Rick Horton

I never doubted such a thing about modern health. What I claim is some of these improvements cost us our natural capacity for health. The progression of eye defects and vision impairment, the need for vision correction is on the rise because humans have been skilled at providing substitute optics while making hunting less of a survival need. And the so-called "superbugs" would not exist without the antibiotics which give people survival advantage. Unless one believes God will provide an answer, it seems clear that technological dependency is being bred into the human genome. John, it is great to see some quantitative skepticism. Most people take no statistics courses or have little exposure to Simpson's paradox or other statistical fallacies. There is faith-based doctrine that goverment is their protector. Important thing is that although they are sometimes right, they are using force to pay for their research and that should make a person at least skeptical, not just of the statistical claims, but the recommended course of action. Anybody can prove cars kill people no matter how many safety features, so by an overkill recommendation you should smash your car as a precaution. I think to make recommendations, you have to factor in more than sound statistics, but also what are the long-term effects and goals. On a funnier note, one could probably do a rough analysis and prove death by car crash is more likely than you changing the outcome of a big election. So the CDC should be promoting staying home on those Tuesday election nights. That's all fine and dandy, but you do know that not all evolution is for the better right? Many animals evolve themselves into extinction. So, it's as likely "if not more likely" that if we didn't vaccinate, we wouldn't adapt. Creatures don't always adapt. They don't always overcome disease. I think it's smarter to deal with things like polio, small pox, flu, papaloma, and diseases like that with "the present" in mind. Not a thousand years from now. We could just as easily go extinct from disease as we could adapt. Evolution doesn't favor anybody. It might favor the disease far more than us. The disease very well could just use us and jump to another species. One never knows that kind of thing, so we develop medicines and vaccines. There is another thread going on right now, on this forum, about Autism. Interestingly, last night I was thinking about all of the things people say others are doing to perhaps cause Autism to be rapidly increasing in humans. One thing people are failing to put into the equation is that we might not be "doing" anything to cause the increase of Autism. We may be evolving in a counter productive way. This is a real concern. Autism may be a natural, but bad mutation in the human genome.

I have a reoccuring dream where I'll have to go #2 and I'm on a quest to find a bathroom. It's usually really hard to find one. Not just typically hard, but extremely hard. Not only that but I usually recognize certain "bathroom" doors and know that I don't want to use those "bathrooms". Somehow I know that they are disgusting inside, with strange fixtures that barely resemble toilets. I mean very strange and filthy fixtures with no privacy. Shit running over the fixtures onto the floor. No toilet paper. Different shape fixtures that I only recognize when in these dreams. It's repulsive. So I don't go in these bathrooms. I keep looking. Finally I "have" to break down and pick one of these disgusting bathrooms because I really have to go. So I try and maneuver this disgusting room. There are usually other people going, too, and I feel not only repulsed and grossed out, but shamed. I crawl atop one of these oozy fixtures when I can't hold it any longer. It's always too disgusting to actually use, so I leave. Soon the dream (nightmare?) fades away. I want to know what y'all make of this dream. I have my own answer but I want to see how common this is and what you think about it.

Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Do you have knowledge that science doesn't have? You claimed that cooperation coming out of competition was extremely rare. No I didn't. Companies compete with other companies and if they don't they go out of business. What's to prevent violent competition in a Stateless "society"? Nothing. Hell, the argument Stef proposes about reputation being the force that keeps people in line is more creepy and terrifying than the State is. Also, a convincing company will and does manipulate it's clients into believing plans of domination over other companies all of the time through marketing ploys, back room strategies, litigation, subversion, lies, and straight out deception, and threats. There's nothing moral about that. If a company (and they do) convince people that they will make a profit, then people will go along with the ploy. Not all but MANY. And this isn't in a vacuum. MANY companies will do this. It will just become common place. It will become unwritten procedure. In other words, Corporations will become the State. (actually they already are The State when it comes down to it) so their influence will be as deceptive as it is now, confusion and uncertainty will be the playing field that makes them all dominate over the people. (Just like now). So, as an anarchist you can ignore scientific method when it suits you..... Capitalism is competitive. The champions of the game will rule the playing field. They do now, and they would without a State. But that's boring to me because in actuality they are the same players as the State anyhow. They control the puppet State anyhow. They have influence. You do not, unless you have the power. You don't have power without money and you won't have money unless you have the power. The power comes from the ability to influence, and THAT influece is what makes the STATE rule over "you"

But the child wont die from it. The child will simply be in pain. Oh. Is this a tradition somewhere, like body peircing in tribes?

I think you read something wrong because I never called anybody here a troll.

All you are saying here is that if I don't accept your arguments then I don't listen to reason. But your reasoning is lacking compared to mine in this area so of course I'm not going to concede to your wrong-headed views. Calling my posts irrelevant doesn't mean anything when they are more accurate than yours.

Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Do you have knowledge that science doesn't have? Every single company and dating relationship is an example of "what"? "What" is rare in war? "What" is rare in education? "What" is the norm in business or personal relationships? Are you saying that competition is voluntary? Are you saying that if you live in a Capitalist society it is voluntary whether you compete to survive well?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I see you've highlghted part of my quote. Do you have a problem with that part? I don't know what your reply means so I'm nuetral on it, for now.

I made the accusation based on the fact that he called me a troll. I'm not hypocritical for saying that a person who resorts to calling people who they disagree with "troll" has no honor and integrity. Call me a troll for debating on a philosophy forum and I'll say you don't have integrity. I haven't really insulted anybody. I've only returned insults. Is it your desire that I return the insult you have just thrown at me? Should I return it equally for some reason or should I go full throttle and try and hurt your feelings transparently? I don't want to, but I mean, you keep barking up the wrong tree.

I agree. Competition can foster cooperation. But it's rare enough to make news when it happens.

Well, you don't think he is your ruler?

To call someone a troll is to say they lack integrity and honor. You are calling him a troll and I've yet to see you make any arguments, you just say you disagree and the burden of proof is on them. Isn't that kind of hypocritical of you? Huh? I didn't call him a troll. He called me one.

Is that legacy enough to explain the apparent rise in ASD documented in the most recent government data? The CDC data was based on parental reports of autism; a representative sample of parents were asked whether a doctor had diagnosed their child with autism, and some experts caution that such reports are not as reliable as health records documenting the disorder.

If you say it I would dismiss it, unless you are infact my ruler. Can you provide evidence that you are my ruler, and that you rule over me? If you can show me that you are my ruler then I will concede.

a agree with the sentiment of this. Good points, indeed.

No it isn't. Not on either account. Why did you say that?

I am sorry to put it this bluntly, but I think I have made my case sufficiently and this is very good evidence you provide: - Stop thinking that discussing the effects of spanking will change anything. Abuse will get done anyway - as you can see - and not necessarily in the form of spanking. This is not just unique to your situation, and FDR does not do follow up studies on any of these cases - that I know of - buy merely publishes people's words about how good they are to their children. - Start thinking from first principles about this - not just about god and the state - and having logical conversations with the people around you about the ways in which they justify their behaviour towards yourself and the children. - Stop debating trolls. I am available and willing to chat privately if you would like to. Good luck. Actually that does suffice. I am tending to over think it. Ultimately she's not my kid and I can do the best I can when she's with me, but whatever they do at their home is their own business. Any reprecussions they will have to face will be of their own folly and only then I must tell them...well "I told you so" is kind of arrogant and overplayed. I'd tell them "I informed you thusly!" And yeah...I don't know why I continue the troll battle. I came here after a string of video game forums in my life and I've obviously developed a keen sense of sniffing out the trolls. Moncaloono? Whether he means what he says or not, he is undeniably trolling us all and I guess my anger stems from the fact that I have a specific and personal topic I lay on the table, but it is being shoved off that table and replaced with another argument altogether. It's like shoving a Thanksgiving turkey off the table and replacing it with a sack of shit. The troll battle and the shit with my family...yeah I learned it's not my job to change anyone. All I can do is lend empathy to those who seem to be losing it before they ever reach the point of no return. It seems highly unlikely because on the flipside my cousin and her husband have the capacity to be loving and caring to my neice regardless, but it's just corrupted in a strange 180 turn of values from time to time. I'll just wait until I have my own children to fully implement my parenting technique without interruptions of its progress I guess... I realize I am trying to hard to replace her parents and even that feels wrong on a different level, just obviously not as worse as how their behaviour is that DRIVES me to act otherwise. Thanks everyone for your input, even Moncaloono who's boundary challenging ways have at least helped me reaffirm what I know is correct in my heart. I think I will leave this topic alone unless there is some more sound advice amongst the flooding troll battle. You have no integrety or honor if you call people who don't agree with you trolls. I'll leave it at that. And now, I'll ignore your comments and posts since you are not an honorable debator.

You are trying to explain something as fact when it has never been shown in existence. You cannot point to a free market in history that didn't form under some kind of government State, whether big or small. So the actions exercised in those transactions are and have always been regulated. Even in the smallest villages there have always been 1 or more rulers that make "legal" judgements. You simply cannot claim to know as fact, something that doesn't exist. Just like believing in God, Anarchy is merely a religious belief so far. It wants to be real, but it hasn't become real. It can't. It goes against nature.

