Mister Mister

Yes that makes sense. But the test for that would be when you bring them to sources which they would have agreed are "credible", such as government websites for Statists, but still people double down.

In the most recent conversation with Bill Whittle, Stef mentioned a show with Barbara Oakley about Pathological Altruism. Can you point me to this show or is it yet to be released.

Before I respond, can I ask why you've come to these boards? In my estimation you don't seem to accept the fundamental methodology of reason, evidence, voluntarism that are kind of foundational to the conversation. You've been posting for several weeks and I don't know if I've ever seen you admit error, or show much curiosity towards a different POV. From what I've observed you are more interested in preaching long, sometimes confusing speeches meant to persuade others. So I would ask why do you want to do this, here specifically, and how many people do you think you have persuaded so far, given the effort you've put in? I'm not sure what you are trying to argue. That ancaps should support LaRouche for President? That we should read his books? When you say you are authoritarian by nature, what does that mean? Your points about our 3 great problems: 1) Radical Islam is certainly a threat, to me the threat is less terrorism but the demographic takeover you have alluded to, which we'll get to. Nevertheless, the great military threat to me and most other people in the world is the US military and law enforcement/security/regulatory apparatus. The scary thing is how this force, and the Islamic terrorist forces, feed off one another, especially so long as people like you on one side or the other cheer on and encourage the escalation. 2) and 3) we could nitpick about, but I basically agree. You talk about rejecting materialism/reductionism vs. what I would call holism or induction, which is an interesting subject to me, but you haven't actually made an argument as to why we should reject one approach for the other. Really I think it's a false dichotomy. Healthy, productive thinking is a feedback between the two. You take something apart, you put it back together. You analyze the parts, you conceptualize the whole. It's not one or the other but both. Can you please try to keep it succinct? Otherwise it's not really conversation

I'm sure many of you have heard of this, as Stef has mentioned it several times. My question is, what would be the evolutionary benefit of a psychological trend like this?

This is the problem with the feminization of our culture, babies just don't get tossed around enough.

Well I appreciate your thanks, but I don't know if we can just leave it at that, not in a philosophy forum ...I think Matthew and I have both taken a similar stance, which contradicts your Opening Post. So do you accept the argument or not, and why?

what about the similarities/differences between East Asian, and your native (American?) culture and approach to education? I ask because I became disillusioned about teaching in Korea when I realized what was going on, that I was part of a system to manipulate these kids into becoming authority-pleasing automatons.

can I ask where? I taught in Korea for 2 years. what's been your experience teaching there?

Thanks for saying what I was trying to say more clearly and succinctly

As demonstrated by crazy person Gavin Mcinnes here.

Can you point to where I said this? I get the sense you didn't really process what I said. You are presenting a false dichotomy - either you reject all fear, or you live in constant fear. That's not what I said at all. Fear, like other emotions, delivers a condensed amount of information, telling you that you are in danger. Now it may be that you are in danger, in which you should take steps to remove yourself from danger. Or it may be that you are not in danger, but for psychological reasons you are experiencing fear, probably from a childhood where there was a greater perception of danger. In this case you should introspect and get help if you can, and heal the wounds so that you can live an emotionally healthy life. Either way, of course you don't want to live in perpetual fear. But just saying "fear is negative, don't feel it", isn't a solution. Again, this is for people who lack the will or the ability to make positive changes in their life, so they delude themselves. Like Jesus teaching the slaves "turn the other cheek" (i.e. it is virtuous to offer yourself up for more abuse again and again) and "love thy enemy" because they had no other choice. I strongly urge you to consider this kind of ideology is like a drug, a tranquilizer of your natural healthy emotions, which is why I suggested that you reject it with all your will. I hope this makes more sense, my initial post was a bit of a ramble. I appreciate your sincerity but IMO you have a lot to learn as far as processing rational arguments. Take your time

have you specifically talked with your mother about aspects of her parenting which were not so good?

