Rick Horton

What did you contribute? maybe it needs more cowbell?

What did you contribute?

Do you think it will expand the audience?

I don't understand #3. In a price coordinated economy, as a price rises, demand falls and supply increases. This applies to labour too. Price floors on labour leads to unemployment. In addition to that, when a price floor is set, then there is less incentive for employers to hire the workers who's productivity matches the old, lower price. Instead they are more likely to hire workers who's productivity matches the price they are forced to pay. As such, price floors on labour leads to higher levels of qualification demanded to perform the same job that would go to a less qualified person if a minimum wage didn't exist. Absolutely agree.

Nah, I don't think feeling bad is appropriate. First of all, the money has been stolen already, regardless of whether you take it now or not (and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't lower taxes to reflect an absence of handouts anyway). Another thing is, that I'd guess to only reason you need the money is because governments has tampered so much with education and transportation, that it has become unaffordable (or less affordable), thus government first created the necessity of needing more money to begin with. And last but not least. if you've been to public schooling then this is a rather cheap restitution for the damage already done to you through that schooling. And every person who supported you being thrown in school and having your mind destroyed at that young age, while probably being tossed into the same rooms with bullies and all sorts of disfunctional people, while of course lacking any empathetic teachers (usually the case), who don't really care too much about the emotional/psychological well-being, is now paying for that, so, in a very weird and twisted way, I'd say you've probably more than earned it for the damage done to you in the name of those people. There are some anarchist who were also forced to pay of course, but I think the amount you would directly "own them back" would be too minute to even bother and I'm pretty sure, that they'd at least be happy to know that at least some of their stolen income goes out to actually helping someone who's struggling to survive "the system". But even if there are some that would rather you not have the money, the amount would be so small that even bothering to think about it for 5 second (let alone demand it back) would already create more losses even if the amount somehow got back into their hands, so from a practical standpoint, even they couldn't logically claim to want to take the actions necessary to demand it back imo. Hope that helps It's not good if you don't lead by example. Let's just say that's my philosophy on this.

The first thing I thought was this is no Zeitgeist. Zeitgeist is more hypnotic and gets you much more worked up. But I don't understand why this needs to be like Zeitgeist or why he said it was an attempt to be like Zeitgeist. Stef is best when he comes as hiself. I do see a diversion however minute from his usual offerring that makes it different from his normal flow, and it seems less Stefan. It's definitely no Zeitgeist. Zeitgeist uses extreme propaganda and emotional sabotage in getting it's audience to lean in a preferred direction. This film seems to be (as usual) a way more honest, philosophical symphony of ideas. Screw Zeitgeist. Stefan has a bigger and harder goal to achieve, and that is to share a philosophy based on complet rigor. I'm sure he'll convey that the best way he can in his film, and he is in the top 10 living as far as conveying ideas and compelling change in attitudes. Zeitgeist created robots. Stefan is building thinkers.

That's ridiculous since a one month old doesn't have any responsibility, nor the ability to understand these concepts. Terrible example, sorry, lol

I believe a man should be able to work for as cheap as he wants. I believe there is no age to begin this. If a child wants to work, so be it, as long as it's of the child's free will. I believe it is wrong to force an arbitrary floor on what labor is valued at, and I believe that it is wrong to force a person to work if they don't want to.

I disagree with #1. I agree with number 2. I don't understand #3. The main reason minimum wage doesn't make sense is that the number is arbitrary. You cannot move the floor without moving the ceiling.

I do this constantly. I love it. It really tells me whether a person is of my ilk or not.

The moral reason to treat people is the way that you would like to be treated. That's it... Of course, if you enjoy being beaten, raped, stolen from, threatened with murder, cheated on, etc... then by all means treat others that way too.. Most people don't like that treatment and have a sense of sympathy for other people because they understand that others probably feel like they do.

I disagree on principal. You become a thief.

Because he rjects reality as it is presented to him...on a fundamental level... everything is a lie, and any stated truth is obviously false and a diversion. Why does he feel that way? I mean sure, there are a lot of weeds of deception to get through to see reality as best as possible, but why put all of these extra conspiricies into his noggin? They aren't doing him any good, and they don't have any evidence to back them up. 911, sure. There is quite a bit of evidence that there is a lot of deception, but all of this other stuff is very paranoid, delusional, and I haven't seen a good argument to justify giving this asteroid thing any credibility. It seems so out of place on a forum that uses rigor to bring clarification to ones life, by dismissing claims that have no evidence. It's sort of insane, a bit.

Why do you believe this stuff?

I'm wondering what would happen if somebody stabbed her to death in a show. Hmmm....

