prolix

140, this thing is broken...

I feel like some of this was touched on in the last podcast... http://cdn.freedomainradio.com/FDR_2976_Call_In_Show_16_May_2015.mp3

Or not...

Is judgement different than criticism? I will argue yes, and it is a significant difference. You make judgements on things that are actionable. If you plan to act it is a judgement like a judge sentences someone to do xyz. Or you make a "judgement call" on what shower curtain to buy or something. Judgement is for things because since it is actionable, there will be things involved in that action. You make criticisms on ideas that are not necessarily actionable. If you challenge an idea it is a criticism like rejecting the methodology of the state. Or you "give criticism" on someones song or some concept oriented endeavor. Criticism is for ideas. Because since an idea is nonmaterial all you can do is criticize it. When you make judgements on people and ideas, then, you are treating people as things. You would be dehumanizing others; Ex. Judge throws you in jail for nonviolent crime. When you receive criticism and you recoil in anguish you are treating criticisms like a judgement. You are dehumanizing yourself; Ex. Someone tells you your song sucks and you quit music forever.

I feel like you want a "Truth About Ryan Kyle" video. And you thought you were going to get that in a "Truth about American Sniper Movie". I would like to see that too. but I would not expect it from a movie review...

Yea. for sure. Turn the mike dial up indeed! One of the best shows ever!!!!

What was it about that show, what particular concept, made you decide to come out of the closet on this? And I am curious, was it that you were unsure in general about your Christianity, and the podcast made you more comfortable being a christian in general. Or was it, as you said, that you were much more comfortable being a Christian in this community, safe as you put it, but you have always been comfortable being a Christian? Furthermore, have you ever had a lapse in faith in the past?

Respect actually, etymologically speaking, means to re look at, or to look at again. Its most similar synonym is recognize. So if you are revisiting an idea, you are respecting it. Certainly there is a portion of the word that means to "not judge" or to not scrutinize. You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. That particular usage has not totallty eclipsed the broader, and I'd argue useful, meaning of the word. Yes, abusive people will utilize a perversion of "respect" to get you to not re-look-at their claims. but theat is literally the exact opposite of the correct usage of the word. Which is what abusers do, they pervert otherwise good things. Guidance for children becomes punishment. Respect becomes obedience, sex becomes rape. but you wouldn't say that all sex is rape and thus sex is useless. Or all parenting is punishment thus having kids is useless. Is this making any kind of sense to anyone?

There has to be rational christians out there. I have just never seen it. but really, what I wouldn't give to meet just one christian who is capable of a rational conversation. Either in the media or on the street ever christian I have ever talked to becomes a hostile or a sophist or a science-denier or a flat out liar after just a tiny bit of inquiry. They have to exist. Like stef said recently, they are mostly nice people, and that is all well and good. but they just can't have a rational conversation on the subject. I guess that inability is why they are a christian in the first place. My heart really goes out to them and I feel really bad for them. But I guess it is what they feel they need. It just stings because they convey that they have just not thought rationally about this, and if they could do that one thing, then, they could make an informed decision...

The human nature argument. Simply put the human nature argument is a myth. If there are some absolutes about humans it is that we are dynamic and adaptable. This is modern science. If you raise a kid to be a monster then he will be a monster. And the opposite is also true. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/03/12/arnold-kling/human-nature-vs-libertarian-ideals

It can mean that. but that is not the totality of the definition and the practical use of the word. You got a case of "baby out with the bathwater" here guy...

If you are even checking to see if an idea is valid or not then you are showing it "respect". Maybe it just comes down to semantics then. But if you are disrespecting valid ideas and empirical based arguments then you are doing something that is not useful. I, personally, from what I know about the "idea" or concept of respect, find it very useful in a wide variety of situations. I guess it comes down to, "what do you mean by respect". What does "respect" look like to you? How does it manifest? Certainly one could use respect to support invalid ideas, IE; "you should respect the xyz authority regardless of the validity of their ideas". Certainly. But also simply recognizing validity and virtue can fall under the umbrella of respect. so, given the broad definition of the word it is much like any tool or state of consciousness, it can be both useful and harmful. You can use a fork to eat, or you can use it to jab your eyes out. These are just my ideas on the topic, you may say that you give them no respect. But if you read them and consider these ideas, you have given them a certain level of respect. If you choose to respond to them, then you have added to that level of respect. Even if it is minimal...

I got no respect for this post then...