I can only interpret this action as antagonistic. You specifically stated that you dislike this behavior...then you performed it. Until now, I believed you were sincere but unable to communicate clearly. I no longer believe that. I now believe that you are neither sincere nor able to communicate clearly. I don't like distorting people's words, but hell if it isn't appropriate to serve you your own technique to show you how illogical it is to use that technique as some kind of rational debating strategy. I don't really have control over what you believe. I'm sincere and I communicate as clear as I can. If that isn't good enough for you then you shouldn't rack your brain trying to understand what you consider my senseless ramblings. If you don't understand me, than it's not because I haven't tried to be clear. But I think it's hilarius taking your words and distorting them now that you've shown that you have such a lack of respect for "my" writings. You've given me permission to treat your writings like Madlibs. And it really shouldn't bother you, unless you are a hypocrite. It bothers me, and I respect other people's writings, but since you don't respect my words I have no respect for yours "either".

You can remove a certain government but you can't remove rulers without new rulers cropping up and taking control. You cannot stop people from being ruled. Some people demand to be ruled. Some people want to rule. There's always going to be those who succeed at ruling others in ANY society. That is what a government does. That is The State. You say centre, but that doesn't advance your argument. It doesn't take a kingdom, temple, House, or area to rule over others. It takes powerful people against weaker, more submissive people. They govern no matter what the lack of area is, by their influence over an area they have affect on.

We're not arguing. You're explaining your argument to me. I don't understand it yet. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is you're asserting. You see, conclusions are useless to me. I need to know how a particular conclusion was reached. You've explained to me that you start from first principles and work your way up to logical arguments. I believe you. You should be able to explain what combination of foundational principles justify your assertion that dependance and submission are necessarily the same. The assertion that dependance and submission are identical is just that, an assertion. If you can't or won't support that position with some kind of argument I cannot agree or disagree with you, as I have no idea what your position is because all you've given me is the thesis. If it's simple, explaining it should be relatively easy. Perhaps you might consider focusing on developing the quality of your arguments rather than the quantity of arguments you can generate. You might be in a more conversational mood if you saved a little writing energy for the back-and-forth part of the exchange. I should add: your mood does not effect the validity of arguments you advance. Nor does it effect my ability to understand those arguments. You should start with a dictionary, then go to an encyclopedia if you still can't make the connection between dependency and submission. I really can't help you with how I reached the conclusion besides saying that the words actually rely on each other. The words wouldn't exist without each other. Dominant wouldn't exist without Submissive either, and neither can be gotten rid of no matter "what" system is created. That would be changing the mechanics of Biology itself according to evolution. It's like saying " We can evolve passed evolution " It's a bizarre, religious ideology to claim that kind of thing, since there's no evidence to support it in any way shape or form.

So instead of addressing the points, you simply change the goal posts. The point is 'all voluntary trade benefits both parties.' If true, this destroys your previous argument that capitalism is all about losers and winners. You are ignoring this in order to distract us from the fact that you don't have a counter to this, nor to the fact that capitalism is as much cooperation as competition. As far as your insistence that trading freely leads to a State, well that is nothing more than an assertion that you havn't backed up with any proof other than "I say so, so there." No. I'm NOT moving the goal posts. You haven't made your argument AT ALL. You totally fail to see how Capitalism is competitive. Do you know what competition is? And I'm not making an assertion. Hell, Anarchy is not only an assertion but it doesn't exist at all in reality. It's a religious view. Competition-Competition in biology, ecology, andsociology, is a contest between organisms, animals, individuals, groups, etc., forterritory, a niche, or a location of resources, for resources and goods, for prestige,recognition, awards, mates, or group or social status, for leadership; it is the opposite of cooperation. It arises whenever at least two parties strive for a goal which cannot be shared or which is desired individually but not in sharing and cooperation. Competition occurs naturallybetween living organisms which co-exist in the same environment. For example, animals compete over water supplies, food, mates, and other biological resources. Humans compete usually for food and mates, though when these needs are met deep rivalries often arise over the pursuit ofwealth, prestige, and fame. Competition is also a major tenet in market economy and business is often associated with competition as most companies are in competition with at least one other firm over the same group of customers, and also competition inside a company is usually stimulated for meeting and reaching higher quality of services or products that the company produce or develop.

LOL.. I "return" your argument. The parent is, at least at first, invulnerable to all social pressure. Think how it must feel to be an ordinary baby with a sense of self-worth all wrapped-up the opinions of other babies, and along comes this parent who doesn't give a sh*t what other people think. I mean, man, parents run around dressed in public because they don't like being naked. Babies have shame, and fear thus are afraid to wear clothes that may not be truly hip so they go butt naked. Babies hope they can be that free someday. And all that liberation reminds the babies of what slaves they are. How bound by the absurdity of other babys' opinions they really are! But the baby has spent a short time internalizing social pressure as the moral good. So they rob the parent of that freedom because being invulnerable to social pressure seems wrong. That's why babies are so disrespectful.

It's actually pretty amazing what can be done with Tofu.

If you are dependent on somebody for something, you are submissive to them for that thing. This is too simple to argue over. It will put me to sleep. Sorry. maybe somebody else will fill in the blanks. I'm just not in the mood right now to figure out why you don't see that dependece in itself is an admission of submission. Dominance doesn't mean, Hey I'm going to let you starve...