Exactly my point. All of this tedious nitpicking of every detail, no matter how logical, turns many people off. They don't enjoy that kind of argumentative approach. For better or worse, they respond more to a commercial with some athlete making jokes than to reasoned argument. So the question is, given that, how should those hoping to make change in the world approach doing so? What I'm gathering is that the few people responding in this thread prefer to continue using explicit reasoned verbal argument regardless of whether most people appreciate or respond to it as intended. Right. A good tool is hypotheticals. Sometimes the hypotheticals can be annoying to people, and they say, "well, that isn't a real scenario, or that wouldn't happen." but, hypotheticalse are used to break down previously accepted beliefs by illustrating a situational scenario that brings the core of the original belief into question. I like hypotheticals the best. They are logical, yet they give you the freedom to be creative and compelling.

freedom isn't free

Nope, atheism is NOT having the belief that accepting theism IS merited (more precise: that there is a god). One word in a different place, huge implications. Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack thereof. In order to be an atheist you don't have to believe anything about any theistic belief having any merits or not. You don't have to have any even remotely connected belief about theism at all and still be an atheist (without knowing it). An atheist just doesn't hold that belief himself. A-theism means not being a theist. Being a theist means believing in a deity. It is literally that simple. Check these videos out: The Atheist experience with Matt Dillahunty: Shifting The Burden Of Proof - The Atheist Experience 438 Burden of Proof - Atheist Experience Response to: "Atheists have faith, just like theists." Take My Burden of Proof Please! - The Atheist Experience #747 That cleared things up quite a bit. Thanks. What belief is involved with Atheism? A lack of belief doesn't magically = a belief

The world is a scary place. Lets say I let you out of your cage and stop feeding you thin gruel tomorrow. What are the possible problems you might run into on your own? You might get mugged. You might skin your knee on a rock. I know it's hard to predict, but I would be interested in the possible problems involved with not keeping you caged in my basement. exactly.

Y'know, the world is a messy place. Now, let's say that we can get rid of Government in the next decade. What are the possible problems that we would run into if there was no government. I know it's hard to predict, but I'd be interested in the possible problems involved with not having a Government. But more importantly to me, is the understanding that I can't live my life in shoulds and woulds but cans and is's. So the point is to minimize the negative affects of force in your life, as a personal priority, and not to demand force go away. That's not efficient, and life is short. It's immoral to be a sacrifice to your own philosophy by wasting the only reality you'll ever have.

Y'know, the world is a messy place. Now, let's say that we can get rid of Government in the next decade. What are the possible problems that we would run into if there was no government. I know it's hard to predict, but I'd be interested in the possible problems involved with not having a Government.

Right, but there is a State, so it does exist. The State exists as an idea. The idea shapes people. The people we interact with change our reality. So we have to deal with the idea, thus the idea is real. Thus the State is real. As real as anything else in reality is. Denying that the State exists in reality is really troubling. Yeah, it's not a physical thing, but it has more influence on my life than a lot of physical things do, so it's very real. This is one of the areas that I can't get passed with the argument that governments don't exist. YES THEY DO. They are implimented ideas, and the ideas are very real BECAUSE they do affect reality. There is absolutely NO WAY around my argument. It's a strange voodoo move that sounded good for a moment, but left me unsatisfied within an hour. Like Chinese food, lol. The idea that States don't really exist is LESS REAL than the idea that they do. The idea that States don't exist doesn't affect reality at all. The idea that States do exist HELLA affects reality, since reality is HELLA affected by the existence of the idea of the State, and the implimentation OF those very real ideas. So we really need to drop that argument, entirely, like a bad habit. It's a philosophical "loop hole" argument, that doesn't go anywhere. Not that I've seen anyhow.

Reading youtube comments is my favorite part of watching videos.

In that case, the conclusions reached from your arguments will only be applicable to yourself, since others have a different sum of experiences. If your personal experience includes noticing that the scientific method makes it possible to know which theories have predictive power, then your method becomes more useful. Exactly /emoticons/emotion-1.gif So which is it? My use of the word "but" is probably the source of the confusion. I didn't mean "but, alternatively". I meant "but, additionally". I've removed the word "but" from the quoted copy above, to see if that makes my intended meaning more clear. Moncaloono says that he argues from the sum of his experience of reality. I commented that this will be more productive if his experience of reality includes the experience that "the scientific method is useful". Moncaloono agreed. So I think he interpreted my post as I had intended it. I don't agree that the "sum of my experience," can be said to encompass empiricism unless I carry out the tests and do all the math myself. Even a computer doing the work would render it problematic, unless I wrote the code. Perhaps Moncaloono would like to further describe the philosophy from which he gains so much pride? On a related note, I also fail to see the claimed correlation with UPB. I don't understand your point. Can you point out an inconsistency? In order to discribe Cossapism to satisfy you further I might need to write a book, and I understand how frustrating it is to only have an idea about what it is. Hmm.... Okay, so you know that it says that in order to argue from first principals it is necessary to argue from your experience of reality. Another aspect about it is that moral actions should be prioritized to one's hierarchy of value of the subjects of his experience of reality. When dealing with conflict or any other subject relevent to a problem it is most effiecient to communicate with all of the subjects that have an affect, or will be affected by the conflict, in order to bring satisfaction or closure. Another aspect is that there is you cannot own what you cannot conceal. If you can conceal it, you own it. Once you reveal it, it is released to all subjects in your reality, thus reality. The only thing one can own is the sum of his experience of reality, since that cannot ever be shared with anybody else even if you wanted to. Since your reality is the only self evident and provable reality and everything else requires a certain amount of faith on even the most minute level, arguing from the sum of your experience of reality IS arguing from first principals. The philosophy doesn't say that an external world doesn't exist, but it says that there is less certainty that it does, and that it's more rational to argue from certainty than uncertainty. These are some of the key concepts. I've thrown boulders at the philosophy to see where it will break down, but it hasn't yet, and I think that shows it's very useful. I haven't had any flaws proven to me, yet.

Rick, I think you're a solipsist. It's not solipism. There are a lot of differences there.