prolix

Sorry, the articles I found could not link their sources, looking into that now to see if there ever was a source study, or just some christian "study", which is not a study at all but bullshit navel-gazing by christian academics...

Thanks to everyone who listened. If anyone is interested the more donations & sales I get, the more I pass on to FDR...

In a "debate" I posted a lot of links that were anti-spanking. I was pretty confident that there would not be much counter evidence. I guess i was wrong. I got this in return. Several articles that claim to be pro-science and pro-spanking. Can anyone punch any holes in these articles? http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/01/04/study-spanked-children-may-grow-up-to-be-happier-more-successful/ http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/548-new-study-finds-spanking-is-good-for-kids

Well, it is super easy. https://freedomainradio.com/free/#upb But you will have to graduate middle-school before you are up to the pre-requisite reading level. Maybe find an adult to read it to you. Slowly...

No it is not. It is a objective standard for discerning truth from falsehood. If you care about truth. So, whether you care about truth is up to the subject to decide, but how you arrive at truth is objective and must rely on universal standard...

Can anyone describe what may be troll-like about my posts. Seems like a lot of adjectives and not a lot of logic and reason to me...

You mentioned race 20 times in your original post. And one of the main points was your reluctance to intervene because of race. You are not making a lot of sense to me here...

If you can quote me being antagonistic that would be helpful. also if you could quote where I have been given an answer to my question, that would also be helpful. Because every time you try to quote me being antagonistic I can quote a nearby sentence explaining how it is not. And for every answer you post to my various inquiries, I can post a blatant avoidance of my question or a blatant misinterpretation of my question. I have yet to see any evidence for what you claim here sir...

I just don't get it....

Ok, now I think you are being overtly antagonistic. Is it not appropriate for me to ask that? When someone says to me "What? So much verbiage. So little said." I don't exactly feel as though they have read and considered my post. which is fine. Just telling you how it lands with me. I asked you "Is you assuming that they would play the race card because they are black the same or similar to you assuming that someone is racist because they are white?" I don't deserve an answer or anything. But I do not think we have "been through it". Mostly because, as you admit, you view it as antagonistic. Despite my every attempt to stress that it is not intended as antagonistic to me. Ok, here we go. time to be direct and antagonistic. I guess. You didn't stop any abuse, you wanted to and you were conflicted. but your own prejudices, that were of a racial manner, prevented you from acting. Now when I bring up the racial aspect, you say I am derailing. but you are the one that put race at the center of your scenario and introduced it as a reason why you would not intervene. So I really do not understand why it is so difficult for you to talk about a prominent aspect of a scenario that you brought up....

Great thread. The only criticism I would have of Bob is this. He could have stressed the empirical and scientific nature of some of the spiritual stuff he talked about. I think if you take in his full body of work and account for his empirical thinking on things like "Anarchist, Voluntaryist, Agnostic about Everything" then his spiritual stuff is properly in context. But I think there is a (mis?)conception that he holds spiritual beliefs ( he may have; I am agnostic on the subject) because of some of the valid parallels to Crowly, McKenna & Watts in his work. But I do think Bobby was an empiricist first and foremost and had a wild penchant for visual and poetic speech second...

I don't know what any of that means. Sorry, it could just be me... I am not. But you are continually casting me as that. So I must counter-ask, "do you want me to be antagonistic?" I ask because that is how you clearly mis-interepreted my first post, And arguablly they way you choose to interpret my subsequent posts. Again, that is not my intention. You say "we have been through this" But I don't see any definite end of the conversation. Except for your reference to it in past tense here. I asked you "Is you assuming that they would play the race card because they are black the same or similar to you assuming that someone is racist because they are white?" I don't deserve an answer or anything. But I do not think we have "been through it". Mostly because, as you admit, you view it as antagonistic. Despite my every attempt to stress that it is not intended as antagonistic to me...

Yes, I wanted to include the parental figure, the aunt, but I felt it was kind of a mixed bag and she made very few appearances in the movie...

