Jump to content

WasatchMan

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    678

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    17

 Content Type 

Everything posted by WasatchMan

  1. WasatchMan
    To me one of the biggest pieces of evidence for #Pizzagate is the way the media is behaving. For some reason there is a narrative being developed around it and they are actively creating fake news in order to install certain concepts into the zeitgeist. Here is a good analysis of a Megyn Kelly interview with the owner of the pizza establishment in the center of this.
  2. WasatchMan
    So much time and energy wasted on debating the approximate 0.00000076923077% real world impact your single vote had on selecting the leader of a branch of government that makes up 1/3 of one government. Why pussy foot around this issue? The only thing worth discussing is whether political action, where you are stumping/advocating/selling the idea that people should use their 0.00000076923077% influence and one hour of their time to vote the way you argue they should, is immoral/moral. If you can convince 1.3 million people to go your way, you now have had a 1% influence. Get up to 13 million, you now have had a 10% impact. Now if we are talking about that [political action], and you logically conclude, and make the rational case, that the outcome will determine the life or death of the most moral civilization known to humanity [western civilization], and someone is going to be chosen regardless of what you say or do [you have no practical chance of convincing everyone to suddenly band up and become anarcho-capitalists], than to me it is a pretty cut and dry case for self defense. Since self defense is moral, political action is moral under these circumstances. However, if you flip it around to the single vote argument, you have to ask yourself, is 0.00000076923077% real world impact worth the possibility that you aren't acting in self-defense? I personally say no.
  3. WasatchMan
    Dramatic increases in human productivity is not a new thing. Every era we mark in the progress of human civilization is essentially just a jump in human productivity. The industrial age and the computer age have been some modern dramatic jumps. The automation age will be no different - and will be a boon to the civilization who masters it, and not a negative thing. At the dawn of every one of these eras we do see the malcontents who, usually sitting up in their ivory towers, whine about the good old days and make people uneasy about the changing times (see Charles Dickens). But history has shown they are always wrong and increases in productivity always pay dividends to the general quality of life.
  4. WasatchMan
    As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
  5. WasatchMan
    Its a good hypothesis. What I wonder is whether resources push the changes faster than the genes. This could also mean there is a larger wavelength within a smaller fluctuation in R and K cultural dominance that could account for the genetic fluctuation over time. "R"s ride the wave of excess resources and it seems that the recourse wave fluctuates more than the genes could account for but I bet there is a larger fluctuation in the R vs K dominance. I think we are likely on top of the a larger R dominance cycle that it seems likely to crash hard within a generation with all the decadence and decay of values we see right now. Not too many producers out there if you ask me.
  6. WasatchMan
    Its hard to know what the truth is anymore by looking at published media and reports because the zeitgeist is getting flooded with a constant stream of propaganda that is anti-Trump. However, lucky for us we don't need to know or understand the details to get a good handle on what the truth of this matter is. All we have to do is use some logic and common sense, and it doesn't hurt to have some experience in these industries. This is how you can use logic to answer this question: Donald Trump is a massively successful business man from developing properties. Developing properties requires you to hire a lot of contractors and consultants. Contractors and consultants don't work for free or they go out of business. Contractors and consultants talk within their industry. Through this talk, word would get out that Trump doesn't pay his bills which would drive contractors and consults to not respond to proposals for work where Trump was the client. Since contractors and consultants continually bid on work for Trump, and Trump continually develops properties (even in the same geography), we can safely assume he pays his bills. Bam!
  7. WasatchMan
    Yup and it was still being discussed on the page I posted it. Graham, I don't come on here for trolling asshole comments and that seems to be all I get from you. I would like to ask that you no longer respond to me.
  8. WasatchMan
    Yes, yes I am.
  9. WasatchMan
    You can split hairs if you'd like but don't waste both of our time by not acknowledging the vast difference between the choice to pay taxes and the choice to vote when it comes to consequences and the use of force. One you have to go way out of your way spending your own time, resources, and anxiety - taking a large risks that you will not go to jail and all of your possessions taken, the other you have the complete voluntary choice to be 0.00000076118% of the choice for who becomes your ruler.
  10. WasatchMan
    How are people conflating paying taxes which is mandatory (under threat of force and imprisonment) with voting which is completely voluntary with no negative consequences for you not voting? I can see there is some room for discussion here, but lets not go full retard yet...
  11. WasatchMan
    I would not have voted. Why? Because I don't consent to be governed, therefore I would prefer not to have to vote and in anyway portray consent, and I understand numbers, therefore I know that the actual consequences of me to vote is so small that it does not even come close to override my preference not to vote. To put this in perspective, 1 leave vote would have constituted 0.00000574% of the leave vote. Furthermore, even though it appears to be a somewhat close vote, your 1 leave vote would have constituted 0.00007878% of the amount of votes that the leave vote beat the remain vote. Are we really going to sell out our preference not to participate with an immoral system for these numbers?
  12. WasatchMan