I didn't downvote you, but my guess is that people are reacting to your style of communication rather than the content therein. In general, people on these boards are happy to entertain any subject, but you have to be rigorous with your language. I would recommend to you to try not to take this as a personal attack, but an opportunity to strengthen your position, and to discard aspects of it you discover that are not true. Your OP uses a lot of vague words like "the collective" and "dualism" without defining them, and it's unclear what exact claim you are making, how to demonstrate if it is true or false, and what implications it would have for people in their life. I just wanted to circle back and point this out, because the conversation is getting lost into talking about gods and miracle meals and now the Holy Trinity. So maybe you can try again to organize your thoughts and present a claim as to what it is you are trying to argue. Welcome to the boards

1) sorry I don't understand the syntax of your question. nation-states are founded upon the violation of the NAP. 2) I think I made a pretty strong case that the actions of the Allies directly lead to the rise of the Third Reich, and that they allied with an arguable even worse regime to kill the monster they helped create. And you dismiss this with "Regardless of how the problem started, at some point steps need to be taken to eliminate it."...That's really annoying. It's like you didn't process anything I said. Should America have remained isolationist in WWII? You're missing the whole point. Had they remained "isolationist" (the word you're looking for is non-interventionist) in the First World War, there would have been no Third Reich!!! So chew on that. A politician and a totalitarian thinks in terms of short-term "solutions" to crises with no perspective on what caused them. A philosopher thinks in terms of long-term prevention. I get the sense that the purpose of this thread is for you to justify your bloodlust and desire for war in your name, at the expense of other peoples' freedom. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think the prerequisite is self-knowledge. If people are more clear about their values, their long-term goals, and WHY they choose a certain mate, they are more likely to have a stable long-lasting, healthy monogamous relationship. In the absence of government subsidizing of broken families, and with social pressure to remain together, people will develop better capacity for negotiation, mutual consideration and respect out of necessity. Just a theory, but I think there's good arguments for it.

To understand your question, you'd have to clarify what you mean by "present world order". What is the point of this? Are you trying to find some justification for war, from a libertarian/ancap framework? That's quite a challenge...you'll have to explain how a concept called "country" affects the universal application of the NAP. As far as WWII, Stef did a series on both world wars a few years ago that is worth a look. But there are several points that I've gotten that are important to consider. One is that, in 1916, both sides were at a standstill, having suffered massive casualties and made little to no gains. It wasn't until Woodrow Wilson brought American forces to the stage - ostensibly in order to "make the world safe for democracy" (sound familiar?), but really it was more likely about protecting the significant loans the U.S. had made to England and France - that the balance was tipped in favor of the Allies. Which brings us to the second point, that the massive reparations imposed on Germany and debt accrued from WWI led directly to the Depression and the rise of the Nazis. It's really more appropriate to see the world wars as one great war with a 20 year cease fire. All this is important, because philosophy is so much about prevention, and you can talk about Hitler and Nazism like it just rose out of Hell to claim the world, but the reality is that WWII was the result of decades of prior bad decisions. Finally, one of the biggest things people miss when praising the Allies for defeating Hitler, the most EVIL man ever, is that they allied with STALIN WHO WAS ARGUABLY 5 TIMES WORSE THAN HITLER, and sold off significant portions of Eastern Europe and Eurasia to the Soviets (with the aid of Communist spies in the State department), to be enslaved by Socialist Totalitarian Rule for half a century. So YES, the Allies in WWII were complicit with genocide. All this is really relevant with the modern conflict with ISIS, which would not exist had it not been for decades of stupid interventions on the behalf of Western countries. If you think that ONE more military intervention will fix the problem, how are you different from a liberal who thinks ONE more government program will fix the problems caused by all the other ones?

