csekavec

OP is copy/paste

I was called crazy once. By a crazy woman. However I do wonder something about you. Why seek anecdotes? Why do you hold in high regard the opinions of those people calling you crazy? No one who cares about you would use that word against you except as statement of fact.

The principle of WOO, the reality that many people will believe self contradictory malarkey instead of energizing their grey faculties.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160726221146.htm "We found that low aerobic capacity was associated with increased rates of death. The association between exercise capacity and all-cause death was graded, with the strongest risk in the tertile with the lowest maximum aerobic capacity. The effect of aerobic capacity on risk of death was second only to smoking." "The length of follow up in our study is unique," continued Dr Ladenvall. "When this study began, most data was derived from hospital cohorts and there was very limited data on exercise testing in a large general population. Our sample is representative of the male population in Gothenburg at that time. The risk associated with low aerobic capacity was evident throughout more than four decades and suggests that being physically active can have a big impact over a lifetime." He concluded: "We have come a long way in reducing smoking. The next major challenge is to keep us physically active and also to reduce physical inactivity, such as prolonged sitting." Get off your ass!

Take a page from the Mormons. They have loads of industry set up for this and they are worldwide. They are the premier experts because they have been doing this for about 100 years. They preach that everyone should have at minimum: a "72 hour kit" for each person, in backpack form. Example contents Minimum 3 months food storage (1+ year preferred) Example They have free to use facilities for canning and packaging. You don't have to be a member. You do pay for everything at cost. This lets you take advantage of wholesale prices on packaging and nearly unsurpassed shelf longevity. Only video I found on short notice was this shakycam tour of making gallon can of cereal grain. The centers are all over the world, including the UK. I recently broke open a can of apple slices I made back in 1999. They tasted great!

I was also a Scout. It was one of the most valuable experiences of my life. Unfortunately bigoted rules have barred me from giving back to the Scout community.

Therapy with or without her. I think you'll find "the problem" has nothing to do with her being "left leaning and a feminist." Best wishes!

I think you confuse 'free speech' with some other concept that appears to me to very closely resemble 'enforced listening'

The concept you put forth as I understand it presupposes these things: a) For latent abuse to occur both abuser and abused must have an externalized sense of self worth, meaning: b) They must value the existence of a negative interaction more than the hurt it causes; and c) They must accept what the abuser says is true and that truth is an undesirable thing. Put a person of any age who fits these requirements with any other person and your term latent abuse can occur. It doesn't necessarily require malicious intent from the abuser. Neither does it require an age/power/social status disparity. Just thought I'd point that out. I've seen so many adults who have this as an ongoing issue. It's difficult. Recognition is the all important first step. Only until a thing is held consciously can you apply your intellect and act. Congratulations! A person who derives their sense of self philosophically can't be abused because this latent abuse isn't physical and requires the consent of the abused. I was so fortunate to indirectly learn this early. When I was eleven there was a man in the church I went to who was in his sixties. An immigrant from Scotland, he was horribly abused during his childhood. Though he had very effectively removed his abusers from his life he was clearly haunted by their ghosts. How we became friends is that he began to make solo vocal performances as an invocation. Some hours later after the service ended parishiners took their turns to politely thank him and lie and his skill and their enjoyment of his singing. His dour expression at first made me think that he was unable to internalize their compliments. But I was wrestling with a larger problem. After a few months I finally resolved to talk to him and tell him the truth. I told him that I didn't think he was very good, that the volume balance between his voice and the music was not right, that his thick accent obstructed understanding the words. That I really admired that he could perform publicly. That I appreciated enormously how much courage he had, since I had literally fainted when I was called upon the prior year to give a 5 minute talk. His face lit up. He knew he was bad. And as an abuse survivor he had learned to value truth to the degree that the false compliments were nothing to him. Even though he was bad singing was a life long dream. I didn't know at the time just how much work it took him to do those public performances because of his early experiences. We became friends. Now in his 80's he leads a men's choir and leads an a capella group. Ducks oil their feathers so that their environment doesn't cause them to lose flight capability. Healthy people need applied philosophy for the same reason.

No, no, no. No straw men. I was quite specific in what I said. I'm not interested in loose goose word games.

... well he lasted 7:15 before regurgitating the old objectivist non sequitur. All in all a decent presentation... As long as you are on that channel, be sure to watch Roslyn Ross speech "Parenting like Ragnar and Kay: How to raise an individualist with high self-esteem". It's awesome.

The statement is this: that it is immoral to initiate physical force. The idea has no claim that only 'the other guy' initiates. No party, one party, or all parties may initiate. The only thing the NAP has to say about it is to assert that it is wrong. That a person gets nutrition from food and not from rocks is a natural desire. Further, if all comes from the other, whence comes desire? Such circularity illustrates the fallacy in the claim. I won't go on. Aristotle's comments were pertaining to ART. If you wish to extrapolate from there, fine. But you can't appeal to him as though he were making your argument. He was making observations about aesthetics and in particular, the dramatic and rhetorical style. Is this you? Or are you attributing a quotation?

I wish I could say it's good for a laugh.... But it is very VERY dangerous. The "magrav power blueprint" instructs you to make an uninsulated shorted transformer with extremely high capacitance and connect it to your house. Good way to get killed. Not only might you still have live AC after you turn off the mains, there is potential of melted wires resulting in a fire.

