Rick Horton

I'm sorry. I don't understand your question.

It's interesting to me that if you check the forums information, this here thread has the most views at the moment. The most activity. Yet, there are no comments. That means more people are clicking on this thread than any other lately but nobody cares to give feedback. I'm fascinated about that.

But as with other theories put forward by other philosophers I am willing to have it blown up if there is an inconsistency. So if you want to play devils advocate I'm game. I'm very confident it will stand up to any test, though. But if it doesn't I'll concede.

It's about arguing correctly from first principals. The only provable existence is the sum of my experience of reality. It is self evident. It needs no proof. Everything else needs proof. Everything else is unprovable. Therefore arguing from the sum of my experience of reality equals arguing from first principals. Arguing from anything else, starts off flawed.

Thank you SO MUCH for all of that. You showed a great deal of honor and dignity in such a logical, honest response.

Whether or not your parents have responsibility in where you are now, you have the duty to control your life from here on out. Don't adopt the methods your parents used. Be nice to yourself. Your inner-critic is probably a lot like your parents, right? Mean, abusive, doesn't like you, blames you, calls you lazy..... Well it's no wonder you wont be happy and move forward. You must make sure that you as your inner critic become nicer, quieter, more supportive. When you are down or fail, your inner critic MUST be truly loving and forgiving, attentive and supportive to you. Then you will feel a whole lot better about yourself.

Well said. Personally I don't know if there is a God, although, there surely could be. What do I know? I'm definitely not Atheist. What I do know is that the entity of greatest control over my life seems to be myself because I know my total experience better than anybody else that I'm aware of or that I have proof of. So on that basis, whether or not God exists is pretty insugnificant when it comes to the reality of the situation on the ground. My argument is that there are far more urgent and pressing priorities in facilitating the direction of my life than pondering the existence of something that appears not to exist. So really, who cares? I'm not going to force a person to believe or not believe in God, or "a" god. Nobody has the ability to force me to believe, or not, in God, or "a" god. So it's a complete wash, and waste of time. IMHO. Now, when it comes to God as defined by Christians there are huge implications, and huge amounts of force that enter my experience of reality and that must be dealt with when a Christian invades my reality with nonsense and abuse like that. And since Christians are not creatures of logic, or reason, they can only be shamed in order to shake them out of the cult, and even that has a small chance, although greater than trying to use reason with them.

Yeah, agreed. That is interesting...

Not at all. I don't require the same level of proof for situations I'm involved in every day. But when it comes to a HUGE claim, the evidence required is also HUGE.

Hey, guys. This is a vlog I made about things to consider when working for some person. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QmsCX0WQB4

A lot of the article seemed to have some points, actually. I'd like to see them debate and hash this out.

Haha, totally!

Stefan Molyneux has UPB. I have COSSAP

Chief Observer's Supreme Self Authority Principal.

To add to this. I'm a Cossapist, not a Volentaryist. So I have a different philosophy, although there are a LOT of similarities.

The way I see it, and this doesn't impact anything outside of my reality, is that it's not really a thing to have to argue for. In my life I demand it when possible. There are forces leaning on reality that tarnish it, and they will always be there. The goal for me isn't to change the world, but change MY world. The world that I can affect in my proximity, and control. Lead by example. Don't enter into forceful relationships if you can help it, be nice, moral, thoughtful, and authorative in your experience of your reality. Direct YOUR reality the most efficient and beneficial way to bring harmony to yourself and those most important to you in your existence. Hey, you only have one shot. Life is short, and your reality is the only thing that you're sure of. When you die, so does reality anyhow. Make it the best reality you can for yourself. As far as activism goes, that creates far too much friction and distraction from "being" and living the philosophy. There is FAR from any guarantees apart from that.

Fewer jobs in the future, more money now. Remember, the Federal Government funds 20 and 30 year debt with 90-day bonds. It's not exactly the most forward-thinking organization. Raising the minimum wage causes a sudden jump in payroll taxes and, over the course of several years, prices some labor out of tax-paying, hourly work. Benefits now, costs later (it's the defining characteristic of all legislation)...shortsightedness I think you've mistaken me for someone who is in favor of a minimum wage, that simply isn't the case. My point is that the rhetoric of calling the law "minimum wage" (and acting as-if it had anything to do with a standard of living) is to distract people from its actual purposes: pricing children and immigrants out of the labor markets, repaying state-affiliated unions, periodically bumping-up the payroll tax, and placating the howling masses by demonstrating the state's good intent toward its citizens. I was trying to illustrate that the law and a living wage have nothing to do with each other. Anyway, the minimum wage only prices hourly labor out of the market. When the law was first enacted, "hourly" and "factory" were synonymous. If any employer actually saw the minimum wage as a problem, then all their employees could be paid as contractors. Assuming those employees were willing to make substantially less than the minimum wage. No benefits, no payroll taxes, no minimum wage. It's not a very effective price floor, because there are a dozen substitutes available. Here's the one you should really think about. There aren't labor cops who go around to every business and make sure everyone is paid at least the minimum wage. W-2s don't include information about hourly rates. How do you suppose the law is even enforced? Let's not forget: we're talking about the same government that loses billions annually because they can't match projects' and debt lifespans (something a Subway franchisee can do). Imagine if you bought a house using a series of thousands payday loans, rolling-over the interest each time, and you'll understand how incompetent the organization is. These people aren't smart or competent enough to enforce labor regulations. The answer: employees turn their employers in. Ahh... Great observation.

