Joey M

It could be one of many types of memory errors onset by prior trauma. It could also be a form of cognitive reconstructing done either unconsciously or through psychotherapy to help treat PTSD.

Congratulations Stefan, I hope the truth continues to spread.

Welcome to the boards Hope to see you spread some of your wisdom

Are consensual beatings a crime? I don't think so. H/e it is a crime to hurt a boy to the extent that he would do this to someone else, later in life. They wanted to do the initiation for the club, but they didn't know that it would lead to such a terrible beating. The one student that was shown his back was the one that didn't consent to the beatings. I would at least want the names of the boys that did this to them out there to ruin their reputation.

I would at least want them questioned and the case be taken more seriously by the police department than them just sitting on their hands until one of them comes forward.

The kid in the video did say who the group was that did it to them, and so did his parents.

Elaborate? I would assume he is alluding to the fact they spend most of their stolen money on war and lining the pockets of their immoral cohorts. So by comparison just dumping the money into a hole would be huge net gain. Definitely not what I would be striving for, but I suppose it is better than what we have now.

He would have been a spectacular Nazi. Follows everything he's told by who he thinks are wonderful leaders, has blinded pride for his political party, irrational hatred for another, and wants to put other human beings to death. This person needs some serious counseling before he hurts someone.

This is horrible. Of course the police department isn't taking any action until one of the boys that committed the crime comes forward. How stupid is that? They brutalized kids and yet the assaulters are the ones that need to come forward before the police can act upon it. They even said "if one of them doesn't come forward, this case may never be closed." Typical pathetic bureaucracy.

He's not wrong, it is obvious that the government is. However, he cannot do outreach if he is locked in jail for 10 years. He also will not be able to change the state no matter what he does. So yes, I do question the usefulness and the point of his actions. I don't question the usefulness. He's been on several extremely popular news networks on radio, newspapers, and television. He's spreading the word of truth far more than I'm sure most of us have in that single 20 second video. I don't want to see him go to jail either, and let's hope he doesn't.

The FaceBook post is gone.

Hey John, I'm not too far from Bloomfield myself. I'm around Elizabeth/Woodbridge.

Welcome to FDR Jarrod. Great thing about life is that it moves on. I hope you find what you're looking for here

Welcome to the FDR forums Sedarati! Hopefully not too much communism has fallen on you

Elaborate?

Nitpicking everything stupid the government seems like an inordinate waste of time, because there are a lot of them.

Doesn't this prove that All life comes from a common ancestor, removing the need for and making the case against theism even more?

Telling the truth usually doesn't lead to positive repercussions. People have been brainwashed their entire lives, don't expect them to immediately understand or accept the truth. So what? So what if people won't accept it, will have negative effects on your relationships? The truth is what matters, and if you're prepared and able to present the truth in a calm, articulate manner, you'll know that you've done what you can. If relationships are ruined, all that says is those people were never truly good friends/family members to begin with.

Adam's doing nothing wrong, he's been exposing the truth to a plethora of people. Why are people talking about Adam making stupid mistakes, for speaking up and holding a gun in "freeom plaza?" What people aren't realizing is that the government is the one in the wrong here, not Adam. I say he needs to keep it up, try to be safe, and keep spreading the word of truth.

I think desirism has some good qualities, but some terrible ones that need to be addressed as well. In reading what Desirism is, there was a statement I found mindboggling in your first source: " In the case of simple conflicting desires, there may not be an answer - there just may be conflict and no way to resolve it." If a rapist has a desire to rape, and the victim obviously does not have such a desire, there is no way to resolve it? The NAP and UPB isn't centered around happiness and desires being the goal, they're centered around morality being the goal. Slave owners weren't happy when their slaves were freed, does that mean slavery should have continued? Of course not.

Of course to get a better understand of the term it would be best to read Stefan's book and watch the videos he's made regarding this. I think the term kind of defines itself, but a quick defintion would be, in my words: Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB) is defined as; Behavior that is prefered to everything, everywhere, based on principles, truth, and reason, through logical deduction. Behavior that is prefered by all to be moral, however not acted upon by all, for reasons withstanding. A method in understanding what is ethical and true through inductive reasoning. Example: Consistency is universally preferable because to argue that inconsistency is preferable, one would have to make a consistent claim.

