prolix
-
Posts
171 -
Joined
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by prolix
-
-
My mistake.. Pigs have the intelligence of a 3 year old: http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/4522/Pigs-are-considered-to-be-smarter-than-3-year-old-human-children
So what other mistakes did you possibly make? Well, here is one; OMGFacts.com didn't link the sources. You get "That page does not exist!" when you try to source the claims made at, what appears to be, an info-tainment site.
Also here is another casual google result...
http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/pigheaded-smart-swine/
Candace Croney is an Associate Professor of Animal Sciences at Purdue University and once taught pigs to play video games. (More on that later.) She says she understands the urge to compare animals to humans when it comes to smarts, but that the “boring science definition” of intelligence is this:
“Cognition is about all the processes that animals have available to them, that allow them to get information, store information, recall it and use it so that they can adapt to the environment that they find themselves in or not.”
Beyond that, comparing pigs to dogs (or children) is like comparing, well, apples to oranges. Animals develop specializations according to their surroundings and trying to draw cross-species comparisons is not very meaningful.
“An octopus is evolved to live in one environment, bats in another environment, pigs in another environment,” says Michael Mendel, a professor of animal behavior and welfare at the University of Bristol. “So trying to compare them directly is quite difficult.”
-
Well there are some seriously stupid comments on here 'I didnt like the way he talked' - 'What about the immorality of murdering plants' - 'Well now I have to get a new needle for my douchebag meter' Seriously..? I thought I might get some good discussion going from here (given that you all claim to be open minded and reasonable people etc.) but Im just getting the same old shit I see everywhere else in society when anyone dares to open their mouths about the suffering of animals.You might actually like Gary if you werent so quick to fire knee-jerk ad homs at him and if you werent so dedicated to disagreeing with him right off the bat. The fact so many people are saying 'I couldnt handle more than X amount of minutes of him' says a lot. He does present a lot of information that is irrefutable. His moral arguements arent the most philosophically strict, but so what? HES NOT A PHILOSOPHER. I was hoping a few people might actually be open to reason and evidence (regardless of how crudely it is put forward) but apparently not. I guess hes not up to some of the FDR listeners' 'perfect' standards.For anyone actually interested in learning more about this guy (and his arguments) Here are a couple more videos:
This one is him being interviewed by a very civil Israeli show host (unlike the one in the video where he 'loses it') about his lectures in Israel.
And this one which I think FDR listeners (who can put away their own emotional biases) will enjoy.. He goes into his own family stuff and his 'DeFOO'.
Sorry dude-guy, but he makes very weak arguments and peppers it with blatantly false information. He is doing a disservice to his cause taking this approach...
-
Sounds like he is doing slam poetry...
"The problem is not with me and what I just said."
And I am done with this video...
-
-
Still not obvious to me...
-
-
Stefan did it first. But these guys did it better...
-
1
-
-
I can't believe that video is real. I refuse to...
-
First off i would like to give you a congrats, just for the work it takes to write, record, edit, etc your own music. I speak from experience. Ive been writing/recording my own stuff for around 20 years.
I think you did a great job on this! The recording is very good, are the vocals the only live instrument?
The music was well written and arranged (not really my personal taste), and your vocal lines fit right in. Again, good job!
What DAW do you use? (assuming)
Thanks man. I am using FL Studio, Cakewalk, and ProTools. The vocals, guitars and some drums are all live and all performed by me. Links to your music? Thanks again...
-
I can understand how it wouldn't be useful to someone who doesn't understand or seek to understand why those terms are used.
Like who?
-
2
-
-
So being decisive, envious of others, and lacking the capacity to bond with others could be traits of somebody's true self? Being true to one's self could also mean having difficulty to giving or receiving love, and dishonest?
I don't think so. Like I said. The labels "true self" and "false self" are not very useful terms. So I just read it as "So being decisive, envious of others, and lacking the capacity to bond with others could be traits of somebody's self?"
"Being true to one's self could also mean having difficulty to giving or receiving love, and dishonest?" Now this I would agree with. Being "true to yourself" can look like anything. If you are a dishonest person, then you are being "true" to that reality if you behave like that. I think if you recognize your tendencies, both good and bad, and seek self knowledge then you are being true to yourself. If your will and desire is to know your self. If your will and desire is, say, dishonesty. Then in that case if you behave dishonest you are being true to your self. Do you see? I am looking at this irrespective of actions, but with intent. If you are true towards your intent you are true to yourself. If your intent is positive or negative is peripheral to whether you are being true to your self.
To me, the "True Self" is self knowledge. Not certain behaviors. But the act of perusing self knowledge, for good or bad, instead.
-
1
-
-
how do you feel about Joel's list? I think that one is very comprehensive.
It looks like a list of positive traits and behaviors, then, a list of negative ones. Comprehensive? maybe. Useful? I don't see how.
Ok, all people have a pull towards both in different situations. I think my problem may be with "true/false self" label on the lists. I think the real "True Self" for everybody is the thing that discerns and chooses between the two lists and knows itself enough to know why. To call negative behavior "false" and positive behavior "true" is quite the misunderstanding as I see it. Someone could look at a tendency towards negative behavior as, "Oh, that is not the True Me". Well, yes it is. And until you accept it and understand why you did the negative thing(s) it will remain the "True You".
