Rick Horton

I think the wall is blue. You agree that the wall is blue. The wall looks blue to both you and me. That does not necessarily mean the wall is blue, though it does mean that the wall is blue in every testable way. Reality is, at best, knowable within the context of the standards of evidence used by the individual. Of course, that's just a simple explanation of applied epistemology. I think that, more often than not, when people refer to the invalidity of the senses, they actually believe that the mind's failure to understand sensory information is a problem of sense, and not a problem of mind. The mind isn't independent of the senses. If I didn't have any senses/sense, I wouldn't have a reality.

Yes I agree with this. I cant recall the philosopher now who said that once I close the door on a room, nothing can possibly exist within it. Or something along those lines. This is quite absurd because we clearly know that what we left inside that room (unless someone removes it), will be there when we return. Reality can always be beyond our senses (within reason). I know the sun still exists even at night when I cannot see it. Alzheimers patients would have a hard time with that concept. They might not remember what was in the room to begin with. For them there is a problem, if they use first principals to argue reality, since they would have to go on other people's word. Since I don't seem to have Alzheimers I'm pretty sure that a room's content will remain stable between the time I experience the room until the next, at least to a degree, minus outside interference, and other things that change within a room naturally. But to me, reality does equal my senses, and nothing beyond that. Eye glasses still have to deal with my senses, etc...Reality probably exists beyond me, sure. But it really doesn't matter.

Because they work (as in function). Or sometimes they don't. That's how I can say they work (or not). Reality doesn't ever "stop working" that's why the concept of it "working" makes no sense imo. My senses are part of my body and transmit stimuli to my brain. Reality is everything that is, inculding but not limited to, my senses. And for me, reality is nothing more than my senses.

They can, yes. And maintain credibility? If yes, can you explain? If the person hooked on caffeine can live ethically while being addicted, but the person in particular (not every heroin addict) is so addicted that it causes him to start stealing to get his fix then the caffeine addict can say the heroin addicts behavior is unethical.

That's awesome.

That's ridiculous. And you do? Look over here. If you study the MULTIPLE variations of God, there is at least one that fits what the OP is saying, so I think you should correct yourself. God is often conceived as the supreme being and principal object of faith.[1] In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. In deism, God is the creator (but not the sustainer) of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself.

Can you clarify your position? The theory of Objective Reduction is described at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction To my knowledge, it is the only theory that holds that wavefunctions collapse objectively and holds that consciousness (free will) is not dependent on algorithms (classical physical determinism). I find it compelling because it avoids the logical paradoxes of the determinists, while at the same time refuting the crackpot quantum spoonbenders. Thank you sir

I don't know if you're post is to me. Standards are essential in evalutating claims. I don't know if you're talking about income inequality, though. I have no idea what you are saying. English isn't your first language, right? I just can't parse your comment and I don't know if it was toward me because I'm not Monaco F1 racing dude but my name looks similar to the first part of that.

Correct. It depends on your definition of assault. I think a reasonable one would be "an action which imposes physical force, often causing pain or fear." If you don't think spanking causes pain or fear, you know nothing about spanking. In fact, the definitive purpose of spanking is to cause pain and fair. Are you saying you know more than I do about pain? By your definition you just restated my position that if you go by that, then dentists assault children. In fact, if we are looking at the fight or flight response I would bet that kids have a MUCH MUCH greater chemical fear response to dentistry than a spanking. Also MUCH more when they stub there toe, get hit by a car, touch a burning hot stove with there little hands, fall on the ground and bust their lip open, climb a tree and fall and break an arm, have to get a shot at the doctor, and countless other situations where they have pain and confusion. Spankings are SO mild if done right that they can often be the best, and sometimes only way to prevent a toddler without the ability to make abstract decisions even if you try to explain danger to them, from experiencing a REAL rush of terror when they REALLY hurt themselves. My argument isn't to the prominant posters of this forum since I know the massive conditioning that most here exhibit, but to the passer bys who aren't commited to one philosophy. I agree with a lot of the Anarchis ideas, but there are just so many that I see around this forum that are really weird to me. Not because I haven't thought these ideas through, but because I've REALLY really thought these ideas through. I feel I'm in a different position because I'm not locked into or married to anarchy, libertarianism, or any philosophical belief. I haven't found one that doesn't have massive errors "somewhere" and at the same time, I haven't found one philosophy that doesn't have very good observations, too. But I keep my studies completely detached from philosophical dogmas so I never get jaded by conditioning, bullet points, and repetition.

That makes no sense. I don't know what you are saying here, at all. It's actually nonsense. And comparing rape to spankings makes you so inept at understanding the difference between the 2 that you actually tried to "enter" rape into the realm of this conversation to draw some parallel with a spanking. You must not have any idea of what rape is to say something so ignorant. Oh man, thank you so much for validating my intuition to ostracize you. I sincerely hope that you can someday observe your argument here in light of how you address your girlfriend, how you address your own parents, and how you address your situtations with your kids. All of this needs dramatic inward reflection that can probably only be achieved through therapy. Seriously, I hope you seek it. Please let me know if you ever start the process. You have a keen, insightful intelligence. When it has been freed from the propaganda of parent-worship through abuse, I imagine that it will be incredibly engaging. Best of luck to you. Hey, well if you're sincer, my hats off to you and I respect that. I do firmly disagree, and I hope you stay well.

more passive aggression.

Yes, what I meant to do was to point out the reality of the situation. Just because a government claims ownership or jurisdiction over a very large area of land, doesn't mean that they control all the people within that territory like robots; only individuals can control themselves. Government can only influence their behavior through bribes or threats. To say that we all live and trade at the mercy of the government is different from saying that the government CONTROLS all of our lives and interactions down to every last detail. it's true that government could kill me at any time with a drone strike I guess, but that doesn't mean that my breathing and eating is a result of the government. I think you are giving government far too much credit. it is quite clear to me that the more violent control is escalated, the more dysfunctional a system, or as Robert Anton Wilson used to say "imposition of order = escalation of chaos" Yes. To begin with, I would ask why governments invest so much in media and education? The purpose of propaganda is to justify actions that otherwise people would disapprove of. If you are just taking advantage of a power differential, why resort to propaganda? Because it is much more effective than dealing with the resistance of millions of people. The government doesn't like to expose its guns, so to speak, unless it has to. If you ask a store-owner why he gives money to the mafia, he will say that it is to avoid violence against his person and property. If you ask the average taxpayer why he gives money to the government, he usually will respond with any number of reasons which are essentially moral arguments, in other words,"government is virtuous". If you undermine this they tend to fall back on the argument from effect, or "government is necessary". those who might say "so I don't get arrested" or who have problems with certain areas of government spending, will still react very strongly to the suggestion that there should be no coercive agency collecting money from them. A violent gang dominates people just because it can, but doesn't try to corrupt the hearts and minds of its victims. As soon as it begins to appeal to morality, and ask them to be thankful for their servitude, it takes on a different character, that of government or religion. I see this as the fundamental divide between State and local gang. A gang could never extort such a a large amount of money from so large a population. Neither could they manipulate national debts and currency the way they do. The military could never pay its soldiers so little unless they believed what they were doing was moral and necessary. Hope that makes sense. It doesn't make sense. This whole argument strategy based on ideas that don't conform to anarchy being somehow less real than ideas that do conform to anarchy, which in itself only exists in the minds of the followers of it, and even then they breach the rules themselves by owning property, is really problematic for you. Rulers are real. The state is a bunch of real rulers. If you don't think the State is a real thing, then HEY, you're right, but what's the difference? The rulers are still going to rule because thats the way they are. Anarchists cant stop them without using force. Anyhow, trying to stop rulers is nothing more than trying to stop winners and losers, powerful people and weak people. So it's as infintile to believe that's possible as it is to believe in something like Zeitgeist, or Christianity. Then when you compound the problem with this philosophy with the fact that you can't even admit that powerful people will always end up controling the playing field and the weak will not. Now, if somehow the weak people figure out how to level the playing field then THEY are the new powerful people, and they will control the playing field. I don't look at it like well, Governments are necessary. I look at it like, well no matter what we always end up with the most influential people in power and they by that nature end up being the State. You can't have no State. You'd have to create a world of totally equal humans in intellegence, drive, morals, health, finances, etc... Otherwise how do you prevent influencial people from doing what they do, which is seeking power? I argue you dont, can't, and it's never been DONE in history. There have always been rulers. Rulers always become the State. The State are the product of rulers. The state is rulers. That's why anarchy is fatally flawed. That's my argument. That's my observation, evaluation, and I used to think I was an anarchist until I realized anarchy has never existed. It's a word based on an idea that hasn't been seen in the real world. Ever.

Obviously you're committed to stretching the definition of the state far beyond what you surely know people here are discussing regardless how much evidence is shown to you to the contrary. Even Stefan, when he says "rulers" I doubt means something as informal as "any guy in a group who happens to have a little more power or influence." He can clarify that if he wishes. There is really nothing more to be said. If you want to stretch the definition of the state that way, you can say whatever you wish. It will have little if any relevance to the discussions people here have an interest in. So I'm moving on now. Okay, well apparently you have no idea when a State becomes a State, so you can't go any further.

That's very interesting. It seems to me you're still trying to do the same thing here. Where do you think this personality trait comes from? What do you hope to achieve by pushing people's boundaries? Do you think your parents were justified in telling you to sleep when you obviously still wanted to fool around? Can you imagine imposing these conditions on anyone except a child, with the threat of hitting them to back it up? I used to be a little similar as a kid, not so much with my parents, but with my brother and teachers. I often think kids see the world kind of like a video game. If you start a new video game you will spend time exploring, seeing how the environemnt reacts to various inputs. As children get to different stages of development, they want to test the reaction of their environment and of other people to certain actions. It is natural for all children to begin to question/resist authority at some point. I remember Stef mentioning that he would ask his daughter to do something, she would say "no" then 20 or 30 seconds later she would do it anyway. It's obvious to me that the child just wants to know that they CAN say "no", is not necessarily motivated by a desire or lack of desire to do the thing to begin with. By resisting this, either with spanking, hitting, yelling, insults, or even bribery, parents do not allow the child the ability to develop negotiating, choice-making skills. Until the child realizes this, they will make decisions based on these habits rather than pursuing their true self interests. Just my thoughts on the matter. Yeah, you're definitely right. I do push people's boundaries. Now I do it based on their test on my boundaries. It is the same thing, really. I've always had the personality that makes me question all authority.

N,n,n,NO. This has nothing to do with me, at THIS point. I don't believe it was abuse. I don't believe wrist slapping, or spankings are abuse. YOU DO. And since you do, it's pretty fucked up for you to be sarcastic to me, and meanwhile claim I'm a victim who's "probably" been so abused that I have lost the ability to know what abuse is. Yeah, so don't try and turn this away from your statement which to me was just passive aggression, but looking into what you said and knowing you claim to believe what you believe, what you said was a horrid way to treat a "victim" of long term physical assault, violence, and stone cold abuse. Hey, it's not my fault I feel I deserved it, right? BUT, look, the reality is that if you can't distinguish between a spanking, rape, beatings, murder, etc... you have a deficit in moral cognizance.

Oh, I remember so fondly, lol, pushing my parents to the point of spanking me to see how far I could get them to go before they put there foot down. They' try to reason with me, but I wasn't interested in reason. I just wanted to test boundaries. I don't remember every thinking a spanking was abusive when given to me. I remember thinking, "shit", I guess this is where the line is drawn in my disobedience. That's only my perspective. My sister and I would giggle, and sneak out of our rooms and crawl down the hallway to peek at the late night television my parents were trying to watch in peace, and as husband and wife, and they'd keep telling us to get back to bed. We'd retreat and then like little buttheads we would giggle and keep scootching down the hall. Shit, man, we knew we were testing them, and we knew what was coming. I often think my mother was right, in reflection. She'd finally end up saying "It looks like you need your nightly spanking before you can fall asleep" Why we didn't listen is probably becaue we were very curious on testing boundaries. I've tested boundaries my whole life. That's me. I've never feared my parents. I mean we'd keep doing the same stuff and trying to test, test, test, and we were stubborn, and in no way interested in a lecture about why we should do this or that. We thought that boring. We just wanted to find the edges of what we could get away with. I've talked to so many people that remember the same thing. And in the common family it seems that most people remember that when they were kids they also weren't looking for lectures, or truths. They were looking for boundaries to work. And as I, most of them don't remember there parents in fear, although when they tested the boundary to the point of finding it, they'd run like hell from the coming spanking, lol. But THEN proceed to fight the next small battle of will. Kids have will too, y'know... congratulations, you're a closeted masochist Put it this way, what you just said is the same as telling a woman whos husband beats her that she is a closet masochist because she confides in you that she feels she deserves it when he beats her up, rather than to be gentle and explain why she feels the way she does. Pretty jerkish if you really believe what you say you believe, to talk to me like that, so yeah, no manners to you from me after that kind of statement.