I'm pleasantly surprised people are realizing where their terrible standards of living are coming from. I don't think shouting on the streets will bring anarchy as well as peaceful parenting would, but it's definitely a plus to see that people across the world are waking up.

It seems that you're misconstruing the definition of ownership, and forgetting that morality is the ultimate goal. Under the logic used to make a parent's child property, the same could be made for slavery. The slave hunter put in labor to hunt down slaves and keep them imprisoned. What needs to be remembered is that ownership of a human being is slavery, which we both know is immoral. I believe parents have an inherent responsibility to take care of their children peacefully, that doesn't mean they can treat their children as their property. How am I misunderstanding ownership? Could you provide a definition? Misconstruing in the sense that people cannot be owned and it be considered moral, which I explained further in my post. Why would morality exempt something from being owned? It's not something, someone. Owning someone as a piece of property, slavery, I've brought all of this up already. Yes, but it all seems so arbitrary. Why does morality exclude someone from ownership? What reason makes this possible? If you claim ownership over your offspring, are you saying that then you have the moral justification to do whatever you please with your offspring? I can take a lamp and throw it to the ground, or punch a pillow, because they're my property. Can I do the same with a dog, let alone a child? Afterall, they're your property. The answer is of course not, because claiming ownership means you have complete control and say in that propety, and to excersie your will, let's say violence against your child, would go against the NAP. As soon as your child wanted to move out of your home, you'd stop them from doing so because they're your property, just like you would a cow trying to break out of a farm. The examples go on and on. Ok, that makes sense, but how are property rights themselves derived from the NAP? How can the NAP define property, self ownership, and the mechanism that property is created? If I were to answer you I'd just be repeating what Stefan has already covered in these three videos explaining what you've asked. Let me know if you still have any questions after watching them (preferably in order). , ,

It seems that you're misconstruing the definition of ownership, and forgetting that morality is the ultimate goal. Under the logic used to make a parent's child property, the same could be made for slavery. The slave hunter put in labor to hunt down slaves and keep them imprisoned. What needs to be remembered is that ownership of a human being is slavery, which we both know is immoral. I believe parents have an inherent responsibility to take care of their children peacefully, that doesn't mean they can treat their children as their property. How am I misunderstanding ownership? Could you provide a definition? Misconstruing in the sense that people cannot be owned and it be considered moral, which I explained further in my post. Why would morality exempt something from being owned? It's not something, someone. Owning someone as a piece of property, slavery, I've brought all of this up already. Yes, but it all seems so arbitrary. Why does morality exclude someone from ownership? What reason makes this possible? If you claim ownership over your offspring, are you saying that then you have the moral justification to do whatever you please with your offspring? I can take a lamp and throw it to the ground, or punch a pillow, because they're my property. Can I do the same with a dog, let alone a child? Afterall, they're your property. The answer is of course not, because claiming ownership means you have complete control and say in that propety, and to excersie your will, let's say violence against your child, would go against the NAP. As soon as your child wanted to move out of your home, you'd stop them from doing so because they're your property, just like you would a cow trying to break out of a farm. The examples go on and on.

It seems that you're misconstruing the definition of ownership, and forgetting that morality is the ultimate goal. Under the logic used to make a parent's child property, the same could be made for slavery. The slave hunter put in labor to hunt down slaves and keep them imprisoned. What needs to be remembered is that ownership of a human being is slavery, which we both know is immoral. I believe parents have an inherent responsibility to take care of their children peacefully, that doesn't mean they can treat their children as their property. How am I misunderstanding ownership? Could you provide a definition? Misconstruing in the sense that people cannot be owned and it be considered moral, which I explained further in my post. Why would morality exempt something from being owned? It's not something, someone. Owning someone as a piece of property, slavery, I've brought all of this up already.