Kody Palmer

hey xelent, i'm not sure who you meant when you say we but I do not have a problem with UPB. I didn't enjoy the book, maybe because the writing was over my head. But I am really more a fan of Stef's views on man's relation to the state, and I enjoy his podcasts on religion As far as his books go i'm a everyday anarchy kinda guy. I would only object to some of his beliefs when he strays away from the gun in the room and delves in to social commentary, like the truth about paul walker, and his views that sports athletes are overpaid. I only chimed in to this thread because I've notices some people down voting anything that doesn't jive with the status quo around here. I think we as a community would be better served to remain skeptical and never get complacent or assume we got it all figured out. :bunny:

No, I cannot show why people downvote, but when I see multiple people getting downvotes after they disagree with someone I can make an educated guess that the reason they are getting down voted is because they have a different point of view. Also, when did I change my story? You said that you couldn't remember when Stef said that Parents cannot connect emotionally with their children when they are on drugs. You asked me to provide a podcast which I couldn't do because I do not keep track of every podcast and what is said in it. That seems to me like a very unreasonable request, also considering how many times I have heard him say it and how it has been a theme with Stef when speaking with children who had drug addicted parents. Also, how do you figure that telling people their motivations is not honest? Does that mean that if Stef tells someone what their motivations are they are not honest, or does this rule only apply to me? How am I portraying our discussion in misleading way?

Kevin, I differentiate slavish obedience to doctrine from agreement by People getting downvoted just because they show skepticism. Also, when you guys start suggesting this or that podcast for them to listen to so they they will understand better as if disagreeing isn't okay. People should feel comfortable agreeing and disagreeing on this board and not feel peer pressured in to seeing it one way or the high way. Also, when I notice people saying that Stef didn't say this or that when he clearly did. For Example, when I said that Stef says Parents on drugs cannot connect emotionally with their kids and you say he never said that. If you go listen to the feed on parenting, this is one of Stef's main themes. It's clear to me that when someone gets to the point where they can see no wrong in a person and start defending them in a way which is out of touch with reality, like you, then they have reached the level of obedience to a doctrine.

I love how you guys just down vote this guy for having the courage to not just take everything said by Stef to be gospel. Instead of trying to be objective you all just gang up on him. What a great community you guys have created here. Way to encourage open dialogue and Skeptical viewpoints.

Okay thanks for the explanations you guys convinced me and I'm over it now.

he mentioned that he has never been attracted to a 16 year old on this past FDR call in converstion podcast. He mentions it at the beginning when addressing the push back he had gotten in regards to his critical piece on Paul Walker.

if men are attracted to women who are fertile, as Stef has said, and if 16 year olds are fertile, as Stefan has said, then how could it be that Stef has never been attracted to a 16 year old?

ok but that isn't what Stef said. He criticized Paul Walker and his reason behind that was that since humans are not fully developed until the age of 25, Paul Walker should not be with a 16 Year old. I certainly understand your logic here, but again, if we are attracted to women who are fertile, as Stefan has said, and if 16 year olds are very fertile, as Stefan has said, then how could Stefan have never been attracted to anyone 16 years of age? According to his own logic this is not possible and frankly, I don't believe him.

so if as men we are physically attracted to women who are fertile, as Stefan has said, and if 16 year olds are very fertile, as Stefan has said, how could it be that Stefan has never been attracted to a 16 year old female? I can't even tell anymore when I see a girl, I have seen 16 year old girls that I would have guessed were 24 and vice versa. If I am attracted to 16 year old females, should I feel ashamed? a And Stef brought up the point about the fact that this is considered statutory rape in Cali but isn't the whole 18 year when you are an adult thing just a random statist number in reality? and then he says this is wrong because women arent fully developed mentally until they are 24 or 25 so does that mean that older men should not have sexual relations with women until they are of this age because according to Stefan they are just not capable of mental Maturity? I don't know about everyone else but I am having a very hard time with Stef's stance on this, it seems very unphilosophical

I read that the court documents note the Canadian law enforcers have said there was no record of a homicide taking place in White Rock, British Columbia at the time.

FBI arrested known Libertarian Ross William Ulbricht the man behind Silk Road. How about a "The Truth about Silk Road?" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24373759

I believe I heard him mention this in a recent podcast saying it has been pushed back a little bit due to his illness but plans are still for a release later this year...

Thanks. I enjoy this debate/thread...

can you please explain how "The scientific method has a fundamental internal flaw?" I was unaware of that flaw. I thought the Scientific Method was a good thing which helped mankind find out the truth.

Thanks.

http://listverse.com/2013/05/15/10-ways-our-politicians-are-screwing-us/

I was thinking it might be a good idea to have a podcast that specifically talks about Negotiation and why is it important. I have heard Stef say that if there is one thing to learn that will help you in life it is negotiation, not writing, not reading, but negotiation. If there has already been a podcast focusing on negotiation and I've just missed it then please let a fellow anarcho capitalist no. Thanks.

Thanks for Sharing Stef. You have been a huge influence in my life over the past few years. For Everyone's sake I am thinking positively that you will have a full and speedy recovery. Thanks for being a Great Human Being in a time when so many aren't.

You make some great points. The article was poorly written.

Hey I found a site that explains the top 10 argument techniques (That ruin arguments for everyone). I thought this would be interesting to some of you. Reason 1 is The nirvana fallacy is rebuffing an argument, simply because it doesn’t offer a perfect solution: I find this to be the case quite often when arguing about Anarcy. Read more: http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-argument-techniques-that-ruin-arguments-for-everyone.php#ixzz2Rt6QTQ5w

Have you ever noticed that the lower the stakes of an argument, the more vociferous the fighting becomes? Academic Charles Philip Issawi explains it thusly: “In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake.” The law is named after Colombia University political scientist Wallace Stanley Sayre who noted that political debate in the academic world is so vicious and cruel because none of it actually matters all that much. This law is related to another political science adage, Parkinson’s law of triviality, which argues that organizations spend most of their time arguing about insignificant details, giving short shrift to more pertinent issues. Named after humorist C. Northcote Parkinson, the law is also called the “color of the bike shed” effect; this stems from an example he gave of a committee meeting spending little time on the issue of an atomic reactor, and a huge amount of time on the color of a bike shed. As Parkinson stated, “The time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved.” To me this makes perfect sense. Any Thoughts?

I too had help from a Pro Wrestler in my conversion process. I got turned on to Ayn Rand by former WWF Star Ultimate Warrior. He is a Convervative Republican but he turned me on to several Ideas that helped improve my critical thinking.

Thanks I'll check it out

Thanks. You are correct.

Thanks. I Know You are speaking the truth. I don't have to do too much brown nosing being in a union anyways, my pay stays the same whether I brown nose or not (Or whether I work hard or not for that matter).