Self knowledge is about working with yourself as you are and understanding the good and bad traits within yourself. It really seems like an invitation to bury and suppress and ignore negative behavior at the expense of self knowledge. Simply saying that somewhere inside every bad, "False Self," person is a "True Self" just waiting to get out just strikes me as a distraction from doing the work of self knowledge. It is almost reminiscent of souls, or of some form of static human nature. The whole thing just smacks of over-generalization and over-simplification. So, how you deal with your behavior, no matter what list it falls into, is the "True Self" in my estimation...
-
You got it.
-
Why does it remind you of reading your horoscope for your sign?
I read the false self list and thought of times I was like that. Then, I read the True self List and thought of times I was like that as well. Interesting experience. Reminds me of reading the horoscope for my sign (and thinking it fits me), then, reading the horoscope of a few other signs (and thinking it also fits me).
-
RE: True Self vs. False Self lists.
It reads a little like a horoscope to me. I read the false self list and thought of times I was like that. Then, I read the True self List and thought of times I was like that as well. Interesting experience. Reminds me of reading the horoscope for my sign, then, reading the horoscope of a few other signs. I think it points towards the spectrum of narcissism briefly covered in the Unmasking Narcissism video posted by Joel Patterson. Now wont you just tell me you love me? Please...
Interesting, I got 2 negs and no replies. I am really curious where I may have gone wrong here. Maybe I should put that in my sig? Just strikes me as kinda passive and unhelpful to throw around negs with no clarification. I don't think this is the place for that...
-
2
-
-
An error occurred^I'd rep you to say thank you, but I haven't figured out if you can do that here.
You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day
-
Well, this is actually one of the main grievances us voluntaryists have. There is no requirement of the state to have explicit consent. The fact that you live within the jurisdiction of the given state is treated as acquiescence to its body of order, i.e. jurisprudence. For example, if you go to a store and purchase a DVD, on the box are copyright claims, and while you did not explicity sign an agreement, you however performed actions that were binding.
And, while this is all well and good as far as contract law goes, the issue lies in the monopolistic nature of government. This is why you typically get the whole, "If you don't like it, then just leave," argument -- an argument full of flaws that I won't go into here.
The point, however, is that due to this monopolistic nature there is a lack of recourse. And, in the absence of recourse, then there is no valid contract because it is by its nature a one sided contract. Thus, what you have is actually called an 'unconscionable bargain'.
(UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAIN, contracts. A contract which no man in his senses, not under delusion, would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept, on the other. 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3848.)
While many will mistakenly limit the definition of that term to those of unsound mind (e.g. child or mentally handicap), the term actually encompasses fraud as well as fraud preys upon the ignorance of an individual. And the main aspect of what leads to fraud is the lack of full disclosure. That's why under the philosophy of law as far as contracts are concerned there is a necessity for full disclosure. It's a main element for a sound contract. Basically, without full disclosure there cannot be consideration. In other words, one cannot consent to that which he/she cannot consider.
Of course, many will try to circumvent this argument with the claim, "There is no excuse for ignorance of the law."
And, while you can argue how no one man really knows all the "law" given the ocean of edicts out there, hence all the specilization in the legal field. But, the real point is that on some level you're perfectly aware there is an order that has juridiction over the geographic area. More importantly, this "law" is not hidden from anyone. It is made public knowledge. Thus, if you're ignorant of it, then you do so out of your own will, hence the claim of willful blindness. In other words, you're choosing to be blind to this body of order -- which is seen and treated as the steward of law.
(On a side note, that sort of argument is actually a very clever ruse because the whole argument regarding the unconscionable bargain actually deals with one surrenduring his/her sovereignty, i.e. no one in their right mind would actually surrender his/her sovereignty, unless under duress -- which I can go into conquest later.)
And, this is where the notion of the rule of law and legitimacy of government begins to get confusing because in prior legal systems there was an understanding that the law came from God. Hence, the divine right of kings, i.e. everyone had their duties as ordained by God. Whatever class you were born into was in accordance with the will of God.
(Mind you, this is an extremely brief overview of the history of western legal system and philosophy of law.)
As the Age of Enlightenment came about, this began to question that whole body of order. And, mind you, this sort of questioning didn't begin during the Age of Enlightment, rather that's where particular concepts culminated.
Some of these concepts are of sovereignty; equality of law; what is the rule of law; public realm vs private realm; natural rights vs legal rights; and, so on.
And, from all of that we have gained insight into what the rule of law might be despite it still being something that eludes us. But, the overall consensus is that it is distinct from the rule by might. The rule by might is what despotism/tyranny is all about. Hence, the need for the consent of the governed. Without it, there is no legitamcy of the government. This consent is the difference between a de facto form of governance vs a de jure form of governance. (Personally, I make a distinction between government and governance as some will say there is no governance without government. But, then, what about self-governance?)