That sounds about right.

I've been registered to facebook for a few years and at different points I had maybe up to 180 friends. So many people have thousands. People use facebook as a place to share thoughts to people in the hopes that they will get feedback, comments, commradery, exposure, business, and probably a lot of other reasons too. But me, I can't help but see that they define people you add, or subscribe to as friends. In this way, when I post something it always sucks when if I have 180 "friends" I get anywhere from zero to maybe 20 comments. Usually if I have 20 or more comments it's just me and 1 or 2 people going back and forth. So I decided to start deleting everybody who I don't really consider a friend, or family. I'm down to 40 friends, and I'll go further for sure. I really want it to be that when I post something, my friends will show interest because that is what real friends do. How do you guys feel about this? Anyhow, I'll also extend an invitation for anybody who thinks they would have an interest in my posts to friend me. I try to be a real friend and show interest. It's hard to when the people you afford attention to don't afford you the same kind of attention. Anyhow, here is my facebook link. http://www.facebook.com/rick.horton.714

Things only become proven once I prove them. Until then they are statements that I either accept or don't. I accept things based on what seems to fit in with the confinements of reality. Contridictions seem not to exist in reality, therefore I accept that contridictions in reality prove to be very problematic. I see contridictions as tools to rule out nonsense. If there is a contridiction then there is nonsense, apparently. So far this has been the case in every single instance in the reality I'm aware of so I stick with it. I will go that far without a problem.

And that much I KNOW. No proof trumps the reality that binds me to my experience, and no subject within my reality trumps me, because I am the Chief Observer of the sum experience within MY reality. The only proof available to me that anything exists at all. All components of my reality are merely aspects. I carry the sum. The sum is the supreme authority of the experience, not the components because the subjects/components don't experience the fullness of the sum, but the sum is the fullness and totality of the subjects OF the experienced reality. That much is provable because " You don't know me"....

This board here is assembled of people who are very logical and nice. Sometimes almost so gentle that we forget that a little bit of spunk is necessary to motivate. Not just knowledge. People need to be inspired, and sometimes not forced, but provoked to see things differently. The NAP. What it really is to me: You have no right to force me to do anything. I have every right to defend myself if you do. I will not force you to do anything. If you force me to do something I will beat your ass... EVERYBODY knows that there is never a justifiable moment where they themselves can be forced to do something against their will. Considering that NOBODY knows, and I suspect nobody ever passes on their sum of their personal, and only provable reality, it becomes intoloerable that somebody ever think they have the right to invade your experience (your only shot at experience, and your experience is the only provable one, and when you die for all intents and purposes so DOES all of reality since you only will ever know yours) You see, you will NEVER be anything more than an aspect of MY experience of reality, and since only I experience my reality and will never experience any OTHER reality, or subjective reality, your force on my experience is NOT SOMETHING I ACCEPT. As far as I'm concerned you may exist, BUT surely are merely a subject/aspect of MY reality.

Thanks. I agree with all of what you said. I had the same thoughts about frequency, which they completely left out. Speed of attempts is REALLY important, and they never estimate the speed of attempts, the number of attempts, and the number of failed attempts within the speed of attempts. I'm "assuming" the speed things happen are intense and, also, this seems to be another area where creationists can jump in while we still don't have the known.... Then they'll move onto other things and unknowns when science figures this out...

And I have to tentatively say that Ster has a very good point. You can say there can be no existing contridiction, but that's a pretty big claim, and I'd like to be shown that there are absolutely no contridictions in nature before I totally buy into the non contridiction theory. The non contridiction theory has the claim, so the theory must meet a pretty big bar to prove that claim. If even a couple of contridictions exist, it fails.

This all seems really weird to me because since this is a philosophy forum it should NEVER close its doors on a person who has a different possible way of looking at philosophy.