csekavec

I play basketball at a local LDS church and seasonal softball sponsored by a Lutheran church. Each activity begins with an invocation and often the conversation turns religious and I don't have an issue with that. Folks talk about common interests and since I don't share their interests when I'm there those topics aren't frequent and are brief. Haven't yet experienced any awkwardness or bad relations. I've been going fairly regular for about five years. I let them know up front my beliefs and that I'm open to new information but at those activities I'm there for fun, not theology. They know I return the same respect I'm given. So my advice is go for it. Tell them up front your expectations and walk away if they don't respect you.

Amen. Well written and good advice. Keeping written journals and regular review of them has helped me conquer many bad habits, increased my self-awareness, and ultimately has been the most helpful activity I've ever done.

OP, I disagree with you fundamentally. In addition to what Matthew M. wrote may I add: If the same concept gestalt isn't shared between all the parties using a label the label isn't being productive to the conversation. Contrariwise if those prerequisites are met then it's a highly useful tool. I think it's worth noting explicitly that I'm not giving special status to "label" that includes all the PC baggage. It seems that you are. The issue isn't with labels or in avoiding their use. It is in their inaccurate or indiscriminate use. ie, some folks use "liberal" as a pejorative. Lazy speech. And finally your proposal is just to move the label from an affirmation of position (a noun) to a description of a process (a verb). It does nothing to change a core complaint you brought up: the problem of labels being misused.

Welcome! I can't speak for anyone else but I'll not let that one pass with out a request for detailed description of how you justify and define that.

Every substance has harmonic frequency response. Microwaves are tuned to the frequency of water. Other substances have lower order harmonics to that frequency. Each substance absorbing according to its receptiveness. And all the rest heated by convection due to being in solution with stuff susceptible to microwaves.

I suppose you might be right. Only articles #1 and #3 through #6 (and #7?) is one required to affirm to obtain a temple recommend. But it really does beg the question: are the other similarly worded articles only prudential direction and not essential to the LDS faith? For example the 8th: is belief in the BoM as the word of God prudential or essential? Obviously not important enough to be included in the temple interview. But the thing I really want to know is: what LDS doctrine support anarchy??

I agree that in your example there isn't coercion (just threat). But your example and mine are different. In mine the coercion initiates the action. In yours the action is declared prior to the threat. This distinction is why I wrote "requiring" not "including" consent. Definitions done with, maybe we can find an area we agree on. In my farming experience when a calf is born 99% drink milk within minutes. The few that do not eat within the first day will die. To avoid this they must be made to drink. One must physically constrain the calf, bring it to the udder and if met with continuing lack of success a drench tube is used. This causes distress to the calf and the mother that persists. However with the combination of the energy and taste of the food the calf will feed itself thereafter. I argue that a healthy infant calf or human can consent. They initially do so by demonstrating via action their values. The values are expressed top down and the first and highest value is life. I assert that second only to life is the value of self autonomy. As the infant matures more preferences aka values are expressed each in descending order of strength. But no value may contradict any other value else the result be death (or if the value is of weak strength: psychosis). Now if there is a value that is congruent with the highest value and yet must be taught by force I do not know what it is. For any value that is congruent with the others is integrated easily and naturally because we have evolved to think so. Sometimes force must be used. But it is at a cost. If one violates autonomy by using force it can only be justified if it is to guarantee a higher value. Those who use force to affirm a lower value communicate to their victim that that lower value is on par with the highest: life. The psychosis of a person who was beat because as a child they wet the bed and then has a lifetime of poor sleep is the wholly rational consequence of the irrational values they accepted as a child and then never re-examined.

force, n, coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence I wasn't able to find a single definition of force requiring the idea of consent. It is a ancillary concept as I'll illustrate presently. An individual who is forced may be coerced into acting against their values or coerced into acting in congruence with those values. A to B: "Eat your favorite food or you get the knife." That B is under coercion is evident, but also evident is that they may likely have eaten the food anyway thus are consenting to eating their favorite food. The operative precept is the violence.

Coercion, n, The action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Consent has no relevance. Even if consent had relevance, children are perfectly able to consent to the extent of their understanding.

So if start by studying societies where the government was less involved than it is now. How did they solve this in the past? We know it was a matter on folks mind because of popular culture references, perhaps most famously: "He's gone, and forgot nothing but to say Farewel– to his creditors" - Poor Richards Almanack of 1733 Prior to using state power how did people deal with private debts? Use your google-fu and study. That sentence is meaningless. How is using force called peace? If the law were universally agreed upon then there is no need for courts. So obviously 'a society' doesn't need this universality. How disagreements are resolved is a question treated in the fourth branch of philosophy (politics) and the answer is predicated upon the precepts of the three foundational branches: (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics). A consistent theory of politics doesn't just spring into being. And likewise to understand anarchy you should start with the study of the basics first.

"Should I (like my therapist said) try to focus more on how my girlfriend acts in our relationship rather than on her past?" Yes. The past is relevant but not as important is what is now. "She had broken up with her ex just one week before we started talking, and that she had been having sex with him until the last day of the relationship. Clearly she could not have been getting over him in any sense of the word. After some talking she admitted and took responsibility for the misleading." & "She embodies all the virtues I seek in others and strive for in myself: honesty, curiosity, compassion, kindness, integrity, and courage." This, and other contradictions are things you both need to work on. She has a lot of work to do in order to live up to your description of her. Your description may be accurate - in time. But to say she embodies those things now is an insult to the sanctity of those lofty characteristics. Her and your history of sexual lies is disturbing. What I mean is that sex as an expression of celebrating shared values is not something hear either of you having experience with. It might very well be that in each other you finally have this expression. But it sounds like you both have a history of dissembling when it comes to the importance of sex therefore I suggest a lot of RTR and therapy work to overcome that. So that is what I have to say right now. I hope it helps. I really appreciate how much effort you put into your post and how vulnerable you allowed yourself to be in doing so.

I could write a novel to sing the praises of this novel. Instead I'll say these things. The novel describes a physicist in born and raised in an anarchic society and his struggles, loves, successes, failures, tribulations. All this in the dual context of the anarchy he is from and the statism he endures during his travels. It comes from the an-soc perspective not an-cap but as you shall read it is not a flaw. It addresses liberty topics like how are the roads built, how is scarcity managed, how family function, how is trade production done, innovation and research, public welfare, and the huge effect of ostracism in a free society. Philosophically it is not a perfect work. There are flaws. But if you have not read it you are in for a real treat. And because it is written as a popular book it introduces hard liberty topics in a great way. Give it to your friends as a liberty icebreaker.

This says volumes about your character.

Anyone can put bold text in burlesque attempt to deflect from the fact that one has an ax to grind. You keep making an argument about a thing I'm not quibbling about. If you don't even know the difference between uranium and thorium based reactors and aren't willing to educate yourself then I suppose this conversation is over. If such a basic delineation is lost on you it would be impossible to illustrate the more nuanced aspects of the different nuclear solutions. Just keep on painting with your broad brush and repeat your mantra "nookleer bad, mmkay?"

The book of Mormon, particularly as described in Alma could describe many geographic regions. Smith was almost certainly describing the hopewell indian culture. But because this was right in his back yard the current orthodoxy changed their mind in the 50's to claim instead that the book describes mesoamerica. I find this shift dishonest because mesoamerica has far less correlating evidence. Hopewell people built fortifications and forts that correspond exactly to the forts used by Teancum. And they disappeared without a trace. I think because Smith would have known all about these people is why the Mormon archaeologists are loath to admit that the BoM is post-hoc description of the mounds that Smith explored during early adulthood. According to the story all the Jewish folks were wiped out. Only those descended from the brother of Jared survived. Though why 'prophets' taught for years contrary to the BoM text and said the aboriginal american tribes were 'lamanites' I can't say. But the book itself doesn't contradict.

imo, only good can come of this.

I'm not trying to motivate. I'm trying to correct your bad philosophy. To have success you have to overcome your 'woe is me' attitude. I don't care what stupid people argue about your idea. Is it good? If it is, develop it. If it isn't, make it good. If you aren't willing to do either then don't make posts about your idea. If you truly have the equivalent of a AA in the 1100's then invent some trifle to make your invention meaningful. A battery is far more complex than a basic useful circuit. But in reality your invention isn't that new. If you just want an excuse for not taking action then I suppose you have it. You asked: Yes. Create it. Prospect for clients. Sell it.

The truth is that most LDS are some of the nicest, generous, empathetic people who live principle centered lives. In my experience more than any other religious group if you ask them to explain themselves you are likely to get a secular answer. It seems most believe that there is a congruence between earthly truth and the eternal god that supersedes even holy writ or prophetic statement. However the official position on the church is that of supporting the orthodoxy. I think this helps to explain the huge lag in the 1890 and 1978 decisions. Because of the history of violent persecution from the United States congress the majority of LDS are small government types. Unfortunately despite the horrible past LDS people are forbidden from being anarchists by the 12th article of faith.

And without the government there would be no highway either. Don't be ridiculous! If it were a free market then you'd have a point. Quite the opposite really. Nuclear is the most regulated of all energy sources. Were it not for that the adoption rate would be much higher. And again nuclear isn't one thing - it is a diversity of processes, reaction chains, heat exchange technologies, and byproduct management that together comprise a reactor. Treating reactors that make bombs, can melt down, use high pressure water or salt, and produce nasty byproduct as being exactly the same as a reactors that cannot make a bomb, cannot melt down, use low pressure salt, and produce waste that is less dangerous than the raw mined fuel already in the earth: again again treating these as the same is intellectually dishonest.

"You should hammer your iron when it is glowing hot" Publius Syrus "Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; make it hot by the striking" Yeats I've been in several start ups. Some success some failure. Yeats is right; Syrus wrong. Making a product isn't enough you must sell it. Timing doesn't matter. Good luck.

Magnificent post. Gardening in various forms and under various names is exploding in popularity as high IQ folks are withdrawing their productivity from support of a sick society. Those are great resources. And if one can't actually begin at least read up on the topic. My two favorite inspirational gardening/farming books are "10 acres enough" by Edmund Morris (available free here and here) and "Farmer Boy" by Laura Ingalls Wilder. Each year I grow my garden a bit and eventually I'll do it full time. This year I shrank a bit to a 10 x 15 meter municipal plot. For the year the fee was $50. I'm gardening in the shared space instead of on my own land because I hope to meet folks of like mind. My expenses for straw mulch, seeds, incidentals, and the plot won't exceed $250 this year. Three years ago my comparable size garden produced more food than I could eat. I gave away potato and onion by the bucketful, made 200 pounds of sauerkraut, and ate on the various other vegetables all summer. This year I'm going to try to get better at transitioning from early to late year produce. Each person has their own goals for gardening. I add my voice to the OP, gardening is a thing worth doing. There is no joy quite like eating sweet vegetables that minutes before were growing in your garden. My words fail to describe that feeling.

Sounds highly moderated? The structure is interesting. Reminds me of concept visualization software, as a forum website. If there isn't demand now it doesn't mean it isn't something for which there would be demand. There have been many websites that changed the paradigm by creating demand for something heretofore unseen.

OP, I'm very moved by your plight and the weight of what you are facing. It is the kind of thing I haven't faced and hope to never have to. In the abortion conversation often it is couched as simply that upon conception the zygote inevitably forms into a functioning member of the species therefore interruption of that process is akin to interrupting any other process necessary for life post utero. However birth defects, still births, complications like placental abruption et cet are more common than many realize. A human body with no mind isn't a person. Aborting a mindless body isn't a violation of rights. No rights can exist without personhood. In this so far I think we agree. However your statement "I think it would be rational to choose abortion if the negative outcomes were extremely likely" isn't valid. Consider this please. If you just now learned that next week you will be interned interminably in a concentration camp possibly to die of gas, exposure, or malnutrition and even if you were to live your life being so full of suffering as to be nearly incomprehensible would it then be rational for you to commit suicide? Or to put it more directly would it be rational for you to kill your children in order to spare them such expected suffering? How one rationally answers this question is a affirmation of ones values. If one holds that to live life in a concentration camp is fundamentally incompatible to life qua man then suicide is rational as an expression of those values. On the other hand if one holds that those conditions aren't sufficient to overcome ones solidarity and so the mind remains safe from destruction it is not rational to suicide. But in no case may ones own values be rationally enforced upon another person. I ache for the turmoil you and your partner must be going through. Use your best judgement and if you look back upon this later you will have no regrets.

I feel ya. In my experience online it's almost always wasted unless the conversation partners share a argument style and objective (truth, of course). What I think would be very nice is a forum like this: Each thread open for view by anyone but can only be posted in by two parties: OP arguing for the measure, and someone else arguing against. Once a viewer locks in as the opposition they have a time limit (set by op) to post. Each post they make resets the timer. Each post by anyone has a character limit to encourage Socratic dialogue instead of text walls. If the OP doesn't post in time the thread locks. If the opposer doesn't post in time the thread becomes available for another viewer to 'tap in' and either pick up where the last guy left off or start their own argument against. There are sites already existing that are somewhat similar to what I described above. But none frequented by liberty minded folk.

Don't.