HollywoodSimon

Torero, for me, it's not about the literal meaning of Trump's words or the presence or absence of a philosophical basis to them. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with his ideas. It's about of the effects the presentment of these ideas has on people. By "support" I mean that I recommend people who intend to vote, generally after I argue against voting at all, to cast their vote for Trump. I make arguments in favor of a Trump presidency or some of his controversial ideas, even the ones with which I disagree. I usually do this because people around me make hysterical noises over Trump's latest "outrage" because CNN recently gave them some visual trash in exchange for their attention. For example, someone recently told me they don't like Trump because he's a "bully". I argued that the people Trump is "bullying" are thieves and murderers, and that he would do well to direct his sympathy elsewhere. Some of the points you brought up may benefit from a comparative view. No anarchist has a shot at the presidency this year (and if he wanted one he'd have to at least talk like a statist). For instance, Donald Trump is probably the least militarist of any of the candidates remaining. The other day he brought up the idea of getting the US out of NATO, which is like drawing a sacred cow to the altar of sacrifice. I think that I could even celebrate a Trump victory in November a little, though I doubt it will lead to me getting a nationwide concealed carry license. Like I said, I've put $100 on him winning (which I won't lose unless Sanders wins) and I'm going to enjoy the faux victim posturing from a lot of the people who don't want to see it happen.

I would disagree with brucethecollie and say, Put some thought into the future. In this case, consider the consequences of not presenting the truth. You can't go back to a past conversation and undo the regret of not speaking the truth, but you can come back from the future and speak the truth now. The apprehension of disapproval is a short-term concern. You can overcome it by taking a long-term perspective, which you're more likely to do while relaxed and not in immediate need. If you're not practiced at handling disapproval try to avoid pushing your point while anxious. Satisfy the immediate need, get calm, then engage with the long-term in mind. Apart from that, practice makes more perfect. All of this is easier said than done. You could probably find some coaching to help you along with it.

My left brain agrees with most of the Larken Rose quote but I still support Donald Trump's candidacy for POTUS. First, I have $100 riding on it. Second, and more importantly, I live in Los Angeles, and I look forward to seeing some extreme butthurt being expressed by the smug, know-it-all, oh-so-informed Jon Stewart/Bill Maher/John Oliver crowd swarming this berg after Trump takes office. I'd especially love to see him carry California in the general election and I think he could actually pull it off. Apart from the proximate cultural spectacle I can expect, Trump has attained substantial political accomplishments without even taking office, including taking down the pope a couple of pegs, serving the pimp hand to Fox News not once but twice, and kicking the Bush political dynasty in the nuts, and will likely soon do the same to the Clintons. Does any of this matter to an anarchist/atheist in the immediate sense? Probably not, but my right brain is curious of the opportunities and possibilities. I'm still not voting, though. Voting is for bitches.

A dictator, mob boss, politician or bureaucrat ordering a hit on someone is morally identical to any of them attempting to kill that person himself. These creatures expend considerable effort to attain positions which afford them such power. When use of that power is the initiation of force it is immoral. Sometimes the system that gives them that power fails to operate. The hit man they pick for the job may refuse to kill on moral grounds or the target may otherwise evade the force. In such cases it's like them pointing a gun at someone and squeezing the trigger only to find that the gun jams and your victim gets away. They didn't get their way that time, but they did just try to kill someone. Is the same true of the voter? Most voting is like joining a mob to overcome other mobs with sheer numbers to install a favored functionary, with very little effort and without the same risk of street battles. Assuming the system works more or less as advertised, the results of the election suggest the political system accept certain people into certain positions. This is not immoral in itself. The existence of the system may depend on immoral acts, regardless of who takes office, but a vote to put someone in office doesn't directly affect the existence of the system. It's easy to judge the morality of a vote on some ballot initiatives. They may ask whether the state should act to initiate force or not (should the state tax millionaires more and spend the money on schools?) or to mitigate the initiation of force currently in place (should the state decriminalize marijuana?). But when you vote for a person to take office you generally vote based on your assessment of the candidate's judgement. He may make a number of promises to do moral or immoral things but you don't know whether he'll actually do any of those things and you have no recourse if he fails to deliver on any of them. But what if you vote for someone with the expectation, based on his campaign promises, that he'll start a war of aggression, and he ends up doing no such thing? Is that not like picking up a gun, pointing it at an innocent bystander, pulling the trigger and having the gun malfunction? To Person A, in the video examples, Person C is not just one person. It's a tool with some chance of delivering a desired outcome. The dictator, the mob boss and the voter act in the expectation that the tool will work to perform some function. The difference between the voter and the others is that the voter tends to be extremely inept at the game of force.

Which of these countries are socialist?

Corrections to my earlier post: By "martyrdom" I meant advancing a cause through martyrdom, which doesn't come up in the dialog. Since Socrates claims guidance from his invisible friend, the discussion in the Crito amounts to whether or not Socrates will become a martyr. Socrates does argue from effect in that he means to improve the part of him that minds justice by choosing the just action.

The subject of martyrdom did not appear in the Crito, unless in some allegorical fashion I missed. Indeed, Socrates does not argue from effect except when he voices the imagined arguments of the laws. Early on, he and Crito agree that Socrates should choose the just action, to act with integrity to his principles. They conduct the rest of the conversation to reveal what constitutes the just action. I think that, at a number of points, Crito could have pushed back with effect, but perhaps not without challenging principles which he and Socrates had accepted long before the trial.

People in the medical industry tend to have better access to drugs than those in the general population. Make of that what you will. If the rant made you uncomfortable, I'd recommend mentioning it politely to the screening company. Religious rants certainly go against modern professional standards. Plus, I think the nurses would appreciate getting reprimanded by the company. They'd perceive it as persecution and thereby strengthen their fellowship with the martyrs of old.

He had you strapped for a blood pressure reading for fifteen minutes? Edit: to answer your question, I would have engaged him in that very conversation as I happen to know a lot about both Christianity and physics. I sympathize with your aversion to the unwelcome rant, however.

Hi, gang. I grew up in New York City but have lived in Los Angeles, where I work as a programmer, for the past ten years. Raised in a Christian household, I rejected Jehovah and all his works while in (Catholic) high school. While I'd condemned democracy long ago, I only recently resolved to never vote again. It took twenty-two years and the realization that none of my votes has ever contributed to an electoral victory (LOL)! I have a bachelor's degree in physics and went to graduate school in that field for a couple of years before giving it up to make money. I remain skeptical about a number of things passed off as science, including macroevolution, global warming, the Big Bang, dark matter and (our nonexistent god help us!) dark energy. People have asked me for alternative explanations, which I don't feel obligated to provide, so I have grown (perhaps overly) comfortable with the sentence, "I don't know, and neither do you". I look forward to joining the conversation here.