WasatchMan

Its really hard to say, but the negatives don't sound good. If you think she is potentially narcissistic I would try try to flesh that out. Be honest about things she does that annoys/troubles you and see if she 1) tries to understand where you are coming from and then actually works on fixing it or 2) tries to minimize your experience, escalate and try to leverage any power position she has on you, and then doesn't change. A narcissist (in my experience) will almost always resort to number 2 when confronted with someone elses experience that inconveniences/aggravates. One thing I can tell you is that if you are thinking about dating her, she can't be your roommate. Don't know if I read this wrong, but you can't offer her a place to live with you. That is asking for trouble, especially with both your histories.

I am curious if anyone else reading this thread thinks I have been unfair, or strawmanning, or giving non-answers, to J.D. Stembal with my responses in this thread. I honestly feel like I am being as straight as I can in giving my perspective to the proposition presented by him. So if I am that far off where I have obviously aggravated him to the point of blocking me, I would really like to understand others honest experience and how I could have maybe better presented my disagreement. Thanks in advance.

My objection to tribalism is it is not objective. It is like saying "X" behavior is good because of culture. I am all for standing up for men's rights, because men's rights is objectively a good cause. However, I don't see how buying Roosh's books advances that cause. Feminism not liking him is definetly not a reason. I will admit that my knowledge of Roosh isn't very deep, however I have never seen any objective reason to support him. I think if anything supporting him to try to advance men's rights is counterproductive. I mean, do you really want to have to back someone who writes books called "Bang 'X'" teaching people strategies to get easy sex with girls in other countries? Do you really want to have to support the position that rape should be legal inside your home? What objective reasons do you have for us to support Roosh besides that he is loosely affiliated with men's rights (BTW - Most men's rights groups I have seen are adamant that he does not represent men's rights) and feminists don't like him?

Is this a one sided deal? Am I suppose to come to the table with everything to satisfy you? What about trying to satisfy me and maybe trying to understand what I am saying instead of just obfuscating with quite frankly an angle I am having a very hard time understanding. Empathy, not a one way street, brother.

Technically "agnostic" applies to your position on god's existence. People have just taken the concept and applied it to other positions on other topics (i.e. I am agnostic about "x"). This seems to be to be a pretty legitimate form of language evolution in that the utility of one concept has been broadened so it's scope provides utility in a more universal form.

I too struggled with the language when I was writing it but I wasn't successful with finding other ways to put it. I think the sentiment is still correct, even if the words are somewhat stenched in statist platitudes that infer social engineering or force. I do want a society created where the initiation of force is abolished, however I do know this means that a lot of people of to agree with the logic of this and that is why convincing others of the moral necessity of accepting the NAP universally should be the first and foremost goal of ancaps.

I don't know how saying that supporting someone just because they are being attacked by feminism is tribalism was not a case against your proposition or is in any way an "argument from adjective". You are sounding actually rather insane to me right now.

huh? You use that against me when you are saying you are going to buy all of Roosh's books because there is a feminist poll to get them banned?

I do not support people just because they are victimized by feminists. Thats not "male solidarity" that's just tribalism.

Who said anything about the NAP being a form of governance? I am saying that the goal should be to make the NAP a moral imperative for human behavior. I don't really care what happens and what you abstractly want to deduce about "over arching higher goods" after people agree they should not accept the initiation of force to back opinions. I am not saying that the goal is to reduce aggression - I am saying that the goal is to eliminate it as a form of acceptable behavior. Everything else is just details - details that are irrelevant as long as people still think that the initiation of force is a proper to human behavior.

I doubt that. It is just people that have been given the legal right to command others to initiate force based on their opinions exercising their rights.

Escape velocities are relative to the body you are escaping from. You need to understand that velocity means nothing as far as force is concerned, so your issues around not being able to imagine things moving very fast is null. The only issue is acceleration. Acceleration (and deceleration) are the only things that people need to worry about (that is where the concept of "G"s come from). I really wasn't referring to the visual lack of cloud moving in my original post. It does seem counter intuitive to watch a 5 hour clip where it appears to our eyes that the clouds change little, but I will accept this has to do with the distance we are viewing the images. This is one case where I will follow Occam's Razor and choose to accept that the image I see, even if counter intuitive, reflects what is seen in reality as opposed to the idea that NASA would decide to hoax this whole this thing for very little gain and tons of risk. That image being what reality recorded is far more probable.

So you are saying that god is unknowable.. OK... So what? What does that have to do with philosophy, which only has to do with the knowable? Things people can make up and that aren't confined to reality are automatically out of the realm of philosophy and in the realm of made up bullshit.

Good managers will not work at a place where they are paid similar to the people they manage - because their job is exponentially harder and riskier. The employee holds little risk of overall operational performance - the manger holds most of the risk of overall operational performance. Good employees will not work where their talent, skill, and dedications allows their company to pay other people more out of the fruits of their labor - they will work somewhere where they are able to collect the fruits of their labor and the incompetent aren't thrown on their back because of their need.