The trick is to see the big picture. The biggest picture you can. Then the details kinda fall into place. Otherwise you are dealing with a lot of memorization and complex mental organization. I think this is what "first principles" is really about; what are the primary truths of a situation? Then from there you can fit in all the little examples and supporting pieces...

So what other movies have had as many pro-AnCap themes as this one in the past? That Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged movie maybe. I can't think of many others....

Looks like you got a well thought out reply in response to your, sorry, very short generalizations. So what exactly are you asking of the community here? The reply doesn't look like it is overtly feminist as much as it is going into more depth and counterpointing the points and themes you brought up in your short original statement. It would be helpful to tag a little bit at the end about why this is interesting to you to give us a starting point. Do you want us to refute this "Feminist" talking points? Or something else? I just think it would be helpful to tell us a little bit about your thoughts and feelings about this exchange? Do you have opposing views and/or facts concerning these topics? What are they?

I would give it to them "Ok, I may be remembering it wrong". But the new situation that you may be remembering another situation wrong is also significant. What you specifically remember is kinda secondary to how you feel. So you could say "I may have mis-remembered the situation but I still feel badly about it and I still am uncomfortable with our current relationship and if I mis-remember the situation then I am doing that for a reason". But really, if you are attempting to have an honest relationship with someone it does not really matter what device they use to invalidate you and resist you. The point of interest is that they are resisting and invalidating your attempts at an honest conversation...

Yea, so you have outlined the few instances where the current statist "law" is in line with NAP and a free society. That happens. The state parallels a free society in many ways. The point is where they differ. Where they differ is also significant. So you listed 5 parallels. But you can not say that invalidates the 100000's of instances where state power via "law" is just an opinion with a gun. You have listed the few instances where almost any society would hold these "anti-xyz" universals. UPB is a free book and is a good outline on why/how that is an objective reality. But the gross majority of "laws" are just opinions of a gun. So you highlight that how the state deals with these thing is also not ideal. Well, that invalidates your premise also. In a free society someone proven guilty of these crimes you list will be dealt with without an "opinion with a gun". Meaning that "anti murder is not an opinion with a gun" yes. But how you deal with a murderer is a matter of opinion with a gun in the current statist system. So it seems a little nit-picky to me. I mean, if I say "Chinese people are short", then you say "what about this one tall Chinese guy", you have not invalidated the generality I am highlighting. You are just saying that I should have stressed the fact that it is a generality. That is nit-picky. Same thing here. Stefan wrote a book called UPB that outlines the universality of these situations you bring up. So this isn't exactly new thought on the topic. ​Also it reminds me of the "state doesn't provide xyz, then xyz will not get done" logical fail scenario. Yes, the state is on board with certain aspects of UPB and NAP, but this is in no way able to validate the immoral foundation of the state or the massive majority of the state functions that are in face "an opinion with a gun". So, I really feel the need to be harsh on you about this given your last sentence is a little insulting and reads like a bitchy snark comment I would expect from mainstream news editorial...

Danny Huston

Please avoid accusing someone of bad intentions without any evidence. “Oh, so whenever you are wrong, you just run away!” “Oh, you're just changing the topic because you can't handle the truth!” Even if it turns out to be true, this kind of hostility will never bring enlightenment. https://board.freedomainradio.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Yea, that is not what happened. I am not trolling. I had a concern about "the race card" aspect early on, a concern that you only recently developed later in the thread. You resisted my early concern and gave me a huge load of grief about it. Can you try to re-read the exchange without the bias that I am antagonizing or being rude? I asked a simple question, that later on in the thread you even addressed, and then you totally took it the wrong way despite me urging you not to. Look at your first response to me and my original question. "How is race relevant?" You totally assumed I was calling you a racist and characterizing your actions as horrible. Then later you admit that race was not really relevant, but you managed to give me a load of grief in the meantime and casting me as the troll for asking about the relevancy and giving possibilities of alternative relevancies. I wasn't even saying that race WAS irrelevant. I was asking how it could be or could not be relevant, just asking. You assumed that my position is that it was irrelevant, again, an assumption that had nothing to do with my intentions. I simply wanted you to speak to me like I am a real human being. Then when I point that out, just double down and start telling me what to do again and making more assumptions and telling the mods what to do. It is really quite confusing for me...

Still waiting for that apology...

Could you be more specific?

Yup. And I just did the research. All the articles that are pro-spanking are either editorial pieces with no science source. Or one "study" conducted by a christian liberal arts professor at a christian college. Literally 100's of studies and articles can be found against spanking...

Well then i guess you owe me an apology for when I was asking why it would matter, you kinda gave me a great big pile of shit...