Good question. I think your perspective that "fear shouldn't exist" because "it's drawn forth from unknowing or a negative influence" is a very common idea, especially in New Agey (r-selected?) circles. Usually anger is included in this, as "negative" emotions. I think this is incredibly false and should be rejected and scorned with all your will!!!! It's a kind of fatalistic attitude, by which I mean it is embraced by people who lack, either by choice or circumstance, control over their life apart from their feelings. Fear and anger are very useful emotions, for responding to danger and threats, and adjusting your behavior accordingly, to identify, escape or contain the dangerous situation. So this idea that we should never feel fear or anger, I think, tends to be embraced by people who either choose or actually lack the ability to control their environment to the point where they can deal with threats. Also relevant to note that this is associated with r-selected species (and people) who have less of a response to threats than k-selected species. When an eagle snatches a rabbit, the other rabbits just go on eating grass, there's no point in them stressing out about it, because there is little they can do to protect themselves, and they can always make more rabbits. On the other hand, we all know the "scaredy cat" -- housecats tend to over-respond to threats because survival is hard for them, and they also have great physical adeptness and finely tuned senses, so fear is useful for them to escape certain circumstances, because they have the capacity to. About fear of the unknown - not all fear comes from the unknown. Again, fear comes from the perception of threats. The more unknown, however, often fear ratchets up. In the jungle where you can't see the tiger lurking in the bushes, or the ocean where you can't see sharks, or the dark where you can't see much of anything, you are naturally going to be more prone to fear. From an evolutionary perspective of course, this makes perfect sense, according to the "better safe than sorry" principle - maybe 1 out of 100 times, that rustling in the bushes is a tiger preparing to strike at you, but if you don't react with caution to rustling in the bushes, sooner or later you'll get eaten. Lastly, I would say this. There IS such a thing as fear which is irrational and unhealthy, and this tends to come from adverse childhood experiences. If childhood was a dangerous place, your whole nervous system can be programmed to react to that, even once you reach adulthood and are no longer in danger. Think of a veteran who dives under a table when a car backfires or fireworks go off, this is the kind of "triggering" many people who suffered childhood trauma endure all their life, without processing it properly. Like I said earlier, the whole purpose of fear is to excite your nervous system into escaping or resolving a dangerous situation, and then you can relax once the threat is averted. I have personal experience with this, when I was attacked by a group of kids, I experienced rapid and intense confusion, then fear, then anger; I pulled a knife, chased them off, and then as I let out a sigh I felt an immense rush of euphoria and relief, one of the most intense emotions I've ever felt. So to just reject fear altogether is simplistic and foolish I think. To do so means NOT to make the essential distinction between rational fear of real threats, and irrational fear of imaginary or highly exaggerated ones, and to leave yourself open and vulnerable to the real threats in our world. The key is to process that fear, identify whether there is an external threat, or an internal triggering, and take the steps necessary to de-escalate that fear, rather than just trying to will it away without making any changes. Hope that helps.

Really informative, well-written, and powerful. I only wish you would include sources!

well I appreciate that perspective J.D., and it's basically how I've been living for the past several years. Still I'm curious if anyone disagrees or has different advice for me?

Can you point to a specific instance of someone who fits this description arguing this? When you say "enforced" it seems to imply that libertarian atheists support using force against religious people. This is obviously absurd, so I have to ask what you mean by "enforced". In this statement you are making pretty strong allegations against people, so it seems to me just a little manipulative to act all defensive when those people get upset. I think the reasonable position here, is that of course, religion should be tolerated, as believing something is not the initiation of force. At the same time, we are free to rigorously question and criticize religious beliefs, the same as any other claim. The real problem has to do with how religion is taught to children, and the conclusions it leads them to, particularly about epistemology and ethics. Most religions teach that it is "good" to believe things which come down to you from authority, that you cannot verify yourself on the basis of reason and evidence, and that it is "bad" not to believe these things. This often leads to an irrational dependence on authority, to know what is true and what is right and wrong, which I think will ultimately lead to problems. So in other words, if your religion teaches that the Non-Aggression Principle is a Universal moral obligation, that's great, and certainly better than head-chopping Muslims, paranoid Zionists, or bloodthirsty warhawk Christian evangelists. But the question is WHY - children will ask you this and your answer is important. If you teach that the NAP is valid because God says so, I think it's fundamentally confusing to a child, and I don't know if this is the basis for a free, rational, peaceful society. Hope that makes some sense. Good topic.

There's no need to speculate. Many potential mass shootings, as well as other violent crimes, have been prevented by armed civilians. I find it quite astounding that people are so confident that gun control will prevent mass shootings after what happened in Paris just two weeks ago

Right, and I eat well and exercise, but my concern would be if for some reason I get like a freak illness, in need of some expensive treatment, or a broken bone and end up in debt the rest of my life. so I think it makes sense to insure yourself against catastrophes like this.

Hey this isn't really philosophy related, but I could use some help, and so many people here are very smart and helpful. I'm shopping for healthcare in the US, and wondering what advice people can offer. I have a pretty low income on the books, though I play a lot of music and get paid in cash. I qualify for Obamacare, but I really don't like the idea of signing up for government healthcare. There are a variety of options, with varying premiums, deductibles, copays, etc., and I find it kind of confusing. Realistically I could afford up to $100 a month but that would be really tight, I'd be much more comfortable with half that. Is there a good method to finding the right plan for you? Thanks in advance...

that's interesting Matt, so do you plan on voting?

well considering that a much larger percentage of black people are violent, why not just change the language to address black people? it's the responsibility of all black people who "get it" to heal their people, or "take them out" *wink* *wink* if necessary.