two people arguing and then a quality post gets downvoted, I am much more likely to upvote that post just because they do not deserve the negative rating IMO. I think that others do the same. I have been downvoted as an emotional knee-jerk reaction only to go back later and find the post at +3 or something. Those ratings probably won't stand very long as an unjust rating for something.

Personally, it just does not make sense to me. This is already the well-known Chewbacca Defense.

This. There was a guise of negotiation, but no negotiation. "Tell me where you want to eat, son." "Well the only place I want to eat in the whole world is A." "Well too bad. I do not like A. You can choose any place in the whole world except the place you want which is A and if you still want to go to A, because I don't like it then you will have to starve instead of going there as a punishment for disagreeing with me." This is not negotiation, asking, or having a relationship.

There still is a "pre-sign" stage. However, as I understand it a baby can be signing around 8 months of age if you start teaching signs at 6 months. It would take until about a year for the first basic words and actual communication of 2-3 word sentences around 2 years. It can be highly variable, but you could theoretically get a year extra or something of communication with the child by teaching signs.

That anatomy final though....

I can throw two wrenches into this discussion. (3 stories but 2 different approaches to the question of who kills more animals, an omnivore or a vegetarian?) http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=97836 http://www.care2.com/causes/do-vegetarians-kill-more-animals-than-meat-eaters.html http://measureofdoubt.com/2011/06/22/why-a-vegetarian-might-kill-more-animals-than-an-omnivore/