Oh, I remember so fondly, lol, pushing my parents to the point of spanking me to see how far I could get them to go before they put there foot down. They' try to reason with me, but I wasn't interested in reason. I just wanted to test boundaries. I don't remember every thinking a spanking was abusive when given to me. I remember thinking, "shit", I guess this is where the line is drawn in my disobedience. That's only my perspective. My sister and I would giggle, and sneak out of our rooms and crawl down the hallway to peek at the late night television my parents were trying to watch in peace, and as husband and wife, and they'd keep telling us to get back to bed. We'd retreat and then like little buttheads we would giggle and keep scootching down the hall. Shit, man, we knew we were testing them, and we knew what was coming. I often think my mother was right, in reflection. She'd finally end up saying "It looks like you need your nightly spanking before you can fall asleep" Why we didn't listen is probably becaue we were very curious on testing boundaries. I've tested boundaries my whole life. That's me. I've never feared my parents. I mean we'd keep doing the same stuff and trying to test, test, test, and we were stubborn, and in no way interested in a lecture about why we should do this or that. We thought that boring. We just wanted to find the edges of what we could get away with. I've talked to so many people that remember the same thing. And in the common family it seems that most people remember that when they were kids they also weren't looking for lectures, or truths. They were looking for boundaries to work. And as I, most of them don't remember there parents in fear, although when they tested the boundary to the point of finding it, they'd run like hell from the coming spanking, lol. But THEN proceed to fight the next small battle of will. Kids have will too, y'know... congratulations, you're a closeted masochist Congratulations, you're showing the personality of your movement by congratulating victims of what you deem to be abuse. Essentially you are being a sarcastic prick to somebody you "should" consider to be a victim who has been broken so much that they have lost the ability to understand they were abused as a child. That makes you really attractive to the victims...

That makes no sense. I don't know what you are saying here, at all. It's actually nonsense. And comparing rape to spankings makes you so inept at understanding the difference between the 2 that you actually tried to "enter" rape into the realm of this conversation to draw some parallel with a spanking. You must not have any idea of what rape is to say something so ignorant.

I agree

What kind of spanking? I don't know if you were seriously abused, Stefan, or not. But I got spankings when I was little, and I totally remember how I felt before, during, and after those spankings. I never once thought that my parents were abusing me, and they didn't abuse me. It's important to make distinctions between violence and spankings. Beating is violent, giving a spanking isn't violent in any way. It causes pain for around 10 second, but there isn't violence there. Maybe you were screamed at, beat, thrown around, hit in the face, I don't know. But that's not what a spanking is. Not at all. It's totally warped to refuse to make these distinctions and just yell ASSAULT!!! Maybe you disagree with spankings, but spanking isn't assault, and calling it assault, violence, or any other name that implicitly implies angry destruction is only going to water down what real abuse is to sell your NAP based on it's fully deployed extent, which just is not reality. Not all force is equal, and not all force is immoral. In fact you know as well as I do that property itself is force. You would protect your property with it, but since property is only something YOU think you have the right to posess, any engagement of "self defense" deployed to protect that property is really force, since if you didn't try and hold onto that thing in the first place there would be no reason to use force to defend that thing you feel you have some moral right over another to hold onto. So, force is not always bad. And although spanking is force, it is not violent, evil, assault, abuse, etc.... Those terms carry a very real and tangible resonance, but I'm not as impressionable as others so I'll carry my own arguments and not kill the nuance of language.

I read the article, but I was confused. I detect that the author doesn't understand money and debt, but I'm not sure since I don't really have a great grasp on things like that. Sorry. I tried.

And so explains the sum of our interactions. Wow. You really are a passive aggressive little fuck head...

Yes they know that a child will feel pain during dental work but that is irrelevant. Do you recognize that there is a meaningful moral difference between doing something that you know will cause pain, and doing something with intent to cause pain? Do you also recognize that spanking a child is an action done with intent to cause pain, that the pain is integral to the supposed purpose of spanking? Yes. I do. But you don't seem to. Yes I do. And it's not assault. I won't play this game with you. If you say spanking is assault, then you are saying dentistry is, too. Bottom line expected pain. Both have the intent to promote health. Both do. Spanking is not assault. Beating is assault. Do you think spanking and beating, and raping, and murdering, and torturing are all the same thing? Look. Avoiding nuance isn't good philosophy, so that fact that you are avoiding the nuances in the difference between a spanking and assault really means you have a problem making important moral distinctions. You can say spanking = assault all you want, I'll grant you that, but that really waters down what assault is. That kind of argument really sucks. And to suggest that if a parent gives a kid a spanking "always" means they are assaulting their kid violently, then that is a huge problem withf your ability to judge distinctions in reality. Massive cognitive failings. You are free to raise your kids with no spanking. Other parents are perfectly justified in using spankings as a method to keep children from hurting themselves, severely by running into traffic, touching hot stoves, disrespecting mom, etc... I NEVER equivicated getting a spanking from my parents as violent assault. That would be assinign. Knowing the difference between when you are REALLY being abused with violent assault is too important to mix with a spanking which causes pain for oh, about 10 seconds. A swat on the ass...

I don't suggest taking your kids to a dentist who engages in behavior that is INTENDED to hurt your children. They don't know your kid will feel pain? Is that what you're telling me? Anybody who believes spanking = physical assault HAS to believe taking your kids to the dentist is letting a strange guy physically assault their kid.

I wouldn't let any adult act in a way that was intended to cause pain to my child. That includes spanking and it includes myself. I myself, take my kids to the dentist. Just a heads up.