DFPercush

The "you like " part raises a flag for me. Would that be a strawman - to make a claim about dsayers' motives? I think there is a non manipulative way to ask the question: "Why do you often say that others are being manipulative?" I think that would express genuine curiosity. Even better, would be to ask about the specific topic and say "Why is my argument manipulative?" But yes, I agree, given the way it's phrased.

Frequency: Once Severity: minor Can recreate? Not so far. Easy to work around: yes Clicking on the emoticons button in the chat window, makes the list appear, but instead of the various icons to choose from, there is only a message saying "no permission" in place of the first item, and the background of the list is transparent. Not 100% certain, but I think it was happening from the first time I tried to expand the list during that session. I had previously manually typed : bunny : which showed up in the chat log properly. This also came after other people had posted the : bunny : icon (we were breaking out in dance ^^) After that, when I clicked on the emoticons button, that's when I got that message. Refreshing the page fixed it. Refreshing, typing : bunny : and then opening the list did not recreate the problem. I have not managed to reproduce the glitch since then. This is the button element in the toolbar: <span unselectable="on" real_type="button" mode="normal" editor_id="message" cmd="emoticons_custom_menu" id="emoticons_custom_menu" class="ipbmenu rte_control rte_button rte_normal" title="Emoticons"><img unselectable="on" src="https://board.freedomainradio.com/public/style_images/overlayblue/rte_icons/emoticons.png" alt="Emoticons"></span> ...and this is the list element which shows the permissions error: <div style="position: absolute; z-index: 9999; top: 747px; left: 304px;" id="emoticons_custom_menu_menucontent">nopermission</div>

I had an uncle I was very attached to as a child, who died when I was about 10. I was surprised at myself, actually, at how stoically I took it when I heard. I made it through the visitation, funeral, and those days in general without any reaction at all. But then, suddenly, riding in the procession on the way to bury his body, I just lost it. I guess the reality of it hit me then. Let me give you a quote from an anime I'm watching called Planetes: (spoilers) "When you lose someone you love, there's no sadness. And there's no grief. You just don't feel anything. Nothing at all. You really don't think about it. It isn't good to think about it too much anyway. And you eventually have to say goodbye to everybody. And you don't know if that time will come sooner or later. ... If you don't think about it that way, it hurts, too much." Episode 10 "A Sky of Stardust" roughly 10 minutes in

How is your physical health? If you don't already have one, an exercise regimen can help you have a more positive outlook, more energy, and better concentration. A healthy body yields a healthy mind. I've just started getting back into it myself, but I can already tell a difference. I'm so much more eager to sit down and code, and I'm not so caught up in self analysis or worrying about whether I'm going to succeed - I just do what I need to do. Starting an entrepreneurial venture is a daunting task. I can't really speak from a position of success just yet, and I'm younger than you, so take that as you will. But just take a divide and conquer approach. One of my first jobs was at a motorcycle dealership and I remember having to completely re-sort an entire wall of helmets. I dreaded it at first and it seemed overwhelming, but my boss said that to me (divide and conquer) and so I just started pulling out one small section at a time. Of course my knowledge of sorting algorithms helped. Anyway, I got done a lot faster than I thought I would, because I had a plan, and all I had to do was take each small step at a time. If it's just you in your basement with little overhead (describes me) then you don't have to stress about deadlines so much. Just make sure you're putting in the work every day, with down time as needed, and monitor your milestones. You could be a great father with a home office setup. But you do need to commit to a plan. Get on a dating website, or go speed dating, or just go on the prowl, and just be honest about what you want. Don't feel like you have to be the model disposable male. Tell the woman your plans, and be shameless. "Hi, I'm looking to find a woman to start a family with, here's what I want, would you like to explore a relationship?" Your resolve will make her want to follow you. And if she doesn't, she's not the right one. She might have to help with the income at first, but it's not that unusual for both partners to be working this day in age. Just tell her that might be necessary at first, but that you're working to make a more secure future for the both of you. I would definitely talk about who's going to nurture the kids in the early years though, and arrange the finances of that first stage. If your savings can cover the breast feeding stage, that's all you really need. Anyway, that's some advice that a friend gave me last week, and it really gave me a new perspective. I hope it's somewhat helpful to you. Now I just need to follow it myself Best of luck to you. Let us know how it goes. PS As far as the betrayal thing, I think you can take a silver lining from that. Because now, when people reciprocate and treat you right, you'll appreciate it. Make sure you tell them that. You have to teach others how to treat you.

