csekavec

It's an fantastic feeling. It affirms the work I did to get where I am, and spurs me on to continue in the future. It is a quiet and constant unspoken reciprocity. Those who don't meet your standard of values shouldn't be major of your life. If how you are living your life isn't producing people who care about you then it is only yourself that should make the change.

I think that presentation and oratit style are aesthetic values. Do you disagree? And I'm sorry to say your example of false self doesn't make my concept of that idea firm. I don't know what we're talking about then. I linked those definitions so we could be on the same page. If they are wrong please give me a concrete definition of aesthetics and false self so I know what we're talking about before we go on.

You asked if FDR media is a litmus test of false self. But if all have false self as is asserted is then the distinction only which is 'advanced' and which is not? I'm not familiar with this concept and only lightly read up [1][2] on it but I don't see a relationship. Do you mean that a person claims aesthetic objection because the ideas threaten them and so their rejection is a sign of their false self? But if true what about those who genuinely object on aesthetic grounds? Their objection not useful criteria for judgement against them. And does the idea of universal false self need a response? It appears self refuting.

I think that channel is brilliant. Thanks for sharing.

Who is them? Big difference between adult and infant body alteration. UTI risk is a consequence of having the uethra not exposed. Do you support female uethra exposure? Or is good hygiene good enough? Uncircumcised men still have lower risk than females after all. It's not for you to decide whether female sensation or infection risk is the more important. Neither is it the parents to decide for an infant.

I think the whole premise is a non sequitur.

I can't stand 75% of the content put out by FDR. Do I then have a false self?

Who cares? All this arguments are predicated on the use of force against me. And he clearly puts peaceful economic activity in the same category as violent economic activity. "solid?" Ha! What you call arguments are just him asserting "wrong" 7 times. He doesn't make a single argument. I'd have been jaw droppingly surprised if he had (given 2:46 to make them)

Hello! I've never been able to get an understanding why orthodox Objectivism makes so many good metaphysical and ethical arguments for anarchism but yet upon reaching politics ignores it all and basically asserts that the only 'rational' course is to cede our rights to a monolithic state.

Imagine the various touch sensation that your fingertips allow you. Circumcision is amputating the tip of the penis. And in terms of the nervous system is is akin to amputating the tips of your fingers. That is how many nerves are severed. That is how much sense experience is lost. The only downside to being non circumcised that has a strong correlation is prevalence of urinary tract infections. When the data is corrected for hygiene there is no greater chance. So as long as young boys are taught to wash their penis properly there is no risk. Other studies loudly proclaim higher risk of prostate cancer and the like. They are bunk once you look at their data. There is huge incentive to protect the idea of moral circumcision because accepting the alternative is a horrifying thing to deal with, particularly for a practictioner who performed perhaps 10,000 of these mutilations. If it were me I couldn't sleep at night. But unlike me many of those doctors minds rebel against reality and seek to justify their acts after the fact. Also there is the body image thing. The researchers defending circumcision are circumcised and have a large incentive to affirm their own body image by defending the practice -- all at the cost of a massive mind blank. I'm one of the lucky ones. I'm saddened for anyone who isn't as fortunate as I am. I can't imagine it.

This is barely on topic so I beg forbearance. Huff Post article on Arizona Rep Juan Mendez. Quote from the article: "We need not tomorrow's promise of reward to do good deeds today," Mendez said in his invocation. "For [while] some may seek the assistance of a higher power with hands in the air, there are those of us that are prepared to assist directly, with our hands to the earth. Take these words to heart as we move this great state of Arizona forward. It is our responsibility to honor the Constitution and the secular equality it brings. And so shall it be."

The only way to cease things changing is to stop all motion. Your wish for eternity is a bald wish for death.

Not all chickens lay eggs; not all eggs become chickens. A person with great intellect might have capacity for self knowledge and never turn their reason upon anything besides their chosen specialty. A person with naturally high self awareness might never make those ideas concrete in their behavior in the world. False positive seems like a great way to label it. But I cannot say this strongly enough: every person has the capacity to lead ethical life according to their self knowledge and guided by their intellect. Even the dumbest (non disabled) human has brain power sufficient for this. When you wrote how it was too painful to consider... I have felt that. Granting our abusers full self responsibility hurts us.

I don't listen to call in shows but in my opinion ridicule is a great response to retarded premises.

Sounds like you already have a firm opinion of what anarchy is. You say that in anarchy criminals are unpunished for all crimes. Poison the well much? Your questions are just rhetorical. You aren't genuine or you'd have seen them answered above.

I've often thought along those lines. It's a chicken and egg thing... is it IQ that causes self knowledge or does self knowledge lead to good IQ? Whatever it is, this X factor, it is the desirable quality.