And, really, that's what anarchism is all about. It's the ultimate form of self-governance. It is simply the next step in this long progression towards equality of law. (Mind you, I also make a distinction between law and edicts, i.e. the difference between lawful and legal.)
Laws are the moral theories that make up a jurisprudence. The edicts are a reference to the legal framework that is chartered in order to uphold the rule of law or whatever order one imposes by might. In other words, the lawfulness of an act is based on its moral standing, and the legality of an act is based on its adherence to the charter, i.e. contract. Thus, issues of legality are issues of contract, not necessarily morality. Hence, how you can have an ocean of edicts on the books and still have lawlessness. (i.e. "Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice.") In other words, just because one can create order via might, that does not mean he/she is abiding by the rule of law.
And, as far as this topic is concerned, that is why anarchism is statelessness and not lawlessness as many will try to argue that anarchism is without law or rules or regulations and so on.
Further more, this is why I find UPB to be so important to this discussion. It gives us a methodology for evalutating moral theories, thus it gives us insight into real law (i.e. natural law), not the edicts that are colored as law because of how contracts allow us to create laws among ourselves. When you sign a contract, you're taking an oath. That oath creates a law, but it is one that is limited only to those party to the contract.
Hence, the whole focus on the idea of a social contract. People understand that some sort of frame work is needed. But, again, the problem isn't that there is a need for some sort of contract, rather that there is a monopoly on it, and worse that it is imposed upon us all by force. So, it's not the rule of law we're actually against. It's this particular order (which is actually a might makes right form of jurisprudence). Otherwise, why is the gun in the room? It serves to *enforce* the monopolistic nature of this particular order. An order we refer to as statism.
Thus, one can easily argue that this whole voluntaryist position is all about one's natural right to contract, i.e. sui juris -- a man of his own "law". And, personally, I think that scares a lot of people because they assume the source of law is government as many are ignorant of their own sovereignty, let alone what sovereignty actually is. Thus, they gladly surrender it for some false sense of security which is nothing more than a protection racket. (Which, I find to be the result of epistomological conquest, i.e. indoctrination of the populace.)
Heh, I was halfway through it before I recognized your writing style. Great post...
-
RE: True Self vs. False Self lists.
It reads a little like a horoscope to me. I read the false self list and thought of times I was like that. Then, I read the True self List and thought of times I was like that as well. Interesting experience. Reminds me of reading the horoscope for my sign, then, reading the horoscope of a few other signs. I think it points towards the spectrum of narcissism briefly covered in the Unmasking Narcissism video posted by Joel Patterson. Now wont you just tell me you love me? Please...
-
3
-
-
I think it is interesting that I have never agreed to follow the rules that apply to me from the state, and that the state has never asked me to review its laws and then sign that I agree to them. Of course the common argument is "Not knowing is irresponsible".
Did my parents do that, I don't think so... they did vote to be separated from the USSR, last years of which I was born in. So Latvia once again gained independence with laws based on the old state and inclusion of some from LSR(Latvian Socialist Republic). Still does that imply agreement to following the rules of the land?
I guess only state employees have signed to uphold the rules, but I am not really sure, as I have never applied for a state employee job.Probably the problem is that I am looking at this from a view of citizenship even though rule of law applies to any human being that is located on state's property. So the state feels justified to apply the law.Seems the notion of "State property" was not a product of Communism and is still in effect.
I think I can make a counterpoint to this. Hopefully someone will let me know if my reasoning goes astray.
In the instances where you interact with the state they do make you sign a "contract" of sorts. Yes, it is the state and it is coercive, yes, yes. But technically, on an interaction by interaction basis, you sign, maybe under duress, but non-the-less you sign off on things. Things like drivers license and tickets and tax forms and job applications and bank statements all kinds of things the state has its filthy claws on. Literally every interaction you officially have with the state the make you sign a "contract" or an agreement. And I know, "make" is the operative word in that last sentence.
So, I get the place this is coming from and I get where you are going. But I am not sure this is the most efficient vehicle for this idea. So I reason that statements like "the state could ask for my signature" and " I have never agreed to follow the rules" are maybe invalid because the state literally does both those things, with coercion, for example when you get a drivers license.
Maybe I am going all, "free man on the land" technical on this one. Maybe things are super different in Latvia .But I think the Original Post invokes those "free man on the land" type of themes and presuppositions.
-
the guy in the video does a great job in pointing out the hypocricy
It is a pretty good channel. Thanks for posting this...
-
This just in, "Feminists are not exactly consistent"...
-
hey cool do you want to collaborate on something I'm a badass rapper
For sure, thanks! Send me a PM and I can send you some beats. Presumably you can record vocals and send back the tracks and I can mix them?
-
I listen to music not for the lyrics. I listen to "salt" and it was ok, not exceptional good or bad. I hardly understood any lyrics at all, but english is not my first language. I liked how the video coresponded with the audio. I hope this is no copyright violation, because it seems like a big studio cartoon. Who created it?
It was an old animation I found on the Prelinger archive. I think it is from the 20's. Thanks for listening..
-
You can tell me it is terrible if that is how you feel. This is a safe place; but this silence is killing me...
The best speech you will EVER hear..
in General Messages
Posted