Barry_diller

very nice

I would say that If you don't want to have a conversation with her in the first place, you have already giving her the finger. (although I'm not denying there could be good justification not to do that)@CornelliusPeople sometimes try to universalize their problems. Like your grandmother always is bored because of her lack of relationship, and she feels anxiety because of that, but if everybody feels the same thing, at least it's not because something is wrong with her. So she hopes that everyone else is also boredI've met a women some 10 years older than me, and she talked about for a moment how she does not have many friends and then she kept asking if I was alone, and I could see that she was dissapointed that I didn't had any of the loneliness that she struggled with. Anyway I figured out later a lot things was wrong with her, pretty much explaining anything about why she was lonely

Okay so you refered to my qoute without adressesing my point? That confused me

really, you should use your time on some debunking sites

Please point out where I was blaiming

well this would hopefully be the right place

You are right, I just deleted my OP post The most controversial is centered around defooing, where can I find the podcast etc. About the subject? Haven't looked upon it.

Just spend some hours reading on the site, some very few points I can agree with. The site mostly critic defooing (They completely ignore that stefan always has advocating talking about your problems first before doing anything as drastic), deleted topic on this forum, and what stefan said that is not accepted in the widely community for psychology and therapy. Most of it is just slander Well I guess the best is to adress the arguments if someone present some of it's conent on this forum, instead of just deleting it. If someone followed my life and everything I said as intensely, they could easily make me look like the biggest idiot in the world. Glad im not semi famous

I think that all of that is good, and you should be glad you still examine your core beliefs, although that might cause anxiety. You have a healthy skepticism, So are you ready to start the exercise? exactly, and generally you pretty much own the debate if you can argue better from the other persons perspective, than he himself can.

Nevermind

Reminds me of Murray N. Rothbard's qoute "Let's put it this way: Suppose we were slaves in the Old South, and that for some reason, each plantation had a system where the slaves were allowed to choose every four years between two alternative masters. Would it be evil, and sanctioning slavery, to participate in such a choice? Suppose one master was a monster who systematically tortured all the slaves, while the other one was kindly, enforced almost no work rules, freed one slave a year, or whatever. It would seem to me not only not aggression to vote for the kinder master but idiotic if we failed to do so. Of course, there might well be circumstances—say when both masters are similar—where the slaves would be better off not voting in order to make a visible protest—but this is a tactical not a moral consideration. Voting would not be evil but, in such a case, less effective than the protest. But if it is morally licit and nonaggressive for slaves to vote for a choice of masters, in the same way it is licit for us to vote for what we believe the lesser of two or more evils, and still more beneficial to vote for an avowedly libertarian candidates." http://mises.org/daily/3412 I understand that voting is nothing less than mob rule and I would say from a personal standpoint using your whole life to engage in politics is a waste of time. BUT if a Majority finally was Libertarian (20 % Voluntarist and 40 % state libertarian), and the 20 % didn't vote, our impact would be much smaller. Instead if we all voted and had a parlament willing to end the welfare state and have them testing an anarcho-capitalist society on a small scale level we would be much better off

Do you 100 % trust some other human being? Can you without intense fear lay your life in some other hands, like if someone was behind you, and you let yourself fall and if that person didn't catch you, you will fall into your death Would you be able to do that with any person? I got curious about that stefan revealed site you talk about and I can see alot of "what the hell" claims but not yet any evidence, they just "vanish" before anyone can hear or read them, and the articles I have read has no sources, If you have doubt you should visit the site and read it through the person running the site seems to be very frightened by the fact that you can choose to abandon your parents, and it's also coupled with some religion. There is alot of personal benefit to try to hurt Stefan's reputation as much as possible

The Idea I think would be an interesting way to learn new ideas and greatly reduce your unknown conformation bias. I myself still fall in the trap by reaching a conclusion to quickly because it fits with my already existing values or oppose them You start with writing down a lot of concepts about your generally values, ethics and opinions particular if they are controversial. You then wait for someone to write down theirs. If a person has a opposite value,idea,opinion or something that conflict with yours you "challenge" him/her to a debate about that subject. But here is the deal you HAVE to argue from the another persons perspective and the other person HAS to argue from yours Example if I believe in free will and someone believes in determinism I will challenge that person and I will argue from determinism and he will argue from free will It's hard but that is the point I start out with some few I'm Anarcho-capitalist I'm Atheist I'm Heterosexual (I know that preferences is not right nor wrong and is not normally debatable) I don't believe that the Non-agression principle has PRACTICAL grey zones I don't think there will be an economic collapse I support abortion I don't think "spiritual" approach in religion is dangerous as long you are not living after non philsophical "rules" I don't support intellectual property Wealth Equality is fundemental to a happy society I Think that poverty can be solved if we just "redestributed" wealth around the world I think bitcoin is flawed hope someone can come up with something interresting

I'm not trying to make a specific stand on how good the economy is. You are true about the critic of the GDP but that is what economic tends to be measured in so that it the best we have here. The problem with nominal debt is just like with nominal prices in the economy. If nominal prices was the only thing we used to measure the wealth of Americans we would think that they had lost 97% of their wealth since 1913. So a Government could still have the same taxes,same spending of the total economy in %, but if the population increases, and inflation increases and real wealth increases, you could look at an annual government spending chart and think the government is expanding like crazy compared to everything else.

In the start of the video Stefan points out the ever increasing total spending of the UK Government by the source below http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ He says it's adjusted for inflation, which is simply not true, The chart is not accounting inflation or economic growth or population boom and in so provides a wrong overall picture of the overall size of the UK Government spending THIS chart below would better reflect spending http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_chart As you can see here the Government spending has not yet reached mid 70's.. Stefan then points out that in the last 44 years the UK has only had a surplus in 6 years for a total of 46 billion and in 36 years a deficit of over a trillion £ And then he show a public net debt chart that shows ever increasing debt since 1965. That is not that important, it's more important to see the national debt compared to GDP and as you can see by this chart (from 1692 to 2015) http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/debt_history The UK have been in far worse debt after WW2 and in the mid 1820's Stefan then shows this chart that shows the cost of the interest on the debt from 1985 to 2015 but AGAIN then you look at the bigger picture http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/debt_history You can see the interest as a percent of GDP is low compared to the past. This is what the video stars out with, and it's very misleading with conformation bias. Also the sources I provide is on the SAME site that Stefan was taking his sources from, so stefan has deliberately ignored facts that would make the severness of the UK economy seem more moderate. Why? Anyone interresting in that I debunk the whole video and check the others in the series of "There will be no economic recovery"?