Wesley

Ok, that clarifies the position. So I think that mirroring would be to show the child an attempt at a face that displays what they currently feel and currently display themselves. I do not understand how mimicking this may cause them to become scared. Obviously pain and sorrow implicitly contain a desire for relief, but relief to me occurs with just expression and needs being met, not by covering up the emotion with a smile. I was wondering if you could explain in-depth on your thinking there and how just pure mirroring could be scary to the child. I do not understand.

This confuses me a bit. The emotions are pain and sorrow, which would scare them to validate and mirror them, but validating and mirroring them wouldn't scare them? Thank you for correcting me that you did not slow the mother. I may have misinterpreted the interaction and you were walking hurriedly alongside the mother while this happened. I am sorry for my mistake.

Why do you think it would have scared the child to have their emotions validated? Is pain and sadness useful and essential do you think? I think that the children may have even been delayed from relief of pain and the heat by the delay in rushing to the car by the interaction. Their cries were being interrupted temporarily rather than validated and empathized with more. Your experience may have been different, but I am just noticing that if I were a child in that situation I may be briefly curious as to what is happening and quieted for a bit to see who this strange guy may be, but this does not satisfy my need for comfort and cool and I would be even more stressed and upset by the end because that was more time that we were not rushing to the car. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Why did you mask the pain and sorrow with a smile, rather than mirroring the true emotion being felt by the child? I am curious.

Government respect/ enforcement of responsibility or ownership is not a valid case. "Ownership doesn't work in a society where violence is used and ownership is not respected" isn't exactly a case against ownership.

I do think a physical copy would give it more credibility and make it more likely to be read with intellectuals. Many people have not advanced with e-book development. However, the cost would be much, much less to send free digital copies to all the philosophy teachers or departments, even if we paid someone to acquire email addresses or something. This to me seems more likely to be discarded, but also much cheaper to implement.

This sounds tempting, but I do not think it would work. I would donate to such a project if I could be convinced that it would be added to libraries, taught in courses, or articles written about it. Right now, I am somewhat pessimistic about the prospects of that happening.

What makes it theft is the threat of force. The threat of force is masked behind letters, social contracts, propaganda, etc. In code, there are 2 ways to hide a message. 1 is to hide it by sneaking it in to some place unusual or under a plate or to join it with another file and then change the file extension. The other way is to obscure the message so that you can look at it perfectly fine but cannot read it until it is decoded. Some of these masks are designed to hide the force. Other ones redefine force as good. The only goal is to remove masks expose the force that is used to make it apparent and then to properly define that force as evil (the "decode" step). The rest and much more will take care of itself. See Stef's argument from morality as the "decode" step. Associating violence with taxation is the "reveal" step.

I am glad that we agree on methodology, I was a bit confused about your statement of logic and reason not reflecting reality, when I consider it a necessary step to reflecting reality, considering reality is logical and consistent. If I am a leader and claim responsibility over a territory, and another leader claims responsibility over the same territory so we go to war, how does this solve anything? I think ownership denotes on possible owner (yourself) where responsibility almost necessitates competing "responsibilities" which would lead to more problems. People would be able to justly try to claim responsibility in opposition to ownership as responsibility replaces ownership. Someone who is responsible for me may incarcerate me to prevent me from getting hurt. Someone who is responsible for me could not allow me to do drugs or eat the food I want by claiming it is not in my best interest leading to something like the drug war. I see nothing but problems coming out of this. In fact, I think states claim responsibility over their citizens and deny ownership which is exactly the problem rather than a solution. Maybe you can tell me where I am wrong.

