Wuzzums

Are you older than 18? If yes then you don't have ADD, or ADHD, or limbic ADD, or whatever. The disease is developmental in origin, you can't still be said to have it if you're an adult. There's no section for adult ADD in any psychiatric literature that I know of, which in of itself is a strong argument against the disorder's existence.

This. I also get the same response, silence. Then the conversation changes topic "somehow".

Chomsky is more didactic than preachy. I don't think he ever explained his views unless asked directly.

I think it's essential to differentiate between the two types of metal that use the growly voice, i.e. between death metal and melodic metal. Never liked the first, but the latter is an acquired taste. I enjoy In Flames and Haggard a lot. Misery Inc. is great too. In Flames I think is the best of all, the vocalist does these great transitions between clean and growly singing. And their acoustic pieces are very memorable. Oh, and another recommendation seeing that you like metal. I came up on Midnight entirely by accident, in 2005 he released an album, Sakeda that's literally genre defining. Unfortunately the artist passed away years ago and that album remains the first and apparently last album of said genre. Here's the song that got me hooked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6qX0UXILVA

Maybe Chomsky didn't want to discuss economics?

The tabata style workout I found to be the most effective cardiovascular workout out there. It takes only 4 mins too. After months of doing it I had a resting heart rate of 52-55 bpm, which is impressive considering it was 75+ prior.

I know. That's what I'm saying about Gary's speech also, he's going on emotion also. Nothing wrong with that, but emotion is not an argument.

Nope, still demonstrably false. 3 year olds can do math, can empathize with all creatures, understand property rights, understand abstract concepts, can read and write, and so on. I repeat, there's no principle involved, apart from the utilitarian one. Humans do have a choice regarding what they eat. So do other omnivores. So my question is, is it evil to kill a killer? Because if it is I can safely kill and eat chimps for example... or chickens. Because choice is necessary but not sufficient in regards to moral authority, you'll probably say that chimps, or chickens, don't know what they're doing. This puts them aside from any moral category, thus any attempt to compare them to humans in this regard is wrong on principle. The more animals are aware of what they are doing, the more they fall into the purview of morality I think, even though they will never reach human level. Personally I cannot feel the same amount of empathy toward a chicken than I do towards a bovine. This is why I avoid all mammal meat but still eat chicken. This is my reasoning behind my actions, but I'm willing to hear why it is wrong.

My issue is that there's no principle. If we extend morality to animals this would make predators (lions and such) as morally evil. But there's no choice involved for them considering they'll die if they don't kill, and thus it negates the fact that predators can be moral. So if predators are outside the moral realm, it cannot be immoral to kill and eat them. But predators need to kill too. So by eating predators we're basically eating that which the predators eats. So if the prey still dies (a quite gruesome death), what did we achieve? Wouldn't eating the prey ourselves without killing the predators lead to less death on a whole? No they don't. I'm not even going to argue this point. The rest of your argument is fallacious because your premise is false.

But isn't using the state to show how bad the state is a self defeating argument? You're assuming that after 12 years of indoctrination people are still capable of taking facts into account. If that were true the war in Iraq would have been more than enough proof to take the whole system fall down like a house of cards. But it didn't. We live in a world where facts don't matter anymore. Stefan always says it, don't mistake the world for yourself. If the world were populated by people like you and I, taking down the state would require only a few arguments. This is why the peaceful parenting approach must predate any logical arguments against the state. First we have to populate the world with people that can see the facts, then we show them the facts.

A good singing voice is innate to a singer in the same manner fingers are innate to a piano player. Some people have better voices, some people have longer and more nimble fingers, some people will never use their innate "talent". But in the end what does it matter? Art for me is about the product, not the process. I do not fault a singer for using autotune in the same manner I do not fault an architect for using a ruler. A tool, if you have it, should always be used if it adds to the final piece. So if you're worrying about your voice in relation to the song as a whole I don't see it as a problem. If the song sounding good is your focus then have a better singer sing the vocals. And if the singing itself makes you happy I don't see why you should stop regardless of your voice. There are a bunch of famous singers out there that aren't very good on a technical level yet their passion translates beautifully into song, such as this guy.

I'm still confused why I should not eat eggs and dairy products. I mean, if the argument is that I should not eat those things because it's cruel (through animals being kept in battery cages and whatnot) then I won't eat those things. But what if the animals are being kept in a natural habitat, i.e. a barnyard/farm cause they are domesticated animals? Whom am I hurting by eating an unfertilized egg left on the ground by some chicken that runs around freely all day looking for worms? The classic vegan response to this is "because it's disgusting" which is not an answer at all. Which makes me wonder, if it's an actual movement or one of those plethora of movements designed only to give its adherents a higher moral ground from where to freely judge people. First they attack me cause I'm white through white hate movement, then they attack me cause I'm a male through the feminist movement, then they attack me cause I'm straight through the transgender movement, then they attack me cause I'm human through the animal rights or vegan movement, then they attack me for breathing through the environmentalist movement, then they attack me for just existing and minding my own business through the social justice movement. The hell do these people want from me?

I see Ben Affleck was in full Bruce Wayne costume. Nice viral marketing.