False morality is subjective. Valid morality is objective. It really is that easy. If someones attempts at moralizing are not universal (UPB) then they are attempting morality and failing. If someones moralization is universal then they have given a valid moral statement. It is like criticism. If someone is giving an invalid criticism, then they are not criticizing at all. If someone is giving a non-universal moralization, then they are not moralizing at all. You can make it more complicated that that, like so many other things, but I don't know why you would. Of course, I am open to why/how that may not be the case, but I can't see it as of yet...

I guess a movie with pro-ancap and pro NAP themes is either not what is happening in this movie or it is not something this community is interested in?

1. I don't think so. If "reaction formation" can explain anything here to me, I fail to see how from your post. I am "constructing a vast edifice"? Because I thought I was just explaining how I feel. 2. Who is this "we"? I don't feel that the "we" you describe describes me.

I want to empty out the moms bank account and take all of her valuables and then stick a camera in her face and have a professional comedian mock and taunt her as she cries and throws a fit. Upload, boom, 2 million views...

I just saw the Disney movie "Big Hero 6". And I want to assert that it is a very pro AnCap and pro NAP themed story. So obviously there will be spoilers if you haven't seen it. There is a plot synopsis at the bottom if you want to proceed anyway having not seen the film. I just want to bullet point my observations about possible AnCap and NAP themes. Right from the go innovation plays a big role as almost all out main characters are brilliant inventors. Including the main character. Innovation is kinda a character in this movie as it is central to the characters. Entrepreneurship and innovation as a virtue. Early in the movie they set up the "evil capitalist" antagonist by having the "public sector" professor accuse him of being, well and evil capitalist.. But it turns out that he was the victim and that the bad guy was actually someone else, it was a fake out plot device.. The capitalist character turns out to be neutral or maybe even sympathetic character. One of the few times I can remember that the capitalist wasn't being demonized in a film. The antagonist character turns out to be the Professor not the "evil capitalist". The antagonist is driven by emotion, in this case revenge. Much like the state is driven by emotional propaganda like "we must help the poor!" or "we must avenge 9/11, invade iraq". The antagonist steals an innovation from the main character something that they did not make, like our tax dollars, and uses them for evil, like the state does with tax revenue. There is a medical robot in the film who is basically the moral center of the movie because he can not harm a human because of programming and is centrally concerned with this premise throughout the movie. The character is basically a NAP-bot and actually dissuades the main character from violence in the movie. At one point the lead character goes to the cops to warn about the antagonist, the cops are show to be apathetic and ineffectual. There is a scene where all the lead characters are being chased in a car by the antagonist and his giant army of nanobots. The driver of the get away vehicle keeps stopping at red lights and observing the speed limit. Another character criticizes him for this and takes the wheel from him and starts driving fast and running red lights. Don't worry it is 3AM and in a cartoon world so it is safe. The point being that sometimes imminent danger is more important than "the rules". At one point in the movie we find out that one of the main characters is ridiculously wealthy and nobody knew. His wealth is used to further the plot in favor of the protagonist and there is no negative connotation to being rich. The movie really drives home the NAP argument when the lead character learns that the antagonist, the professor, set into action events that killed the lead characters brother and moves to exact revenge against the antagonist. All the other characters resist, including the NAP-bot who has to be deprogrammed in order to break NAP. A great amount of emphasis is put on this central theme of non-violence. The final defeat of the antagonist involves the antagonist running out of microbots, a technology he stole, as he overextends himself in the final battle. This, I think, equates to the government over-extending itself through debt and taxes. In the end it turns out that the source of the antagonists emotional revenge, was not even valid to begin with as his daughter was not actually dead. This is like how the media and the governments stir up problems that don't really even exist to further their own ends. I could list many more small details, but those are just the big ones off the top of my head. So to summarize; Pro NAP themes and characters, Pro innovation and Entrepreneurship themes, the rich are not portrayed as evil and state power is portrayed and apathetic and useless. I would love others thoughts on this. Also I think it would be a refreshing video for FDR to scrutinize a movie that wasn't a portrait of madness through magic or an avert appeal to socialism or sexism or something like that. I could be totally wrong and it is totally just statist propaganda, but I would love to know what you think. Is it possible for big media to even, maybe accidentally, make a pro NAP and Pro AnCap movie? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hero_6_(film)#Plot