I understand that you are concerned about this. Am I right that spent nuclear fuel has recently come to your attention? I earlier told myself that I wouldn't engage with you again because your zeal seemed impervious to facts. This was my perception at the time. Because of your essay I've revised my opinion and am going to try again- your essay persuaded me that you are genuinely concerned about this. I'm not an authority and I'll not appeal to them. I'm not going to link you youtube videos or other people posing as authorities. What I can say is: I have worked around cesium-137 in close proximity. I wrote software designed to harvest mass measurements from hydroscopic substances during various manufacturing processes. Since I often had to climb in and around the frame containing the sensor array (and thus the radioactive source) I did my due diligence in researching radioactive isotopes. Add this to the physics and maths knowledge to write meaningful software that gave correct results. I'm not a nuclear engineer. I've been in a nuclear plant 2 times and on a nuclear sub once: during tours. My point in this paragraph is just this: I speak from experience but consult a text book and maths to confirm please. Radiation is dangerous. No argument. But I say again: there is no reason to be afraid of it. Nor spent fuel. Nor even the existing (aging) nuclear plants. And especially not the other reactor designs. Not a criticism but I notice you wrote things like unfathomable, beyond comprehension (3x), unbelievable - yet the tone of your writing is so authoritative. Perhaps the reason for your fear is the misunderstandings/errors/omissions you made in your essay. If you don't mind I'll correct the misunderstandings I think you made. Cesium-137 doesn't emit much gamma radiation. The primary radiation is beta particles (that I used to measure with). Gamma radiation follows the inverse square law. Beta radiation does not. However as a byproduct of losing these beta particles the 137 isotope transmutes. There are two decay chains. One chain goes directly to a non-radioactive state. The other goes to a highly volatile isotope that lasts about 2 minutes and emits massive gamma radiation. But within minutes of beta transmission even the volatile isotope has reached a non-radioactive state. A half life of thirty years isn't so bad as compared to the 2 minute half life of the product of the decay chain that is dangerous. One way you might think about the relationship between half life and danger is this. There is a fixed about of energy change required to transmute from one form to another. Released all at once you have a nuclear explosion. Released over time and the same explosion energy might be static in your car radio. Generally speaking, a radioisotope that has a longer half life is safer than one with a shorter half life. There are of course decay chains that are safer or more dangerous. But with a sufficiently long half life even the most energetic decay chain is nothing. For example if cesium-137 had a half life of 30,000 years then there would be 1/10,000th atoms undergoing decay. Still dangerous in quantity, but more anemic due to a slower decay rate. Long half life = good half life. My choice of the best nuclear fuel has a half life of 14,000,000,000 years. Not all nuclear is the same. My primary complaint is that regulations make no distinctions. When I was at Oak Ridge the radiation badge I was so sensitive that if you wore it to lunch (offsite) it would turn color. I forget the exact numbers but I think the max indicator was an exposure of +10% of daily ambient. So you could literally watch it turn colors just from standing in the sun light. You make a long example of cesium dust in central park. But it isn't there - it is safely contained within storage vessels or buried. But know what dust is in central park? The radioactive wastes from burning coal and oil. Strontium, uranium, and dozens more radioactive elements. They are weaker than cesium it is true. But unlike cesium they are present and in far greater concentrations than 1g/km^2. Studies have been going on since the 80's on this. It is well documented how many curies we put into our air by, as you put it, boiling water. Now, given the known quantities of radiation which do you choose to imbibe? If all our power was nuclear your central park daily dose from boiling water might fall 500%. Less if you live rural. Even counting disasters. For me, I'd far rather have no radiation at all. But given the alternatives currently available I'll choose readily the option that keeps the radiation out of the air. And even more so the option of modern plants that create little/no waste at all because the primary reactor waste feeds the secondary reactor. And I'd literally put a thorium fluoride salt reactor in my backyard. I could build one within a year if I wasn't forbidden by the government. The plans are public source and available online for free. I hope this is helpful to whoever reads it. I wrote much of this earlier but hopefully by being more verbose my communication will be more effective.

I think you are in the right place for getting understanding. Many of us were theists for many, many years. Giving up untruthful things can be painful. Like quitting smoking there are withdrawal pangs. But it is the right thing to do if you want long term health and enjoyment of life.

This implies experience after death. There isn't any. I'm not bothered by the endless billions of years before I existed why be bothered about the endless billions of years after I cease to exist? Why are you bothered by those years? It is life's brevity that makes it precious.

OP: I get the impression you believe she is superior to you? She's with you which declares her valuation of you to be equal to herself. Try to let this ameliorate your guilt. On the other hand, if she is the cause of your guilt because you allow her to make you feel bad then you should examine that aspect closely. How was her reaction when you shared your feeling of guilt with her?

I don't mean this in a mean way but your process of thought as evidenced by your writing reminds me of when I studied psychology. I read letters written by schizophrenics that were like this. Unbridled stream of consciousness. Am I missing something?

Can't enforce anything that isn't a violation of property rights or based on prior agreement.

The 'classic' page of bible contradictions is here: http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html And this one a bit more updated: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page I'm sure there is more out there. I don't know if either of those is what was linked prior.

OP: you have a lot in your post. Looks to me that time and effort unpacking what you already know will lead to good results for you! One thing I'd add that I think hasn't really been said yet is don't be overly concerned with looking for a 'philosophical' woman. By this I mean someone who explicitly knows philosophy. There are plenty of really good people who have a wealth of good philosophy passed down as a legacy from generation to generation. In my experience it's far better to apply proper descriptive language to already existing behavior and thus make a philosophy explicit. Let me know if this makes sense, I fear I may have explained poorly. Rachelle I was homeschooled. A lot of what you said resonated with me. When things are difficult, know you aren't alone. It seems trite to say it but it's true.

Exactly.