So my father was very religious, read the bible nightly, didn't go to church (laziness?/ went a ton as a child and was bored/ tried to teach the teens when I was young and wasn't allowed to teach them when he told someone they were wrong. I am a bit fuzzy on the incident), however he often watched Kenneth Copeland on Sundays. Every night when we were kids he would require us to read a chapter out of the Bible and then "report" on it. Many nights this was an excuse for him to hyper-criticize and demean us to take out his various frustrations and put us in impossible situations. Several nights I would end up in tears from the impossible situation of wanting to go to bed because I had school or a report in the morning that I needed to be ready for. I read through the Bible several times. If I ran into one of the questions about contradictory sections or "reported" on it incorrectly, then he would use his verbal ninja tricks to make sure I believed the correct things. He was the child of a single parent household whose father abandoned him with 8 brothers and sisters. They hardly had enough money to eat 2/3 of his meals. He truly views God as his only father. Since my father did not go to church, my mother found a church for us. She worked a side graphics design business and stayed home and worked a daycare out of the house where we hung out with great friends for the first few years of my life (I also rarely saw my father as a young child as he traveled much more back then (sales) and then went to night school in Syracuse for his masters). The graphics design business lead me to go to an American Baptist church when my mom did business for them. She ended up working at the church, so I spent a lot of extra time there when we had off school. American Baptists tend to not teach you the conclusions from the Bible, but rather view the pastor as a guide to help you. People are encouraged to have different opinions and there were people who were humanists who viewed stories as just myths and stories (mostly) to people who believed most every word (that they knew of as they tended to be less educated of what was in the Bible). We had optional communion, didn't believe in saying a creed, did not baptize until a child as old enough to choose for themselves (because there is no pressure from friends or family at all) and stressed that people read and learn and discuss and challenge views. The pastor would often sit in on discussions and have his personal views of a story challenged at it would be encouraged. I would learn about different theories, and find out contrary things. People would often just accepted the differences and be fine with them both being true and accept the differences. I never gave up that there was one truth that I wanted to figure out which is why contradictions lead me to challenge things until I could figure out what was actually true. I started questioning stories and would read into symbolism, disregard parts as myth, and then eventually challenged the idea of God itself within the last two years and it fell away pretty quickly thanks to some FDR arguments. In a sense, if I had to go to any church as a child (which I didn't and it still filled my head with a lot of wrong ideas- the children do not know as much so it tended to be more telling what went on and less debate, however I often knew more than my teachers as I was at church so much and watched the bible videos about stories to pass the time or was confined by my father to read the Bible so much) this was probably the best possible. I was not threatened by the church's view of hell if I disagreed. I would think that most people there did not even believe in hell. I think I was only threatened with hell by my father. I was encouraged to learn and challenge and form my own opinions with as little hierarchy as possibly that could be present in a church. Most of my memories of church were positive and I would hear about my friends who went to, say, a catholic church and think to myself how terrible that must be and how liberating my church was in comparison. When I realized God did not exist and formed better ideas on thought and evil and such, I saw many more problems present as you may see in the vast majority of institutions that claim to deal in ideas. Namely that they are often wrong, hypocritical, and told to children simultaneously as ideals. Ok, now I have rambled a bit so I will stop unless someone has additional questions.

http://aegis-strife.net/ This is the rest of his site. One thing I noticed was that nature in this picture was a young woman, where the industry was a old man. I went to his site and was looking at differences between men and women. Women seem to either be portrayed as beauty and with nature, or victims and broken. Not counting the child (who is portrayed as an innocent victim of circumstance/ alone) the men have heads made of fire, or a grenade. Seemingly violent and destructive imagery. I think that tells a lot about his view on the genders. (Assuming Mario is a guy)

The past several posts have been me asking you what you mean with your rotating definitions of true, right, wrong, exists, objectively wrong, false, etc, etc, etc. I have not be arguing hardly anything, but trying to use your terms from the previous post to ask what you mean. You then rotate the terms to something else to conflate the issue more. This does not seem to be getting me anywhere fast. I feel frustrated and I no longer have a desire to continue this discussion.

Then tell me whether it is objectively true or not.

Subjectivity is not subject to proof. It is impossible to prove or disprove what my subjective preferences are. Thus, you cannot objectively say what my subjective preferences are. "I like chocolate ice cream" Now prove me right or wrong objectively.

That means that me having a subjective preference is not false or objectively wrong. Claiming subjectivity and then saying my subjective preference is wrong or false is a contradiction. If it is subjective, then it just is.

False means objectively wrong false fôls/ adjective adjective: false; comparative adjective: falser; superlative adjective: falsest 1. not according with truth or fact; incorrect.