Nearly all major concerns in North America use a Qualcomm or equivalent. Ie, can't spoof your swindle sheets once you start your day. You'll still keep physical logs also. You'll likely be speed governed. Near the coasts you just won't be getting as many miles per day due to density. Stay in the middle if you can. Trucks made after about 2012 will have SCR. More to check on your pretrip and don't forget DEF. Watch for DEF freeze when cold. Don't drive in unsafe conditions. The bonus isn't ever worth it. Float > clutch. Unless you are pulling a reefer or sail boat fuel, watch your load balance. Scales keep you safe. Always watch your inside back tire during a corner. Pedestrians are worth 50 points, bicyclists 100 points. Commercial drivers are the safest drivers on the road. Smaller the car, more insane things you'll see them do. Be defensive. Taciturn driver is best driver. Especially if part of a team. If otr bring at minimum: bed sheets, low sugar food like nuts/seeds/jerky, cooler, thermos, toiletries, insulated and non insulated gloves, a lighter, a mirror, antiseptic wipes, dietary supplements. Save your fuel points. Carefully monitor your physical and mental health. Cannot be emphasized enough: I put it last for significance.

Epistemology presupposes metaphysics. It's why I've been mostly writing about metaphysics despite the title of this thread. I've wanted you to put forth your basis of reasoning. You haven't, yet. So here then is the summary position of Plato and Hegel on this matter. If ones metaphysical view is "reality is unknowable" then it naturally follows that for each concept there is distinction between a type of knowledge one "knows" and a type of knowledge that constitutes a lesser "sensible" form, a "belief". After all an imperfect believe presupposes a perfect knowledge. That knowledge is unattainable by man. To know an "intelligible" requires a higher, omniscient perspective, or revelation. And if there are two states of knowing then there must be myriad shades. Of course this easily brings forth the problem of definitional truth. Ie, 2+2 is defined as 4, and so on. Mystic philosophers differ how they approach it. Here then is the metaphysical problem, in case it isn't yet clear. If all truth is myriad then definitional truth which is binary cannot be. If definitional truth does exist then to what things does it apply? This is what your metaphysics must supply. This is the nature of axioms. They rely upon the true/false dichotomy. The nuance of platonic forms doesn't apply because the answer is yes, or it is no. If you use an axiom, it follows that you agree that definitional truth is proper to that sphere. One can't have it both ways. If a spectrum applies, an axiom can't. Saying "I believe the axiom but don't know" is a contradiction. Hegel tried to rewrite the laws of logic to deal with it. If you support his ideas, what are your rules of induction? Here is a different argument. If knowledge requires omniscience of what point is it to demonstrate reality is unknowable? An intelligible requires a sensible. A sensible presupposes a sensation, which presupposes a percept. To perceive a thing is to perceive something specific. That thing either is or is not. Your perception of it either is or is not. By the way "Not" isn't like the concept zero, which presupposes a thing upon which a quantity is applied. "Not" in the axiomatic use is the negation, Null, void, no thing at all. Axiom being an irreducible primary, all questions of philosophy come back to it. And this is why all deep conversations should properly start with metaphysics. Last idea for this post. What is the difference between unknowable knowledge and nonexistence? Solipsism, anyone?

When you write, "It can't be induction" you are affirming the axiom of identity. You are using the axiom by making a truth claim. When I get home I'll try to find some links if you'd like them. For me the best most beautiful explanation of philosophical axiom was in Galt's speech.

You ask, how do I know an axiom is true. I answered before you asked in the post you quoted. The three axioms are: Existence, Identity, Consciousness. I'm being very rigid when I say axiom. I mean irreducible primary. This is an important distinction from other knowledge types. Since you keep going back to the word assumption I presume you don't yet grasp the distinction. There are many good resources that discuss the varying qualities of knowledge and their why. Anything that has identity may be known. Knowing a thing is only in the past. It has zero predictive power - it either was or was not. How well predictions align with experience is how much certainty we have. Perfect certainty is not a requirement for knowledge. Certainty emerges from knowledge, not vice-versa.

Tundra I invite you to share your method of inductive reasoning. You claim I do not know that A=A even after I demonstrated why it is true (congruence with reality), why it is justified (inductively reasoned), and that I believed. If your argument hinges upon maintaining a baseless (ie no claim of truth or justification) belief while contrariwise asserting perfect knowledge of lack of knowledge I'm afraid this conversation won't persuade me. Likewise if your argument is upon certainty, asserting certainty of lack of certainty is a non starter. It all comes back to the three axioms that you haven't addressed. If I misunderstand you, please explain again your basis of truth, justification, reasoning.

At least for women in their thirties my experience has been that physical attractiveness and intelligence are highly correlated. Women in their early twenties, not so much. But it's so highly anecdotal. I'd love to see data. My searches on crossref.org yielded nothing but I might not be using the right keywords.

Wow this thread really got busy since my last post! Long read. Here is my bit. If you don't exist, you cannot contemplate whether you exist. Therefore I assert a posteriori it can be known that you exist. Identity is. So in the very least you would have to say that certain things can be known, ie existence and the law of identity. In order for your idea to be valid in this context you would need to somehow demonstrate that the principle of the excluded middle is invalid. Or propose something else that better matches and predicts experience. If you don't agree with my premise, I would ask you set down your system of inductive reasoning.

I'd love to see that data correlated with the attractiveness rating that the women gave to the men.

Aristotle

Existence is the first axiom of philosophy. Axiom, not assumption. Tundra, do you exist?

Sometimes persons abuse their delegated authority in acting as peace officers. I don't think this is one of those times. Also the BLM folks have highjacked the issue. Racists. Why aren't they as vocal talking, marching, waving signs about the ~90% of murders that are black people killing black people? Hypocrites.

Mimetic theory is post modernist drivel.