I agree, but I just found his emphasis to be peculiar, not wrong or anything like that. Certianly not undue, that would be racist. And yes, you got it, the emphasis or focus should be on treatment of children, not race. Now I was just saying that I thought he was setting up a further discussion on how different cultures treat childeren. I guess to me it kinda struck me that he inserted (played?) the race card, by speculating that they would play the race card first. And the reason he pre-supposed that they could play the race card, in my opinion, is that he wanted to give himself an excuse for not saying something to the women. Look, I don't pretend to say that he should or shouldn't confront the women hitting the kid. I don't think he needs to give an excuse. But it reads as an excuse to me. That is up to him looking at the situation. It is a personal decision you have to make for yourself and I do not intend to tell anyone what to do ever or judge them for doing/not doing something. I was simply very distracted by the role race played in his story. As I demonstrated, he could have told the story without race. It seems to me, that the only role race plays is to assuage his conflicting feelings about confronting the abusive women. Now either that is something to think about or it isn't. But it is just how it lands with me having been surrounded by a lot of racism in my own life. Sometimes it is very subtle and sometimes it is not there at all when it appears to be, I would not assume to know. But I think it is a valid question worth asking. "Are our attitudes about race correct and fair?" I think that is a valid question to ask ourselves to a certain extent. Is you assuming that they would play the race card because they are black the same or similar to you assuming that someone is racist because they are white? I am sorry, my ears poke up when I see extra emphasis on race. I tend to expect some other valid observations coming after. I asked about this and he immediately reinterpreted what I said to be the complete opposite of what I said. And then after that he restated his original comments in regards to my curiosity. Look, he brought it here for a reason, he wanted our thoughts, unless they could be re-interpreted as critical and dismissed without consideration apparently...

I hate the way 80% of British men look, so, to me, that seems like a reasonable number...

2008, "Statism is Dead" series came across my recommended videos on youtube. Hooked! Never missed a show since...

So I got 10 negs and 0 comments on why. How is that productive or helpful?

Yes, it would. Pot has a giant LD50. Also I would NOT smoke weed on greyhound, they will bust you super easy even if you smoke at a rest stop. I speak from experience. Also smoking weed to combat/counteract stress is not the ideal usage of that particular sacred herb according to many people. Again, just my experience. Now although I do find the situation you describe very interesting, I was also struck by your assertion of race more than I was interested in this subject which I have considered many times before. I understand your concern that you may have race thrust into it by the other person., IE they "play the race card". I understand that and agree with Joel Patterson when he says, "I think your concern was probably valid, Zelenn" That said I was struck by the importance race played in your setup non the less. Could it have not been described as... See if you typed that. I would have then commented on the last part. There are many varying things you could say to someone in this instance. I understand that what you typed is what you want to say, but come on guy, that is not what you would actually say. Which is why you said nothing. There is a way to confront people in this situation. It is not either "lash out in anger" or "do nothing and go smoke pot to chill out" as it appears you present it here. Do you recognize that there are some medium things you can say to somebody in that situation that could be less confrontational? Of course you do. So you have told us some of your reservations about confronting them. but do you have others? Is that something you want to explore? Maybe explore how and what you may ideally say to someone if you are in this situation, this unfortunate situation, that you find your self in now? I mean, there is still time. You can go and be very nice to these ladies and still provide some good information to them in a non-confrontational way? A less confrontational way maybe? Even though, what you are doing is totally confrontational. Maybe the most important and most confrontational situation you can have besides violent combat... Yes. No. That is not what I asked you. So you have yet to answer my question. Look, not that I deserve an answer, it is what it is. But I thought I would just point it out, as a matter of consideration to you, all the same...

I didn't say anything was horrible. Also I went out of my way to say that I wasn't calling you a racist. I was simply asking a question. A question you didn't answer btw...