Well I think there is a distinction to be made between Stef's arguments around single moms and the statement "Fox's misogynist audience". The distinction is that I believe Stef's argument is based on statistics. In statistics, there is an exception to the rule since the numbers generally follow a bell curve, and there is not the implication that if you are a single mom you are a bad person and your opinion doesn't matter - just that generally single moms have traits that are bad. The "Fox's misogynist audience" is a smear that implies that you are misogynistic if you watch Fox - it is an attempt to poison the well and discount any criticism by implication without argument. There is no statistical basis for Fox News's audience being misogynistic, no attempt to explain what is meant by misogynist, just a ad hominem attack on how the author personally views the Fox News audience. It is just a sophist trick.

Good work russoft! Appreciate you doing that. It is interesting that the social spread is pretty small across the board, but the economic spread is wide.

Are you talking about offering money for labor in which people can choose whether or not to make that deal freely as a exploitative coercive situation? Sounds like just word salad covered by brain puke. So what? The world isn't fair - get over it. Should we start cutting the faces of pretty women because they didn't get their looks through fairly remunerated genes? As long as people are free to choose they are not being exploited. Sounds like a pretty stupid goal if you ask me. Here we are trying to make the non-initiation of force a universal moral rule of humanity, and you come at us with the goal to end monopoly? Common man, thats just weak. You need to try to think about essentials and not stupid platitudes like "monopoly bad, me socialist, end monopoly, jobs are exploitation, inheritance bad, you didn't build that, derpty derpty do" Seriously, the stuff you put out here just comes off as complete non-sequitur non-sense. I have to guess at half of what you mean in each sentence - and I am guessing that is on purpose because if you had to be perfectly clear this stuff would come off as non-sense to you as well. You hide everything in neatly packed socialist pre-conclusions. This forum has tons of arguments against these things - we are here because we are generally ancaps and do not accept socialism based on logic, reason, and ethics. We don't accept that jobs exploit others - you have to prove that and show where our arguments against that are wrong. We don't accept that monopolies are bad as such - you have to prove that and show where our arguments against that are wrong. We don't care if people don't deserve their money we only care that they didn't initiate force to get it - if you think otherwise - you have to prove that and show where our arguments against that are wrong. Until you prove it, don't think you can just throw your pre-conclusions around here and think you are making an argument. If nothing else - for the sake of your own time since you are not even scratching the surface with this stuff. We don't accept your premises.

hmmm... it seems some people don't understand the difference between acceleration, absolute velocity, and relative velocity. Please educate yourself with researching "reference frames" and really try to understand that concept. If you are interested in physics it is a very basic yet important concept.

The Goal: Anarcho-Capitalism is the goal to move the moral compass of society to accept the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) universally as part of its moral canon - to create a society which rejects any and all digressions from the NAP. The Implications: This goal would remove all pragmatic “what if” scenarios from our radar and no longer distract anarcho-capitalists from our essential philosophic truth - the evil involved in the initiation of force. Our goal is to abolish the acceptable practice of initiating force against others from the tool box of human action for moral individuals. Just like the goal of abolitionists was to convince society that slavery was not acceptable moral behavior, and any “what if” scenario about a future big business enacting slavery would be irrelevant to this goal (since it would be - and now is - established that this would be unacceptable behavior), our goal would allow us to focus on the essentials. Convincing others they don't have the right to, or enable, the initiation of force against others is the battle - all the rest are details. Details are for later - morality is for for the present. Let us not focus on the ends of how an anarchist society would function, but first convince others of the universal morality of the NAP. The resultant society will impose the details, necessarily.

My rebuttal... Works? Why does that matter? Whether or not something works is not the standard of morality (even though reality has proven socialism doesn't work). Ethics is the standard of human action. Theft is immoral. Force is immoral. Therefore, socialism is immoral. If slavery WORKS should we adopt that? Man stands on principle, not on pragmatism. If "working" is the standard then subjectivism is the rule.

ummm.. reality... His business is failing in reality.

Some people appear to have no reading comprehension when it comes to issues they are emotionally invested in.

Reminds me of the story of the 20th Century Motor Company from Atlas Shrugged. Its long.. but what the hell.

It is pretty relevant right now with Rowdy Roddy Piper just passing

I think the most powerful argument I have heard for this came from Stefan. To paraphrase, it goes something like this: Do you think it was important for people during slavery to figure out how farming would work post-slavery before trying to end it? Slavery was ended because it is evil for some humans to forcibly own other humans, this is an argument from principle - not pragmatism. Statism should be ended because it is evil for some people to have the legal protection to initiate force against other people - this is the ethical principle. From the pragmatic standpoint, you never could have got the innovation in farming machinery while slavery was still protected by the government. Who would have predicted that machines that use million year old tree juice would be created to replace the labor of hundreds of slaves? How can we predict what innovation will come along after leach of the state is removed from societies jugular?