Culain

Can one 'create' destruction?

There are no subjective events. Subjective is a state of preference. (I said 'objective event' to push the point that all events are objective, sorry if I confused you here.) An event is not a preference, but a result. An event can be subjectively enjoyable, but an event in itself can not be subjective. --- I'll admit that I had to look into the basics of what quantum superposition is in order to continue, "Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in all its particular theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but when measured or observed, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in interpretation of quantum mechanics)..." This sounds like complete insanity to me, or rather it is. If something can not be measured it can not be proven. It's possible that it is a lack of understanding on my part. Perhaps you can make a simple and understanding case but I doubt it as I've been trying to understand the logic of how: when you stop observing something that's when it's particles could change at some point in time, I will say this though, this would be a very interesting topic to call into the show with as it would challenge a lot of the arguments which Stefan puts forth and if you believe you have an understanding of quantum physics/ super position than I urge you to call into the show instead of wasting your time trying to convince me.

Thanks pepin, that's a helpful way of looking at the "you can not get an ought from an is" argument and why it's wrong 1- Rape is morally wrong, thus one ought not to rape. 2- Rape is morally wrong because it can not be universally wanted by both parties in the act.

The fact of whether something is subjective or objective is not dependent on the individual actors. What they remember or how they tell a specific memory does not change inherantly whether it is objective or not. There is an objective result of the coin toss. There is an objective use of the memory to remember the result of the coin toss, while that memory may be incorrect it is an objective use of memory to attempt to remember an objective event. This topic reminds me of schrodiners cat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat Basically there is a cat in a box that at any random point in time could die, thus the cat is considered both dead and alive. The real foundational truth is that regardless of the knowledge of the individual actors, the cat is either dead or alive inside the box and not objectively both.

Facts don't matter in the face of culture, having more supporting points to prove that taxation is involuntary and the result- you be ready to be thrown in a cage or attacked if you disagree won't change this basic cultural stigma because they're so heavilly invested in keeping the delusion.

I don't see how it can pose any problems with UPB so no it's not immoral. The topic of immortality is interesting, because we are mortal we know that our time and life is finite so our decisions have greater impact because are always running against a clock, mid life crisis' can really do a strange number of things on people whether it serves as a warning and motivates them or causes them to start settling down as examples. Time gives us urgency. However, let's say we had immortality, I wonder how much we would change or how many new things we would seek out without the stresser of time? This I find would work out on an individual basis but what is the motivator for immortality? People say that'll they do all these amazing things if they just had more time but that could just be the midlife crisis speaking. I'm still ambivalent on the topic, death is scary to me and so sometimes that works as a motivator for immortality, but perhaps this fear of death would be a motivator in itself to propel myself to greatness, however short it may be. Tough question. :/

When I introduce UPB to people and explain how it can be used as an objective measure of testing moral propositions I also get people really trying to fight against it, so it leads me to start asking about what do they have to gain or lose if they accept the argument. How does defending moral relativism help them?

This girl is so clearly broken with tears in her eyes and what's most painful is the thousands of comments talking about how cute and 'proper' this girl is.

I like how you listed 'logic' as an interest, but even more so how logic was listed after politics. It's like you went through the hellish quagmire of politics and said "Wtf is this?, ima get me some of dat logic stuff because this shiz makey no sense."

[Comment Removed]

My memory is playing tricks on me and I completely forgot about this, but I believe the context was brought up when Stefan was giving his views on abortion and evictionism and the person he was speaking with referred to the fetus as a parasite (I believe it was in the defense of evictionism) which Stefan challenged. The debate over this point never got to finish because the moderator decided to pass the topic after a half hour.