When you're immunized against a disease the immune system can easily spot the disease on its next encounter and acts accordingly. As time goes on and no new encounter is made, the immune system slowly forgets all about the disease to the point your body becomes as susceptible to it as it first was before the immunization. This is the same for me when I interact with people. I go out, suffer through the painfully dull experience and then tell myself "What a waste of time, I'm never doing that again". Then as time passes, I slowly find myself yearning for connection, for not being alone all the time and so on (happens about once a month or so for me). Then I go out and think to myself "Oh yeah, that's why I was spending so much time alone in my room, I was happy in my solitude". And the cycle repeats itself over and over. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. However I don't think my behavior is a result of insanity but of hope. Didn't you hope before entering the Skype call that you were wrong about those people too? That maybe this time it's gonna be different and maybe the world isn't as horrible as you thought it was? It's a terrible feeling you get when your hopes are crushed. So how I go about all this business is by accepting it. I accept that I'm the only one to be blamed for being pulled back into the false self. I go in thinking I'll have a horrible time, that the people I'm with won't be very nice to me if I'm honest, and that I'll feel very bad for quite some time after. After everything goes as expected I get closure, the hope vanishes without any fuss and I no longer feel the need to interact with such people.

"People don't buy my DVD's therefore free market doesn't work, also structural violence." - Peter Joseph

Came across this interview with an ex-KGB officer about the hidden warfare against freedom and truth as a whole. It's eerily prophetic seeing how it's from the 80's. It even makes strong allusions to the social justice warrior movement we see everywhere today. In the second video he presents in more detail this process of moral erosion. After watching these I feel like I'm living in a slowly sinking ship.

Socratic method. Ask him what "fallacy of composition" is so you know that he's not just pulling words out of his ass. After he explains ask him to provide one instance of the free market where coercion happens. One instance is all it takes to disprove a theory. He will fail to provide an example simply because he said it himself that the traders are in a voluntary transaction, meaning it cannot logically ever be coercive in the same manner that consensual sex cannot possibly ever lead to rape.

I subscribed. Guy knows his stuff. Thanks for posting.

Someone from the mainstream media did some actual research? Judgement is upon us!

Thanks for the recommendation. I got pumped just by reading the table of contents.

I like how women try to shame men by the size of their penis as if it's their problem. In fact it's a female problem because for a man a 1 inch penis gives as much satisfaction as a 10 inch penis.

It's a neat idea but I don't think it's nearly as efficient as what we already have. From what she said I got it that the power comes from the heat of your hand meaning it won't run unless you're touching it. If there is a way to charge it (meaning it has a regular battery in there too) then it's still not such a great idea because in order to do so you will have to walk around holding on to it compared to sticking a battery in a charger and going about your day freely. Dynamo based flashlights have been around since almost always and provide better lighting no matter of how warm your hand and room are. Then there's the shake flashlight. The heat flashlight would probably replace it if can produce better lighting. I get your disdain with Xbox controllers. Microsoft has such a roundabout way of doing things. For instance the PS controller has no batteries, is wireless, and is charged through the PS' USB port. I don't know if it's laziness or patent bs but Microsoft is notorious for doing crap like this. For instance I know for a fact it failed to implement a shock protection system in their Xbox units even though the technology has been around for almost 2 decades. If you move the Xbox while a disk is playing it will scratch the disk and/or damage the Xbox. If you move a PS while a disk is playing nothing happens.

Speaking from experience, you can't kick a habit by willpower alone but you can replace it with another habit. I recommend The Power of Habit, a book that talks about this extensively. In short, the people that achieve a lot in life are people with productive habits. For instance, you have a habit of playing videogames. You go about your day and there's this nagging sensation that makes you play some games to you get your fix so to say. Even if you spend a whole day doing productive things without playing a single game, the sensation is still there. It feels like there's something you have to do so your day is complete and it only grows stronger if you ignore it. Arnold Schwarzenegger had the same feeling regarding bodybuilding I imagine. Self knowledge is useful because it gives you a hint on what the new replacement habit should be. Are you playing videogames for the skill of it? Maybe a habit of playing a musical instrument might give you the same satisfaction. Are you playing videogames for the escapism? Maybe reading or writing will be as efficient. Just think of smokers. Nicotine isn't an addictive substance per se and there are numerous ways to get the substance inside your body without much if any risks. Yet all smokers I've known can't kick the habit of smoking. Nicotine patches or electric cigarettes don't help them. They say it's just not the same as puffing. Thus they're not addicted to the nicotine, they're addicted to sucking smoke from a burning pole. Or they're addicted to holding something in their mouths, which is why some smokers take up eating lollipops. Or I've known this decades long smoker that kicked the habit over night by replacing it with drinking Schweppes Bitter Lemon specifically. Repetition is key in gaining a new habit. Force yourself to do the chosen action each day for about a month or so. You'll notice you no longer have to force yourself to do said action, you'll need to do said action.

Well I don't know what this has to do with anything if the truth is all that matters. Personally I like the more hardcore Stefan, but, again, it's just my preference and it's not why I'm here. Why would Stefan's arguments be more or less valid if they're whispered gently or shouted violently?