I do not have to state it, I may not even know that I have a delusion, let alone that I want to keep it. You cannot correct me even if you think we share subjective preferences. You have not been able to prove that a subjective preference can be wrong. You claim that I have a subjective preference to "believe" in objective morality. If it is a subjective preference than it is not wrong for me to say that objective morality exists any more than for me to say that chocolate ice cream is my favorite flavor. I can still like chocolate ice cream even if you think that I like vanilla. I am not wrong in liking chocolate. Either I am wrong (or right), in which case it is not entirely subjective and some objectivity is present, in which case it verifies my claim. Or else it is subjective and you cannot tell me I am wrong (or right) and debate will cease. There is no other avenue. No matter how much i say I like vanilla or you know my preference for vanilla, I still can like chocolate and I am not wrong.

That is wrong because I could easily have a desire to keep this particular delusion as shown by having a "wrong" position. You say that some prior evidence is evidence of a subjective standard of accuracy, however current evidence seems to be more relevant and would specifically be saying that my preference is either different than you thought or has changed from before. You are claiming objectivity by correction. Whatever my arbitrary preferences are are not binding on anyone else. One individual in a group not liking logic does not make logic or truth false. It also does not mean that all of the group members do not use logic. I do not claim that one should use logic unless they wish to be right. However, by correcting someone you are saying that you want to be right, and thus are attempting to determine objective reality. Of course arbitrary preferences can be held by people, they just cannot then correct others for their arbitrary preferences. If you have an arbitrary preference that is different than mine (your claim not mine) then you cannot correct me and should cease debate but as an unbiased anthropological exploration of differing perspectives.

Ah, so I was on vacation last week so I wasn't able to order a shirt, but you posting today reminded me that I should check out your store. So I got an "Anarchy Saves Lives" shirt as well and really liked that one. A few of the others look interesting as well and I will get them at some other time I have some disposable income. Thanks!

So police officers (according to the Supreme Court) have no obligation to help people when they are in danger, but 911 dispatchers do. Very interesting...

You still have not addressed this. No, for if it is a subjective preference, then correcting me is not valid any more than me saying I like chocolate ice cream can be corrected by you telling me I am wrong in my subjective preference and that I should prefer vanilla. By the act of correcting someone you are saying that there is a wrong state and a right state and that it is better to be right than wrong.

The scientific method is that you 1. You create a theory. 2. You submit the theory to logic and reason (namely internal consistency) If a theory cannot stand by itself, then testing is not necessary 3. You create an experiment, or otherwise create a null hypothesis by which it can be tested and disproven. 4. You test the theory over and over from now until the end of time. (If testing is impossible, then you look for historical evidence or smaller examples when you can) 5. The longer the theory lasts and comes through tests successfully, the more certain and generally accepted it becomes. Is there anything wrong with this method of approach? Obviously this may not be used to perfection, but this would be the way that disputes are attempted to be resolved and asking what is the logical consistency or asking what the evidence is would be justified and necessary to determine truth or falsehood.

You need to talk to (him?) about it. Most likely it will not affect therapy and they could be very useful in accessing emotions and your history and such. Stef has said that his therapist was a mystic and that she was very helpful and they just didn't discuss religion. If the method of therapy is that you are wrong because you do not believe in God and that you should say 10 hail marys and believe in God in order to be healthy and if you do not then you will burn in hell, then that may be a problem. I obviously exaggerated, but you should be honest with them and express your concerns and ask them how therapy enters into therapy (if at all). Listen carefully, ask questions, be honest, and trust your instincts. Eventually you will gain resolution, either positive or negative.

Thats funny, because most of what I remember about my foo is them causing the tough times and only "coming through" when it was convenient for them to. It is a nice saying and would be great if it were true, but my personal experience doesn't support the idea. It supports the idea that I could see if I was swimming in water and blood makes it so much more difficult.

I may be wrong, but I believe Jeffrey Tucker is on this Sunday and they are trying to keep content somewhat geared to questions that he knows about/is expert in/ etc. Though I would be very interested to hear the conversation when it occurs.