In the recent open classroom on liberty.me with Stefan Molyneux this question that was asked sparked quite a bit of a response from the community. The chat exploded in multiple directions with some claiming such as myself that it was a symbiotic relationship and others that it is a parasite. Stefan was repulsed by the question in that he wondered, what kind of person would call their child a parasite? Perhaps this is an argument over semantics, as a parasite provides no mutual value to the host. After mulling it over a while in my head, I wondered if perhaps if both positions were correct depending on the view of the host. If the mother wanted to get pregnant because she felt it would bring value then it could be called a symbiotic relationship, but if the pregnancy was not wanted regardless of "The how she got pregnant" that it could be considered a parasite because the host sees no value in it, only loss. Perhaps this subject could warrant a video because of the strong reactions it provoked in both me, Stefan, and the listeners.

There's a popular page on facebook dedicated to these and ironically the page belongs to God. https://www.facebook.com/TheGoodLordAbove

I say Stef Von

I don't believe the grandparents are your responsibility. Focus on your own parents because it will only be effective when your parents confront them.

This is literally what I came in here to write. I think Adam's approach at the TopDown dismantling of the Federal Government is a good strategy, but I think that once it's at a state level it will inevitably grow back to a federal level. This will continue to occur until root cause of aggression is addressed. I'm glad that they both acknowledge peaceful parenting as something rather than nothing, but I still have difficulty taking Cantwell serious when he thinks he can get 5% of the population to be ready to shoot cops. Edit: I really think Cantwell needs to solve his own aggression and trauma towards violence before he prescribes solutions to society. He is literally pecking at a hornets nest almost as if he wants an excuse to martyr himself in some bloodbath.

I find it ironic how he just kind of disappeared after the Bush administration. What happened to all that campaigning against war and shitty healthcare?

I would ask, what EXACTLY is in space that is necessary for our survival? What are they going to find that will advance our technology? From my knowledge we still have the required minerals and tools to last a LONG time without ever needing to go into space. Also, Bill Nye is a statist and wants America to be a global leader; he wants to beat other countries in the race, this isn't about humans it's just about patriotism.

That's the second time I've heard someone claiming fdr advocated for Scientology. I wonder where they're getting that impression from?

I saw a few episodes of it when they aired the dub almost a decade ago, couldn't really get into it. But there was definite influence in my upbringing from Japanese media. In almost every video game or anime, there is some form of organized religion or corrupt government that is used to control a culture and have them wage in-discriminate wars of racism against each other, and it is always message in all these games to look past the hatred to the real threats that are propagating these disasters. For example the Gundam franchise of anime series has portrayed the same story for decades. A group of youth who get caught up in a war, they fight and fight to kill and survive only to discover that their actions have led to the loss of more and more life which repeats the cycle of hatred. In some more recent series such as Gundam 00, it starts with the main crew having access to highly advanced advanced weaponry, they belong to a neutral faction in which they try to forcefully intervene and prevent all wars globally by destroying entire armies of any government that tries to start a conflict, this however just leads to the formation of a giant one world government that pools it's army together.

A funny thing to think about is that if you discuss removing government the often response is "but what if another government forms?" But what if we don't steal this, someone else may steal this? But what if we don't rape her, someone else may rape her? But what if the largest polluters on the planet were removed, someone else 'may' pollute? But what if the largest users of bio arms were stopped, maybe someone else will arm themselves with them? As you can see these are not really objections, anyone can create these simple hypothetical claims for anything. But I agree with the previous poster,when it comes down to funding, things become a lot more complicated. Governments can counterfeit their own money or auction off the hundreds of millions of citizens in their tax farm to purchase these monstrosities, they also own a monopoly on morality (laws) so they get to determine what is right and there is no accountability for the insane decisions of these politicians.

I like how the Argentinian central bank is warning of bitcoin, has not the economy collapsed practically every decade in Argentina? Obviously their central banks know what they're doing.

I heard that Mike is going to be burning the midnight oils going through the kids work.

I refer to her as lady because her name sometimes escapes me because she doesn't often give it out. I think it was Jill.

Another Anarchist lady that I've been following on youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/user/BraveTheWorldChannel/videos Her content is definitely worth checking out