What's important is not where you are, but the direction you're going. "It's how you chose to respond to the truth and act on it." -Kevin I agree, but with a caveat. I think if someone presents something that's technically true, in a mean spirited or abusive way, you're not obligated to listen to them. But if you can extract the message of truth from their bitter vitriol without self attacking, then you get props for that. That also means we have a responsibility to present the truth with empathy and compassion, but still have firm resolve against the excuses and sophisms of a sick culture.

The link is broken for me - it just takes me to my feed. Are the pics posted anywhere else, or could someone link them individually as in Saarl's post?

That makes sense. My main beef though, is when those journals are the only place publicly funded research is published.If the individual teams and authors make their results available freely through other means, no complaint at all. But there's a coercive system set up around these journals which is what I'm complaining about.

Not a bad idea, dale_edg, I thought about doing that. Anyway, I guess I'll post my thoughts at this point, for the record. (I would say my final thoughts, but there's no such thing in my book.) I was attempting to use a consequentialist approach to argue for morality by outcome. I probably didn't do a very good job, and I let myself slip into internet attack mode at times, so sorry about that. I thought about ways to argue that voting is not legitimizing the system. However, the longer I think about it, the more difficult it becomes to escape that point. I thought that maybe the intent and awareness of the voter matters, but it really doesn't. Even if one is not happy about it or thinks he can outsmart the rulers, voting indicates one's acceptance that this is the way it must be. At first I didn't understand why dsayers brought up the point that I've heard Mr. Molyneux make, that "when you think you have the answer, you stop looking for the right answer." But I think he's trying to say that all the effort that politically active libertarians spend on trying to get people elected into the system, could be better spent educating and living your values. And if we're going to preach that the state is evil, to vote would harm us by displaying hypocrisy to those we are trying to reach. I find that to better understand things, sometimes it's necessary to take a journalistic approach and advocate for the opposite position. It's too easy for me to get sucked back into a statist mentality when I'm around the people from my past who put those ideas into me. I needed to see how more experienced voluntarists deal with these kinds of objections, so that I can harden my resolve and sharpen my wit around them. Thank you guys for playing that role. I can't say that I never believed any of what I said up there, because that is where I'm coming from. But you've basically been talking with the me from two years ago. I just want to remove all doubt and deal with my own personal ineptitude before trying to be a real voice among my community. An arrow flies further the longer you draw back the bow and all that. Anyway, maybe I'm just rambling trying to save face, but I hope this somewhat conveys why I came here and started all that. Hope it doesn't count against me too much. Cheers. P.S. I still don't know exactly what's going on with the OP. Is withdrawing from the EU something that everyone gets to vote on, or do you have to elect some asshole who's going to support that position? Sorry for hijacking your thread.

I could write a book for all the different directions this conversation is going, and I'm not quite done yet, but I'd like to get your response to one thing, dsayers, before I go any further. "Not voting IS casting a vote."Do you think that different people will interpret the meaning of this in different ways, and does that matter? You know it'll just get spun around to the advantage of the powerful. But at least we'll have a clear conscience, is that it?

I took it personally when you said "when you think you have the answer, you stop looking for the right answer." The last paragraph was talking about my feelings more than discussing actual philosophy. I should have made that clear. Maybe that's not how you meant it. "Are you suggesting that voting is immoral, except for you?" Not at all. Could you provide the quote that suggests that? "To grant permission to (vote for) somebody that will do this is the initiation of the use of force." Why??? This is what I want to talk about, but then you go "also" and start talking about something else. Could we maybe focus the conversation on this claim? (begin edit) This requires that the president is responsible for every action committed by government, but he's not. He is responsible for the policy decisions he makes. (edit #2) And if those policies involve raising taxes, criminalizing things, then yes the chain of culpability follows. (/2) If he starts a war, then yes, responsibility can be linked back to John Doe voter. But if the guy is cutting programs, then John Doe can proudly say "I helped end the Department of Education" or whatever. (end edit) Leaving the situation = not voting? In any case, I am trying to stop it. You can say I'm doing it wrong, but I think anyone that would be posting on here is trying in some way. I might be an idiot but I try. "If you think you can infiltrate a corrupt system and convert it to virtue" Ah, but that's not what I'm saying. I listen to the shows too, so I'm familiar with this line. That's why I said "I'm not saying that the end game for libertarians is the election of libertarian politicians, because at some point, it's still the state. I get that." So put guy #3 in the arena, and then call the police (for your rape analogy). Or maybe dial 911 while you tell the gang leader to put guy #3 in. Something like that. But surely don't stop at choosing #3. What if there was a "none of the above" option on the ticket? Would that change things? And for edit #3: I can see where you have a case in that it is extremely unlikely that all decisions made by one president would be of the nature of reducing violence. It would probably be a mixed bag. But that's no more or less speculative than a 3rd party president in the first place. Are we willing to run the experiment? Anyway, I just thought about that point, so I'm going to give the thread some time and come back later.