    So you have two choices here: 1) admit that "I think if you have no ability to differentiate between 99% tax and 1% tax, or between communism and minarchism or if you can not state that there is less goverment in Switzerland than there is in North Korea, then you are to stupid for me to interact with." is a worthless statement because it does not focus on actual outcomes of communist and minnarachist government because minarchists governments tend to generate the stock seed for a totalitarian governemt to spring from, and therefore dodges the entire topic at hand. 2) pretend that I didn't say that and make another vague accusation about my ability to comprehend principles. The ball is in your court.
  13. WasatchMan
    So are you admitting that you don't understand that the government with the most freedom became the government that is now dominating the world?
  14. WasatchMan
    Mike, I personally get these things, and do like Trump and think he is not only the lesser of two evils but will be a positive influence for the US. However, this doesn't mean I accept the concept that a good ruler, even if it were Plato's personification of a Philosopher King, is ethical. I don't plan to vote because I don't want to pretend that my singular vote means anything except that I consent to be governed by people who want to use my consent to initiate force against me. I reject the idea of a philosopher king not pragmatically but ethically. Don't vote on a master, don't consent to be a slave.
  15. WasatchMan
    This is quite the dodge - I am not sure how the subjectivity of the value of freedom has anything to do with the efficacy of voting.
  16. WasatchMan
    I am glad you brought up probability, because we can do math on probability. Could you please provide me the percentage increase in probability that Trump will win the election due to your vote? If you don't know statistics let me know and I will work it out for you.
  17. WasatchMan
    I am honestly scratching my head searching for your point here.
  18. WasatchMan
    You pay taxes or go to jail. There is no morality around a situation where you have a gun pointed at you.
  19. WasatchMan
    And they would be wrong. The consent of the governed is alive and well, so alive and well that people who see anarchism [one of the most hated ideologies in modern civilization] as the only moral system get triggered by the argument that voting is a waste of time.
  20. WasatchMan
    This is a false question to the argument people are making. Calling it a red herring I think wouldn't be unfair and quite frankly underscores your statism bias lens you seem to not being able to help looking through. People are here telling you that voting for the state legitimizes the state. Then they get asked what if the left went unopposed [meaning people didn't vote against it]? Well what if participation with the state declined in the 20th century? What if they lost the consent of the governed?
  21. WasatchMan
  22. WasatchMan
  23. WasatchMan
    I am surprised nobody wants to address that giving away your principles for a single vote is like giving up your morality to steal a nickle. It's like saying blowing in a bears face is a form of self defense. It ain't going to help so you might as well keep your dignity. You are as likely to bail out the titanic with a teaspoon as you are to defend your freedom with a vote. Think about it.
  24. WasatchMan
    I am of the opinion that the vast majority of religious people know deep inside their minds that they are lying to themselves about religion. You hear this all the time from people who have come out of religion - that they always knew religion was wrong but kept that thought subverted whenever it raised its head. Social acceptance allows people to maintain a view that they know is wrong. If everybody around me is able to accept it who am I to disagree? This means that you typically can't "logic" them out of religion. Heck, their own brain can't "logic" them out of religion. Because of this, it has been my opinion for a while now that the only way to turn the tide against religious people is shame. They know that holding onto religious beliefs is disgraceful, however they have enough people around them to make it seem respectable. If atheists start standing up with dignity and strength and shame people for having this belief system, they will have not choice but to give the skeptical part of their mind a voice in their mecosystem. They will not be able to as easily suppress these thoughts when they get flanked from the outside with shame and their internal shame has a chance to win the day and conquer their addiction to mental weakness. As the skepticism rises with religious people, they will slowly find themselves more and more unable to keep up the lie - because they will have less and less social acceptance. Their external support system will weaken, and at a critical mass will collapse. This is why I have been so critical Stefan's apparent alliance with religion to try to fight against leftism. This alliance provides cover for some of the the worst philosophical concepts known to humanity and that is faith and superstition and instead of eroding religion we end up bolstering it with our alliance. Even if you can make the pragmatic case the leftists cause more harm than the religious, the compromise is not worth it because you helping to perpetuate a lie and building up the battlements against philosophy. I would rather take the tougher road and try to get people to accept philosophy than to ally with faith and superstition for an easier fight against the left.
  25. WasatchMan
    If you accept anarchy as the only moral system to organize groups of peoples behavior and interactions because it removes the use of force as the means to create and enforce rules, are you really willing to bend your principles for one measly vote out of millions in a electoral college system? To me this would be like giving up your principle not to steal because you see you have a chance at stealing a nickle from neighbor. In other words, if your moral principles are not iron clad, at least have the dignity to not give them up for such a pittance. I find it odd that people create such a moral quandary around voting... With all due respect, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Your vote does not change anything, however, I suspect that people get so wrapped around the axle on this issue is because it makes them think they are doing something so they really don't have to go out and actually do something.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept