Anuojat

Though as far as we know her childhood was good one. But the recent events the horryfying ones. Though shes always been like her dad; firm and grounded and strong willed. So again id say this is all a mask to hide her terror of recent events.

Ahh right. Well in this scene Arya is obviously being, witdrawn almost as if shes talkign to herself really. And no she didnt kill him the mans dying from haywaymen/bandits/soldier looting people. But yeah totally callious after being herself subjected to horrors and having seen so many of whom she cares about dying. So essentially shes trying to rationalize her pain and not be gentle (or have energy for it anymore).

Ummm wait huh? What in that sentence doesnt make sense? The fact that nothing (no life for instance) can actually be worse and Arya is just being uber emo?

Ite löysin tien (usko tai älä) hikoilulla ja stressillä TYT kautta koska olin sossu alunalkean (outo vaihe ateismin tultua ) Oli kovaa vääntöä aluksi mutta sitten taivuin kuin sama arguementit "jumalaa" kohden vuan käänneettin "valtioksi" Kattelin Daily Showta kerran ja näin linkin stefanin videoon "19 tough questiosn for libertarians" Ja onneksi samaan aikaan kattelin Penn and Tellerin BULLSHIT! sarjaa

Thankfully where i live at, polic officers are seen more or less like tired old postal workers... no seriously Also i never had the "police are here to protect you" BS. Mine was "if X happens call this and this number for help or/and stay away from said danger" and "how to avoid trouble or people trying to fool you" A lecture by police officer on how to protect yourself from frauds and thiefs and... *sigh* yes from people whom woud try to kidnap you. Which yeah fearmongering a bit but actually he didnt say that he was here to "protect" you. He said police were there to be called to "rescue" and that most impor thigns is sefl protection (and common sense and clear mind among strangers) first And this was done in all schools. And only twice. Unfortunately he didnt give advice how to escape bad schools...

Hmmmm mielenkiintoista! En ole varman mutta kattelen tässä jos jotain vosis sattua. Silti... apljon tuntematonta porukkaa

Oh my this topic tickled at my memories of school: - You gotto get a good score how else woulkd you deal with REAL life. - Ok maybe youre totally uninterested in topic X and it may not be of any use to you at all but hey you should still try! Also it is mandatory. - If you dont go to school youll be left out of knowing important things. - I know youre being bullied constant, but we are trying everything we can... except you cant leave this school or not go to school at all. - Information on the internet MAY be useful but textbooks are always more accurate and contain less errors and lies! - I dont have time to actually talk to you about subjects you might be interested in o answer all your silly questions, jsut read the textbook! (aka textbooks beat critical inquiry and curiosity) - School is socially healthy experience! - Anarchy generally means or results in violance. (though luckily failed states WERE mentioned) - Philosofy is mostly mumbojumbo unless if it relates to har sciences. - There really is magical spell that differantiate 4 from 5! (in finland 4 means failed and 5 is the lowerst accepted score) - Being bullied is normal it happens to everyone. And so on

“”Sorry to be picky, but again I get confused by certain statements being made on your part. You both feel that the debate is not over (you use the words "dead wrong", which seems to imply some credible criticism to the theory), but then state how you have "not seen any credible counterevidence (scientists or scientific papers) that cast serious doubt...". These statements conflict with one another. If there is no counter-evidence, how can the the debate not be over in your mind? I'm also not sure what the ambiguous phrase 'serious doubt' means (so there is just a little doubt? Can doubt be a partial concept?).”” When I say that the “debate is not over” what I mean is that the debate on how much effect humans have is nto over, as I said this didn’t i? “if they say that humans have influence trough Co2 (and its positive and negative feedbakcs) then its just matter of HOW MUCH effect on the climate.” AWG as I understand is that climate is effected by humans. I know that there is the “climate chance is DRIVEN by humans” which is the one which has its proponents and skeptics. Co2 is not the only driver of climate but can, if by humans or anything else, set into motion the positive feedback loop (the one I referred to as vicious circle). What I haven’t seen concerning climate chance are papers which cast serious doubt that humans have effect on global warming and climate chance trough Co2 "at all". Scientists in the field currently debate the effects size that humans have, not if AWG is real because it has been shown to be so trough research and constant piling of evidence. And yes one can have serious doubt and little doubt, depending on the evidence and validity of theories. "And everthing ive had given to me has been (when you go the actual source) not what people claim the source says. Or that sources given havent been from sciensts in the field or from any scinetic papers or even scientific community at all." I agree that we can refer to experts to help make our points, but I also find this statement confusing. Firstly, why do you have to be "given" evidence to the contrary when you are "looking to be proven wrong"? This implies that you are both active and passive in your pursuit of counter-evidence. Also, in reference to your "everything I've been given" comment, Dr. David Evans, whose biography seems to suggest he is an expert in his field, and one who has used his expertise to consult with the Australian Department of Climate Change, does not qualify for you as an expert in the field? If so, then you cannot used the word "everything". Moreover, I'm not sure how this source is not what I claimed it to be. I feel as though there may be some defenses around counter-evidence at work here. Again, I'm not sure why I should trust the information on skeptical science over his, but in the face of conflicting information, I maintain skepticism on those making the claim (who carry the burden of proof). I have no problem with counter-claims, but if the research cited has been funded by government grants, they would be no less potentially bias than if Evans were being funded by big oil. As Stef said in a recent podcast, any "science" funded by the government is just another government program. Because if I want to be proven wrong/mistaken then id need counter evidence now wouldn’t i? If one wants to be proven wrong then wouldn’t it make sense to both seek and be given evidence to the contrary? I am guessing this confusion came from me only taking you into account and not saying the “seeking evidence” in the first place? Well lets see: No Dr. Evans is not a climatologist or someone who has similar credentials (such as PhD in atmospheric sciences ect.) Also Dr. Evans work with Australia’s Greenhouse office was as consultant to make carbon accounting model as electrical engineer not as expert on climate chance. And the big thing about his sceptics case: If what in skeptical science is wrong about address D. Evans case then it would be nice to see it. Do they address him? Based on what is in the “Skeptics case” page on Mises id say they address parts of it. Admittingly not all. Also he is citing NASA satellites (and ARGO) in the text but they both were broken or unworking when i tried to check the sources so I went straight to NASA and they showed these: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ And again, skepticalscience.com aside, Study which Dr. Evans cites is research by Lindzen and Cho whos study ONLY deals with tropics as they themselves point out in the study and not with the whole planet. ALL scientific research is at least partially funded by the state, but again not similarly in all countries and the evidence doesn’t care if its funded by state or not. I doubt and question the evidence. So this would make all science a government program, and YES if all and every single research or piece of evidence was produced on direct political influence then yes it would be questionable, however saying government gives grants and puts money into certain field doesn’t directly make that WHOLE field unto a government program. Obviously government and politicians and political activists have interests in the field of climetology. In science debunking and disproving thoeries is the key and msot prominent role (in terms of success) overturning current theory and explainign facts and observations is waht is constant in scientific community. So yes politics can muddle the issue but ultimately it cannot keep better explanations in peer rewiev to emerge. "This i might have confused for emphaty since i though surely if youre interested in this topic then being informed about potential error in said topic would be kind and understanding thing to do IF i cared about you" Well, I appreciate the correction on the use of empathy, but I don't know how or why you care about me or why you think "correcting" someone is to show care for that person. I have not seen care expressed through empathy. If you want to help people, you need to connect with them. People don't listen to Stef because he says stuff that theoretically makes sense, but rather because he lives his values. This is why I have quickly abandoned the typical back and forth debate on AGW in favor of trying to understand where you're coming from. Making myself dependent on convincing you of a position I hold (or vice versa) would be a waste of energy, as most debates are not actually about the issue, but about people's un-excavated histories. Wait, are you saying that I cannot or should not help total strangers? If try to correct someone it in my opinion show caring because i assume people do not wish to be wrong in the subjects they got interests in. For example, if someone loves certain foods but makes mistake in cooking something and I notice this error and point it out to him… I expect this to be good thing for him and make him happy, not having to see his entire stew gone bad because of error that could have still been corrected. I don’t know about connection, if you feel that you cannot trust me without a personal connection, that’s fine and if you feel this to be the case strong enough so that we should focus on it. Then I am more than happy to. No, I don’t trust Stephan just because he lives his values, I trust evidence and reason. And yes while peeling off layers to find out persons motivations is important, that shouldn’t discredit evidence and research if they are still based on scientific method. Well I can only assure you that this is not about my history but genuine wish to further reason and push away error in place of truth and valid reasoning. "I dont know how to take your abusive history into account except only by NOT trying to be manipulative in any way." I appreciate that, but I think you may underestimate the power of our histories and how much it influences our thoughts and actions. And if underestimated, you may not recognize that you are manipulating. Ok how “may” I be underestimating our histories and its influence? And HUH???, ok now I am really confused myself: How can I be manipulative without knowing it? That doesn’t seem to make any sense... unless if youre thinking of people switching to parental or toher alter egos in differant situations? (just guessing here) "Might my religious upbringing have something to do with this? I think so, since as young boy/man i did try to smoothen out or soften the religious tensions that people had with christians and christanity (and faith in general). But my underlying reason was to help others, genuinely help them and as it turned out THEY were the ones to guide me from error when i thought i was right and rational about those beliefs which i held. Well the most exhausting thign was the bullies actually, religious and socialist parts were to the most part only confusing and jamming. I feel like there are some pieces missing here to make sense of this (like how the Christians you were trying to help led them to help you accept reason), but more importantly: why did you feel it was your job as a child to soften tensions between grown ups? I didn’t say with Christian but with people whom had tensions with Christianity and religion. And I did try to soften tension and potential misunderstandings with people of similar age. I didn’t do this when I was 0-13 but when I was 14-21. And with people of similar age. Who were not religious or whom were deists ect. Now why did I feel I needed to do this? Back then I thought because there were people who were clammering Christians and religious people into similar baskets without any regard for divergence. I also felt that my faith was being challenged so I felt that tension within me too. "My parents were (and still are) veeeeeery moderate. And never shunned critical inquiry or societal alternatives to complex problems." I don't know what "veeeeery moderate" means when it comes to religion. Your parents do not shun critical inquiry to the complex problems in the proof of the God they believe in, the destructiveness of religion throughout history, their role in the infliction of religious lies upon others (including their own children), how all of this contributes to the cycle of violence, and the alternative of atheism? That is called me speaking on the top of my head. So veeeery moderate is just me being general. In the “critical inquiry, proof of god” Yes. But they saw no destructiveness in religion by itself by in the abuse of religion as tool of power. To them all religious violence was fanatism and/or politics and that person can be peaceful and religious and thus they don’t equate religion with violence per say. They don’t see expression of faith to others as lies and they don’t really lie per say… they’re simply mistaken. (like about exodus) They did talk about atheism but they didn’t associate religion or faith with cycle of violence. In fact theyre knowledge of it is limited to neglect and physical abuse that is easy to spot. "Well i certainly hope ive made my motivations clearer and i hope ive given satisfactory answers." I'm not looking for "satisfactory answers", just emotionally honest ones. "I am wondering if you did watch the series by pothole54?" I watched the first video, and it does conflict with some of what I've read from skeptics as far as interpretation of data is concerned, but I'd like to know what makes him a credible, unbias synthesizer of information in your mind (he mentions being involved with KYOTO, which sets off red flags to me). Information can be manipulated or arranged to purport any view we want, but I am less concerned about debating the minutia of every last conflicting interpretation in this theory than I am trying to understand why convincing others is important to you. Ultimately, I would have to understand and trust you before I would place value in the sources you share with me. Because his source’s and counter claims have been valid, he posts his sources always and makes videos consistently debunking myths about climate chance. No matter whom the myths come from. And he requests to be shown errors for him so he can correc them (and he has done it in the past). KYOTO… why the red flags? Why is this so? 1+1=2. No matter how much you trust me. The sources either say what I claimed or they don’t J Look I understand if personal trust is important to you, I just don’t see why since I can always read the sources and see who are the people who straw man opponents less or not at all ect. There is a way to objectively find out if the person your dealing with is lying: Ask for sources of such claims and check if they are valid or say what they are claimed to say. You can manipulate information only so much until contradictions start to arise. But all in all, id say that IF this is conversation about gaining trust and about motivations behind what we say… then would you like to talk about them on separate topic since this one was about the series on climate chance. If you wish we can continue these personal questions here, however to fully trust and know someone… in my opinion would mean becoming friend in one way or another and thus IM/Skype or chatrooms would be more helpful J This is of course only me speaking here, so what do you think? PS. HOLYCRAP this is getting disturbingly long... a voice conversation would have sorted this out much faster! I hope this wont grow too long and large

If i or anyone sees something which theyve previously seen explanation for then i would try to correct them even if iam not an expert on the field because specific questions in that field can be debate by laymen IF what is presented is relevant. For example, Stefan is no biologist or economist (though know lot about the latter) but he can and will try to correct toher to the best of his knowledge by referring the work of others (and expert on that field). If someone beliefs that X causes Z because of Y then if one has seen experts already talk/reaseach about X, Z and Y the pointing this out is not the laymen pretending to be and expert, rather is trying to correct someone to the best of his/her knowledge WITH referances to the actual scientific papers and scientists in said field. That links were ONLY in responce about Bob Carter Dr. Evans, i didnt mean to post them for anything else. If there are problems with what is said there then those need to be adressed naturally, since if claims there are NOT based on scientific sources then they are equally suspect as anyone else is If the poeple on the website lcaim that the "debate is over" theyre dead wrong, if they say that humans have influence trough Co2 (and its positive and negative feedbakcs) then its just matter of HOW MUCH effect on the climate. I am looking to be proven wrong, but so far ive not seen any credible counterevidence (scientists or scientific papers) which cast serious dout on AGW and climate chance currently understood. And everthing ive had given to me has been (when you go the actual source) not what people claim the source says. Or that sources given havent been from sciensts in the field or from any scinetic papers or even scientific community at all. Let me explain: I am looking to be proven wrong EVEN when i am very confidant in what i try to inform someone about. When i try to correct someone i dont do it with my opinions alone (aka my opinions mean nothing without basis for it from the field itself ect.) When i talk to a statist for example, i dont just say a conclusion or assert stuff, i explain (or often deperately try to) my reasons for what i say and show evidenve from fields like economics/sociaolog/psycology ect. This is where i have to make an admission; Emphaty was perhaps wrong word to use and apologize for this if it was since what i feel is that someone was interested in X and made mistake about X according to what ive learned and thus i jumped on to inform them about such potential error. Now you didnt obviously ask for this i just saw the comment and decided to reply. This i might have confused for emphaty since i though surely if youre interested in this topic then being informed about potential error in said topic would be kind and understanding thing to do IF i cared about you. So yes i am not sure, but thats where i might have done goofeed and made a mistake. I dont know how to take your abusive history into account except only by NOT trying to be manipulative in any way. Well helping others IS what i want and have always wanted, it does bring me joy to help people and to perhaps tell them about something which if correct chances their mind or mine away from error and closer to truth. Might my religious upbringing have something to do with this? I think so, since as young boy/man i did try to smoothen out or soften the religious tensions that people had with christians and christanity (and faith in general). But my underlying reason was to help others, genuinely help them and as it turned out THEY were the ones to guide me from error when i thought i was right and rational about those beliefs which i held. Well the most exhausting thign was the bullies actually, religious and socialist parts were to the most part only confusing and jamming. My parents were (and still are) veeeeeery moderate. And never shunned critical inquiry or societal alternatives to complex problems. Well i certainly hope ive made my motivations clearer and i hope ive given satisfactory answers. If not and ive missed something or something is incorrect let me know if you want to continue. PS. I am wondering if you did watch the series by pothole54?

Damn i cant come with any manipulative person in my life expect one! *Well if you dont do as i wish then clearly youre being an asshat. We're friends remember?*

Well first of all, its important to always go to the source and find out what debunking is based on and is it unfounded or correct. So i always (and i suggest everyone should) see if there is debinking going on and if its valid to what decree; for example people should debunk the scietific papers not each others blogs if they wish to make sense of it all in lasting manner. And its important whom the scientist are and if one is not scientist in field X then its merely opinion outside the field. And in the field of climatology there are proponents and skeptics in the field and there is constant debate. HOWEVER, to say government or politics have no influence on these is not rational and to be skeptical in science is and always has been the largest part: You dont proof theories you debunk them for BETTER explanation of the facts, as potholer himself said "the opinions of politicians, ipcc or even my opinions are irrelevant. Only proper research and evidence should stand." And i concur. Now after the LONG clarification i will adress your main concern: Climate chance, evolution, physics, biology overall and science in general is import to me because ive always (aka as far i can remember) been curious and interested in nature and how it works. Also since i became atheist libertarian AFTER having been christian socialist it has been very import for me to be proven wrong and make sure to inform others if thyve made errors in thigns theyre interested in or passionate about. Reason for this from me is simple: I have very strong emphaty towards others but more like one where i see people making mistakes of saying thigns i know have been explained before, well naturally i wish to inform those people to help them AND myself should it turn out it was i who was mistaken What i feel to be at stake is that people whom otherwise are wise and intelligent, fall into the ignorance in other fields and say thigns which discredit them in the eyes of many. I kno this is pure BS since its just overtly blaming people for differant conclusions, but i also see that many scientific or economically or philosofically savvy people, fail badly in other areas and dont chance theyre minds because they think that facts might hurt their position. In other words: I do this so rational people can bounce off information from one another to correct/help one another whre ones expertise or knowledge ends. Just like person who knows medicine but not how to drive safely very fast. "I drive the doctor and he does the deed, but both of us need each other and learn from each other."

I have to point out that Potholer did adress feedbacks and feedback loops in his series. Did you watch that part yourself? (And also he did talk about Bob carter several times) 1,2,4,5 and 27. And you last remark: Ive never heard any scientist (or someone like potholer54) postulate or claim this. Media that is politically biased certainly does that often enough though. In the past release of C02 DID indeed set up the vicious circle in motion but its not and never was the only driver and it never lead neccerily to any "catastrophe". http://www.skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htm Also something on Bob carter As for Dr. Evans i cannot say much since the only noteworthy thing i could find of him which could highlight some errors of his was this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html And i myself jsut noticed this on a fly so i dont think i could be qualified to answer any questiosn since potholer and skepticalscien.com should be mroe better to answer questions naturally

Uhu i will try to find that out if tha tindeed is the case. Schools might be huge part of it because ALL his answers sound like textbook ones and ones that get reinforced by life experiences that fit the bias from said textbooks. Well he goes by the "people whom owned land in canada agreed to transfer powers of such properties to the state" AKA to him it seems legit. And before you ask no, not mention of the english monarchy. I probobly will show him this forum topic (first ofcourse looking over Stefs videos which i am currently doing)

1. He has told me his childhood was good and without any violance physical or verbal. But ill check Stefs videos again if i missed something important. 2. Actually he doesnt recodnise any violance in the equotation. He has argued to me that Canadas government own the land and thus everyone is just living Governments land like in rent or leasing. I know government is group of people and not single person whom chance all the time though And that when government uses "force" its the same as someone who own an island ruling over those who "chose" to live there and have kids. :PAch i should jsut post most if his main quotes and nto hide away Here goes: Expect many typos and if you think i was hasty or rube or if i made clear errors or didnt conduct something right.I fully expect that i made some error in haste or that maybe i was too rash and started on totally wrong grounds. "Net neutrality" doesn’t exist. Its concept that’s either valid or invalid. Logical or not. [1.6.2014 21:53:40] He: ...uhh.. Actually it is[1.6.2014 21:53:53] He: there's a IEEE/ISO standard the dictates what 'net neutrality' means[1.6.2014 21:54:01] He: it's the 'common carrier' clause[1.6.2014 21:54:21] He: It's the laws that prevent services like mail and telephone service from being biased[1.6.2014 21:54:48] He: If I phone you, a person in the USA, and a person in China, (besides long distance charges) I can call all of you equally[1.6.2014 21:54:53] He: my bill doesn't change based on who I call[1.6.2014 21:55:05] He: Also my bill doesn't change based on what we use the phone line for[1.6.2014 21:55:23] He: they can't change the service quality, cost, or speed based on what I use it for.[1.6.2014 21:55:29] He: That's the 'common carrier' clause[1.6.2014 21:56:05] Me: But it’s a concept. _Not physical object. Abstract concepts that relies on law/laws which by themselves are concepts [1.6.2014 21:56:05] He: What they're trying to do is remove net neutrality so that if you go to say Netflix, your service provider will slow down your connection on you, but make it fast if you use your provider's preferred internet video service.[1.6.2014 21:56:17] He: It doesn't matter[1.6.2014 21:56:29] He: the impact here is internet service providers screwing over customers[1.6.2014 21:56:48] He: There's a law that stops them from screwing us over called 'net neutrality'[1.6.2014 21:56:54] He: it's been in place since before Internet existed[1.6.2014 21:57:02] He: and now the assholes are trying to take it down[1.6.2014 21:58:23] Me: Ahem. "Laws”dont stop anyone XD Laws don’t have any power, belief in their validly and morality does. Those can be argued. Also... if it involves the government or current forms of corporations that’s it’s totally already off that scale.[1.6.2014 21:58:39] He: for petes sake stop it[1.6.2014 21:58:46] He: The LAW stops them form fucking people over[1.6.2014 21:58:51] Me:?[1.6.2014 21:58:53] He: if they screw with your connection, you can sue the company[1.6.2014 21:59:00] He: with the LAW removed, they can screw with you all they like[1.6.2014 21:59:09] Me: How?[1.6.2014 21:59:32] He: They can no longer be sued or have legal action put against them if it's no longer illegal to screw with the connection[1.6.2014 21:59:52] Me: Are they violating your ISP contract somehow?[1.6.2014 22:00:06] He: there is no contract[1.6.2014 22:00:25] He: Just terms of service, governed by the law that set the vast majority of the terms of service.[1.6.2014 22:00:47] He: if they take down the net neutrality law, they can screw me over *without* breaking the law[1.6.2014 22:01:13] He: If Net Neutrality law stays in place, the internet service provider can't pull any stunts without facing legal action[1.6.2014 22:01:31] He: you asked why people keep recoiling about your debates, this is why[1.6.2014 22:01:42] He: you utterly disregard all the necessary facts before making an argument[1.6.2014 22:02:45] Me: I didn’t disregard anything... as far as i can tell i just pointed out what is concept and what is not... and that anything involves the government or current state of laws and corporations is totally invalid and false.[1.6.2014 22:03:05] He: you seriously got to learn how law works[1.6.2014 22:03:36] He: having a law for or against most things is very important[1.6.2014 22:03:51] He: laws stop companies and individuals from doing unjust things without consequences[1.6.2014 22:03:58] He: unjust*[1.6.2014 22:04:12] He: Your 'open market' crap won't work here[1.6.2014 22:04:23] He: We have ONE, count it, ONE internet service provider here[1.6.2014 22:04:29] He: if we don't like it, we are shit out of luck[1.6.2014 22:04:37] He: there's no competition for us to go to[1.6.2014 22:05:03] He: We need laws to protect us from the one and only internet service provider from screwing people over.[1.6.2014 22:06:12] He: Open Market doesn't work in monopolies[1.6.2014 22:09:15] Me: Well first of all Canada doesn’t have a free market. Secondly, laws don’t stop anyone. Word in a book don’t stop anyone, its people or disincentives in reality that do. Thirdly, why is there no competition? In Finland there are 4-7 ISPs or so... always lowering prices and enhancing services.[1.6.2014 22:09:53] He: Do you have $100,000 to build your own telecommunication infrastructure?[1.6.2014 22:10:10] He: Laws DO stuff[1.6.2014 22:10:16] He: The aren't just words in a book[1.6.2014 22:10:19] He: there are people that enforce them[1.6.2014 22:10:32] He: there are legal systems, police, lawyers, prosecutors[1.6.2014 22:10:40] Me: Yup.[1.6.2014 22:10:59] He: That 'word in a book' has stopped internet service providers from screwing people over for the past 25 years[1.6.2014 22:11:06] He: so don't you dare say it does nothing[1.6.2014 22:11:14] Me: How do you know that?[1.6.2014 22:11:39] He: because repeatedly time and again when providers over stepped their boundaries, they got sued, and had to give a lot of money back to their customers[1.6.2014 22:11:59] He: They're called class-action lawsuits[1.6.2014 22:12:01] Me: What was this "overstepping of boundaries"?[1.6.2014 22:12:01] He: lawsuits*[1.6.2014 22:12:23] He: them filtering traffic, manipulating internet speeds, breaking terms of service[1.6.2014 22:12:46] He: A provider a handful of years ago was deliberately slowing down their connection to people that downloaded a lot of games on the internet[1.6.2014 22:13:02] He: they got caught and had to compensate their customers that were affected[1.6.2014 22:13:34] He: If I pay x amount of money with the promise I get x speed and x amount of data per month, I get it[1.6.2014 22:13:45] He: if they don't provide those requirements, they get sued[1.6.2014 22:13:49] He: that's a law[1.6.2014 22:13:53] He: a law that does something[1.6.2014 22:16:38] Me: Ok, so a law the government enforces says you must keep your promises. Why not simply have contracts that say "you pay X and we provide Y, with details". If you already have those and company or person/people betray you then you ought not to pay and move on to better ISP. And in the field of competition every ISP would be on they’re feet NEVER to cross you since then they can’t just chance they’re behavior and get you back, they lose trust almost permanently [1.6.2014 22:17:28] He: and who makes this 'contract'?[1.6.2014 22:17:42] Me: Lack of competition is usually signs of government interference and also lobbying and favorable legislations to special interests.[1.6.2014 22:17:47] Me: You and the ISP [1.6.2014 22:18:05] He: ISP: We give you any speed we want and you pay regardless. Ha ha ha[1.6.2014 22:18:08] He: Contract-^[1.6.2014 22:18:14] He: okay, so now I'm fucked[1.6.2014 22:18:17] Me: ???[1.6.2014 22:18:35] Me: Ok, seriously?[1.6.2014 22:18:36] He: If the ISP and I make the contract, the ISP can choose *anything* it wants in the contract[1.6.2014 22:18:43] He: If I don't like it, I don't get a choice[1.6.2014 22:18:47] He: They're the *only* ISP I have[1.6.2014 22:18:56] He: there's a thing called geological availability[1.6.2014 22:19:01] He: why don't you get that?[1.6.2014 22:19:14] Me: Huh?[1.6.2014 22:19:25] He: There is ONE SHOP[1.6.2014 22:19:28] He: ONE FUCKING SHOP[1.6.2014 22:19:33] He: THERE IS NOT COMPITITION!@!@@HIO@$JHN@}[1.6.2014 22:19:39] He: GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD[1.6.2014 22:19:58] Me: Are people clambering for new ISPs in your area? And Desperately and eagerly wish to get rid of the current asshat?[1.6.2014 22:19:59] He: Contacts don't work if there isn't a neutral party setting the rules![1.6.2014 22:20:15] He: You can't get compensation[1.6.2014 22:20:28] He: Do you know what's required for a *new* internet service provider to appear?[1.6.2014 22:20:32] He: They don't just put out a stand and are ready[1.6.2014 22:20:41] He: they need to spend over $100,000 to set up infrastructure![1.6.2014 22:20:47] Me: Ok[1.6.2014 22:20:58] He: In most places in the world there is only ONE service provider[1.6.2014 22:21:00] He: ONE[1.6.2014 22:21:04] He: there's no competition to go to![1.6.2014 22:21:05] Me: But you didn’t answer my question: Is there HUGE or lots of demand for new ISP?[1.6.2014 22:21:18] He: There's also a thing called 'collaperated monopoly'[1.6.2014 22:21:29] He: You have company 'A' and 'B' both agree to raise their costs to the same price[1.6.2014 22:21:30] Me: Stop. Your rolling over me.[1.6.2014 22:21:41] He: Both company 'A' and 'B' fuck you over[1.6.2014 22:21:47] He: they work together to give you no other choice![1.6.2014 22:21:48] Me: You’re babbling new things so fast. Let me deal with these in order [1.6.2014 22:21:51] He: that's what laws are for![1.6.2014 22:21:57] He: No[1.6.2014 22:22:02] He: Stop[1.6.2014 22:22:02] Me: !?[1.6.2014 22:22:11] He: You fucking don't get the basic concepts of law and business[1.6.2014 22:22:21] He: You NEED laws to prevent shit like this[1.6.2014 22:22:32] He: Do you even know what a law is?[1.6.2014 22:22:49] He: A law is a requirement made by the people to enforce justice and the population[1.6.2014 22:23:03] He: Laws are rules made by people to keep order for the people[1.6.2014 22:23:25] He: We need laws to stop monopolies, to stop companies from abusing customers[1.6.2014 22:23:46] He: Apple wouldn't have existed if it weren't for law[1.6.2014 22:23:56] He: Microsoft 8 times, EIGHT TIMES, got lawsuits for monopolies[1.6.2014 22:24:11] He: Microsoft was deliberately making sure no rival company can get the resources needed to grow[1.6.2014 22:24:22] He: Microsoft would pay off every provider of materials to stop competition[1.6.2014 22:24:49] Me: D, are you so blind you don’t see your rambling over me? Cant deal with flood like this unless you give me time to address each issue.[1.6.2014 22:25:03] He: You address each issue the same damn way[1.6.2014 22:25:15] He: you keep just saying the same open-ended, mindless answer of that 'it's just words on paper'[1.6.2014 22:25:20] He: you don't digest the information at all[1.6.2014 22:25:26] He: you just blurt out the same phrases[1.6.2014 22:25:29] He: this is why you piss people off[1.6.2014 22:26:19 | Muokattu 22:26:39] Me: Was that all i said? Do you wait after my comment is posted if i write more? I would have unless if you want me to write one LONG comment.[1.6.2014 22:27:01] He: A contract doesn't stop monopolies[1.6.2014 22:27:15] He: a contract doesn't stop businesses from working together to squeeze out competition and screw customers[1.6.2014 22:27:19 | Muokattu 22:27:26] Me: I didn’t say that it would [1.6.2014 22:27:25] He: He sighs[1.6.2014 22:27:50] He: You read up on the basics of laws and business before you try throwing this 'law does nothing' bullshit[1.6.2014 22:29:03] Me: [1. kesäkuuta 2014 22:09] Me: <<< Secondly, laws don’t stop anyone. Word in a book don’t stop anyone, its people or disincentives in reality that do.[1.6.2014 22:29:19] He: That entire statement is false[1.6.2014 22:29:43] He: Laws have a massive impact on people and business[1.6.2014 22:30:05] Me: So people and disincentives in reality don’t stop people?[1.6.2014 22:30:24] Me: I did clearly say PEOPLE there now didn’t i?[1.6.2014 22:30:29] He: Laws are written, people enforce them[1.6.2014 22:30:48] He: People can't enforce something they don't agree on[1.6.2014 22:30:58] He: A law is a group agreement on something to enforce[1.6.2014 22:32:57] Me: "People can’t enforce something they don’t agree on." So ISPs can’t enforce anything on you if you and other costumers disagree,[1.6.2014 22:33:48] He: ... internet is a required service[1.6.2014 22:33:50] He: I need internet[1.6.2014 22:33:58] He: If my ISP offers me something I don't like[1.6.2014 22:34:00] He: I don't get a choice[1.6.2014 22:34:08] He: I either go with what they offer, or not at all[1.6.2014 22:34:12] He: and 'not at all' isn't an option[1.6.2014 22:34:17] He: I need internet for my job[1.6.2014 22:34:22] He: and for general living[1.6.2014 22:34:25] Me: Ok[1.6.2014 22:34:28] He: That is called a MONOPOLY[1.6.2014 22:34:43] He: Laws PREVENT monopolies[1.6.2014 22:34:49] Me: Ok. And several times i asked questions regarding this monopoly.[1.6.2014 22:34:56] Me: WAIT HUH!?[1.6.2014 22:35:21] Me: So laws prevent monopolies...[1.6.2014 22:35:30] He: so you haven't listened to a damn thing I've said[1.6.2014 22:35:36] Me: ...yet you have one ISP only in your area.[1.6.2014 22:35:49] He: One hard line one, yes[1.6.2014 22:36:04] He: laws FORCE them to allow secondary companies[1.6.2014 22:36:19] He: Laws also force them to have fair terms of service[1.6.2014 22:37:06] Me: 1. "Allow"? Shouldn’t other ISPs come on in if they want to? How is this one ISP able to push others away? 2. Fair according to whom?[1.6.2014 22:39:39] He: 1. There is ONE set of physical wires. One set of poles that run networking connectivity. The main company that ones them is forced to share their lines with other internet companies at a fixed rate of cost to the other companies.1.5. One ISP doesn't need to 'push' other's away. If the company that owns all the wires and infrastructure in an area doesn't let any other company use their infrastructure, no other company can afford to build their own infrastructure to provide their own services.2. 'Fair' to the people. Laws that have been worked on over the course of many years that people have voted on and worked on for a long time.[1.6.2014 22:43:40] Me: 1. and 1.5 So building wires is expensive or if restricted by whom? And why if id own those wires should "share" them with anyone? Just because most people say so?2. Youre assuming law is fair/good/justified if most people vote on it. How do you know if law works and that its side effects don’t/wont override the assumed good ones?[1.6.2014 22:45:24] He: Are you serious about 1. ?[1.6.2014 22:45:36] He: Go then and build network infrastructure for an entire country[1.6.2014 22:45:39] He: go on, do it[1.6.2014 22:45:49] He: I'd like to see how you acquire a loan for $100,000[1.6.2014 22:46:06] He: that'd be enough for half of my province[1.6.2014 22:46:21] Me: I am serious about asking questions, yes. Nice dodge.[1.6.2014 22:46:24] He: $100,000,000 to cover a chunk of Canada[1.6.2014 22:46:38] He: dodge? Where the fuck will you get the money to build that shit?[1.6.2014 22:46:52] He: it's not restricted by anyone[1.6.2014 22:46:58] He: but building stuff COSTS MONEY[1.6.2014 22:47:20] He: seriously, how can you not expect that it'd cost millions of dollars to build networking infrascture that spans a country!?![1.6.2014 22:48:05] Me: I... didn’t expect anything. I just asked a question, you’re things i didn’t imply or say at all.[1.6.2014 22:48:19] He: No, you're deliberately asking open ended vague questions[1.6.2014 22:48:26] Me: Vague?[1.6.2014 22:48:29] He: YEE[1.6.2014 22:48:32] He: YES*[1.6.2014 22:48:43] He: You already know the answer to that question[1.6.2014 22:48:49] He: you just ask it to keep this stupid topic going forever[1.6.2014 22:48:58] He: You don't fucking win an argument by talking the person to death[1.6.2014 22:49:07] He: I'm fed up of this[1.6.2014 22:49:19] He: I've answered your god damn questions over and over and you keep asking the same fucking question spun a different way[1.6.2014 22:49:25] He: READ MY FUCKING ANSWERS[1.6.2014 22:50:02] He: I'm fed up of explaining over and over again how competition, contracts, monopolies, and network infracture limits people's choice on service providers and need laws to protect them.[1.6.2014 22:50:17] He: You're pissing me off to no end answering your idiotic questions.[1.6.2014 22:51:27] Me: And you answered first of my questions from that last batch. Not the others. With that first one i wanted to make sure it was merely issue of cost and not also of restrictions.[1.6.2014 22:51:43] Me: Also i DID read all of your answers D.

Religious people. Having been one myself, its so frustrating to SEE almost like actual physical lego blocks in people heads that bar reason. Just as ProfessorChaos pointed out, any threat against the "religion" or critism or pointing out how absurd and logicall incoherent it is, now threathens THEM. Since theyve staked themselves to it so much. A relative who is religous once told me: "You cant take my faith away from me. It is deep in me and somethign which i cant explain but is so wonderful and strong and beutiful." In other words... dont you dare call my delusions what they are, cause i might get upset! (And pretend/feel that youre attacking ME. AND i will emotionally blakcmail you to stop if that reliafs me the pain to admit that my faith is delusional)

Hmmm, so government build wires and gave them to ISP, smaller competetors cant build new ones because of zoning and permits and other government related stuff that raise the prices of such things. So should i continue with this? My friend has as youve read already said the he think laws exist to protect people and that "well without net neutrality you cannot sue these companies and thus we need it. Also companies always screw you anyways but both raising prices in the end." Might i be dealing with lost cause or is this very light stuff in your experience if youve ever debated statists?

In that case shouldnt it be simple matter of showing how the state has coersion in this matter. I cant pin point anything specific, ive tried to research it but i havent so far com up with "how" the state is involved with ISPs. Or how state hampers competetors coming to the market ect. With more digging i could probobly find all the details but i am somewhat stuck on this (and frankly MOST of how state coerses certain industrys, its HARD to find the information.)

Hello everyone, especially those hailing from either near or if luck has it from Canada I was talking to my canadian friend and we got into heated disscussion about net neutrality. He claimed that where he comes from (Mandatora?) ISP has a monopoly and goverment and laws (like net neutrality) protect him and consumers from this/these ISPs from screwing them over by both ignoring theyre terms of service and by wishing to abolish net neutrality. He also claimed that laws in general protect people from companies like this when they have a monopoly and "my" free market stuff doesnt work in this case since there is no competation and even if theyre was 2 companies would simply screw you over by setting the price same (and evidently never screw each other somehow). And also he said/claimed that it takes 100000$ to build up a new network there and noone is seemingly willing to invest this to come over. When i asked him if there was enough demand in his area he ignored that and moved on to say that laws force this monopoly ISP to have "secondary companies." So Anyone form Canada of knowledable on this issue can you shed some light? Does goverment have soem really obvious part that it plays with this? PS. Also again hoping this is in the right forum category!

Allright then. They are accountable, they (or i) dont deny that. My parents did have the dignity to admit that, however what ive always so far in these posts (hopefully) made clear that they were not willfully ignorant or not chancing after they discovered this. PS. Now, do you think after this i could inquire about the other half of the puzzle with regards to my selfknowledge or do you think the parental side was the one you wanted to contribute to and talk about? The other side being the feelings of anger before happiness, and constant mental blocks to my dreams and pursuits in RL.

How much effort? This i do not know, most likely much effort in parenting itself but not research on schools and theyre effects. School was to them generally assumed to be best possible option. Is this flawed thinking? Well yes it is, but again there is a differance between being willfully ignorant and being raised in a place where going to public schools is the norm. I would agree responceability driving a car is import since i and everyone around me care about the safety of such things. The negative effects of public schools was not evident at all until it was too late, there was no information available that they could see. Did they search for training to be parents and child goign to school? Yup, but alas most of it was government or those in academia provided. Look it sounds that youre asking me if my parents were incompetant parents? Not on every instance, but generally they were better than most. No violance, (almost) no shouting, spending time with us as kids. Did my parents really thought the idea of schooling trough? No they didnt. Did they assume that school was normal and natural part of life? Yup. There was no any consideration that schools maybe unneccery or harmful to us. If they knew that they would have recoiled from it. So yes, when it came to certain things my parents did lack critical thinking skills to think outside the box and went with the herd simply because everyone was doing it too, they included as children. The very idea that public schools would be harmful for most people here is the same as saying that being healthy is bad. It is assumed to be good in itself and only some minor parts of it having potential bad traits. Would we call this incompetance? Sure. Incompetance from being sheeple to social conformity and lacking in critical thinking on areas whos negative effects are obscured by the state and academia. My parents dont wish to be irresponceable but if there is no connection to reality on that front they wouldnt act. I hope this clears it up.

How is one incompotent when one doest know that something is bad? They send me off to school jsut like everyone else did, you seem to imply that my parents when either of a better way or knew that school was goign to be bad for me. They were just as incompetant as any other parent who was duped, one cannot assign blame if the people involved though i was for the best and then were mistaken. I am not making any excuses for anyone, i offering reasons why my parent did what they did. Did they want to put me in shitty schools? No, they though it was fine up until they saw that it wasnt working well (or in reverse ins some cases to be sure). And by the by, self knowledge is somethign i seek and try to do every day. I dont see how i am avoiding self knowledge when i openly stated in my first post about possible reason why this is happening, and also wanted feedback on how to improve overcoming those obsticles. Which i mentioned in the first post too.

Leave finland? You speak as if my parents knew better, they didnt. And infact they didnt know beforehand that school would suck for me or even did suck. Leaving the country is nto something people casually think of atleast not in here, sure it might have been better i do not know, but being as they were its not like leaving is even remote though of since it where they had grown up to be thus faults of the system are/were not apparent. Also the other aspect which i mentioned i see as the more import one to focus on, what do you think of that?

Well the thing is school was full of bullying for me and mostly place where i had the worst time as a child, and no i am not angry at my parents sinc ein finland it is mandatory to be in basic school not just to pay for them. They did consider other options but were quite badly pushed to the wall, and have admitted that in light of everythign that happened it was miserable time. And in the school the experience was jsut as i descrived. I was the child who was optimistic and happy and joyful but many many other had abusive parents or jsut bad parenting households. I though i was refering it it being COMMON fear, although you got me there: Ive never had fear of failure as long as i know, and for many it was common enough to feel like normal fear. And wait are you saying person having fear/s of some sort wouldnt have selfknowledge, now admittedly i am working on selfknowledge and having more clarity on it, maybe this is why the potential confusion? PS. Fear of failure, fear of social dissapproval (mild these days), fear of failing and fear of dissappontment. I identify them as having them, isint self knowledge way of helping to overcome them? One tool out of many?

Well its before the activity starts actually. It feels often like (and reminds me of) a defence mechanism and in relation with my school years. Its was then like this: "Being happy, joyful and having dreams is stupid and must be crushed. Life sucks and stop being so nice and so happy and open." Which was the attitute of many boys in my school, some girls too: 1. Self expression that wasnt vile was pussy and childlike. Imagination and being child was not cool and if one was nice to tohers then naturally one would get bullied. 2. General anguish towards being cutesy and happy little thing. (which i was and still try to be) Its weird how that translates to well unto adulthood among other thigns, fear of failure. Fear of being made fun of. LEading to endless procrastinating self expression and doing the hobbies and activities that make me happy as a person. Also it is very muhc aplified when thigns come to face whcih i must do, like cleaning, housework, finding jobs and other daily tastks healthy or otherwise.When i feel like drawing which i love, or writing or ANYHTING i like at all. The feeling comes unto forfront and tries to drag me to cold and boring place which is like limbo. I want to achive dreams or atleast do the smaller stuff i want to do. Such as exersise and educating myself... but then candies cola, pizza, tea and bideo games and youtube videos are sooooo nicer to look at and eat up. And "it" uses that as leverage to get me awaoy from working on my dreams. I dont lack the fuel or engine, i lack the spark and momentun to keep me going WHILE being still happy in more ways than one, if i "JUST draw" i feek anxiety without some other activity behind me. PS. Also to clarify on the relationship to school years, i was bullied for 6 years straight. And nowdays when i actually dos tuff like exersise, clean the house, especially when search for job with contacts and enthusiasm i get internal anger. Just anger and fury from doing stuff, its like being or dragon being forced out of its comfort zone! XD

Hello, everyone. I am hoping this goes to right board since i am not sure if this is the right one. Lets hope and see. So, i am and ave been into self knowledge ever since i transitioned from being christian and socialist to who i am now (ancap). But even before that and to this day ive had this nasty feelign inside me about getting angry when HAPPY or trying to achieve dreams and goals in life. I want X (painting, 3d modelling, learning a new skill and getting new friends ect.) However whenever i do theres sensation in me to recoil from this happiness. Now i do realise this sounds very classic case of fear of failure and perhaps some remnant strong feeling of being led down and bullied in school and kindergarden at young age. What are you thoughts on feelings of anger, feeling of recoiling from doing stuff that you dream or and slamming yourself down to be pitiful and miserable and procrastinate when you got the energy for it? PS. Also theres often feeling to escape into games and drinks and fastfood and meneal things since the "dreams" or hobbies that i love are too hard and strainious. Its like person who paints one stroke at 1 hour just to feel good and avoid constant painting since... its hard and he cant feel good inside like he does with food. But when i actually DO IT for while i no longer feel urge to procrastinate.