I see one other possibility. He thinks it's likely that one of you will steal her from him. So that's an issue of trust. I couldn't stand it when I was in school. All the hot girls wanted to be with my friend and not me. Did things like that ever happen to your friend, Grizwald? I have no reason to believe this is the case, but you can factor it in to your judgement if you wish.

I did answer you, dsayers. Ok let's have a look at your question marks again. "How do you minimize it by legitimizing it? How do you minimize it by adding to it? How do you minimize it by being a +1 in the participants of it list?" And I put forth my argument for how voting libertarian does not legitimize coercion or add to it. "No one is asking me whether I'd rather live in a democracy... ." If voting was legitimizing the system, then that would mean that Soviet Russia supports capitalism, and here's why. They sent spies and agents to the various institutions of democratic countries, specifically schools and churches, with the intent of subverting American patriotism and giving the youth a favorable disposition towards communist ideals. Their goal wasn't to be good teachers or be the best cog in the machine that they could be. Their goal was to take down the machine. I propose that minimalist politics is analogous to infiltration in this manner. Now in the case of voting Republican or Democrat, I agree with you, because those two have had plenty of time in power to demonstrate the effect they will have. I'm not saying that the end game for libertarians is the election of libertarian politicians, because at some point, it's still the state. I get that. But what I'm saying is that voting for politicians who will enact minimalist policies, for now, until we get the social momentum to heave the whole thing over, is just a part of the overall strategy of moving towards a freer society. Powder, when talking about the effectiveness of the LP as a public awareness medium, that's not the same as speculating what would happen should they actually be elected to office. Don't simplify my answer to just no. There's just no data. So you can't claim that state power would necessarily increase under third party leadership either. And I did provide evidence for the electoral process. The growth of state power was thwarted, at least for a little while, for those states who seceded from Lincoln who wanted to grow the scope of the federal gov't. I'm open to changing my mind about this, but I'm not just gonna go with the tide here. I have some legitimate hangups that I'd like to debate about so I can clear the doubt away. I might be a devil's advocate to you, but I'm honestly trying to understand. If you can convince me then I can fight for you, but I owe it to myself and to the truth to not simply accept what you say without challenging it. I think I want to be part of the community here, but this is the first date, if you will. Are you going to demonize me, or help me?

"Do you have any evidence to support your proposition that there is any effective way to minimize state power through the electoral process?" Third parties almost never win, so there's not much data either way about that. As far as electoral process in general, maybe the secession of the confederacy from the u.s.? But they lost the war, so they weren't able to carry their own policies very long. Still, look what Lincoln did to the federal gov't, that's what they didn't want any part of and voted to get out of it. Anyway, about a 3rd party president, were we to perform such an experiment, it would bring to light more clearly to what extent the President is a hood ornament, or if the office has the capacity to put the brakes on. I think a lot could be done, but isn't because of the collusion involved in party politics. If the LP gained a significant number of seats they would probably become corrupt as well. It's possible that by then there would be a new party that would be even more minimalist. I'd like to address this phrase "show your support for the system". No one is asking me whether I'd rather live in a democracy, monarchy, or anarchy. If the candidate proposes significantly changing the system, I argue that it shows exactly the opposite - my dissatisfaction with the system. The same applies to "You cannot minimize aggression by condoning aggression." Ball's in your court gentlemen.

I suppose my pendulum argument was one from utility and not morality. This thing about a hit man though, let me make sure I understand. The day to day operations of a state would continue even under libertarian leadership, including all the coercive practices of a central legal system and so on, and so that makes the election of any leader of this system immoral? Cause I don't see how that follows. If that's not what you're saying let me know, but by choosing the hood ornament I'm responsible for the design of the engine? The amount of coercion would be measurably reduced by libertarian policies, to the best of our knowledge. Doesn't that factor in to the morality? If this were a situation where a government was being founded over a new untouched land, things would be different, because the level of coercion could only go up. But if I have any amount of control over the amount of wrong done in the world, is it not my responsibility to minimize it?

What he said. It's not inevitable that the person I vote for will do it, because he might not win. Refraining from voting does not swing the pendulum any closer to freedom. One could argue that voting swings it away, and I say the choice is how far. The underground railroad isn't here yet; I want a nicer master.