Anuojat

Well communists and the book "rules for radicals" came out before the drug war. I think these people have been giving excuses to harm someone by labellign them nazi ect. Dehumanizing them so they can attack them with ease. WHY? Because if you got an enemy... evil that you can see your lifes problem can be dissassociated away msot easily. Now BIG part of those problems are choices but also the drug war fueling community breakdowns. Add in this affirmitive action and well... you get the palces these people grew up in atleast the blacks.

And you know the company you keep if they excuse this violance in any way. Calling its "ok" because hate speech and nazism. I can see few already doing it revealing themselves for the TRUE fascists they are.

Relevant to this methinks:

All i mean by the second sentance is that all 3 of these are acted upon the idea/false principle that YOUR emotions and experiences should BE physics or reality/universality. (i should have worses it better) Hypocracy: ISIS terrorist are all evil! They are violent and rapists also! But me as politician throing to rape rooms of prison and ordering you shot because you disagree with me is totally virtuous! (AKA putting yourself above the principle and value you espouse, you are the EXCEPTION ABOVE UNIVERSALITY and also ABOVE REALITY since you too are human being but claim you are special part of reality.) Nihilism: My parents and school were horribly abusive and valueless and just strived for power nietchian style. Will power is there is, no truth no justice no reality Everything is jsut fog. In this case ones abusive past is placed ontop of reality and truth and universality. And also human history is put there to. Child abuse: Both nihilism and hypocracy. Nihilism in its application hypocracy in its justification. Now this only means that all 3 are perperated trough substituting reality/universality with your emotions and (bad/traumatic) experiences. NOT that act of anecdotes or arguement from authority is itself evil.

Hypocracy, nihilism and child abuse. All 3 substitude YOUR emotions and experiences as PHYSICS and as Universality.

Why would you not want ot call in? Do you fear Stefan will misrepresent you? Do you think you have the right arguements but not the mental fortitude to change his mind? Thats all i get from what youve said so far especially the umm last pages "concern".

https://www.youtube.com/user/lowcarbdownunder/videos?flow=grid&view=0&sort=p For whats its worth. Lots of scientists and nutricitionists (spelling?) here talking about the latest science along with the history of the reseach and cholestrol/fat/carbs

We are still talking about putting piece of vegetation in your own mouth right? Jeff Sessions is wrongnot merely regarding the morality/sanity/consistency of drug war but also its effects. ITs beena bsolute failure and distater on the American people and also to mexicans. Mexico partially being the hell hole it is because of war on drugs. Partially.

Wow. Holy fucking shit! :O What an honest woman Honesty of pragmatism not virtue mind you, but still supricingly honest.

Cool Though, why 3.5? And not 5?

I was going to answer your question but then realized this isitn fruitful for me anymore. I dont think i can change your mind on this or explain it any better. And i also see you have now twisted or heavily misunderstood what i was saying about the belief in god and about honesty and confrontation. Either way i do not feel like continuing this discussion anymore.

Did you parents neglect or abuse you hen you were a child? You dont owe then anything. How do your parents react to your genuine emotions? If you truely love you theyd be curious pre-emptively. If they love you... they wouldnt make demands for you to be there. Requests rather and understanding if you cant be there. It "sounds" to me that they did abuse you and dont really love you. So dont confuse primordial and deep FEAR with love. Relevant: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/374/deathbeds

1. Wait so does this then all come down to an "IF". If you want to parent well then you should do or use B? Because i do agree with that. (As for quantum mechanics since i presume neither of us are experts in that field debatin gwhether logicl applies to it or not or explain things in it or not wouldnt be fruitful) 2. Wait what? We havent evolved logically or evolved with the capacity to use logic? Also humans arent logical? Ofcourse we are, for example if you believe that God (and perhaos heaven and hell) exists it make logical sense to pray to him and go to church. The assumption there is incorrect but behavior logically follows. Now if we were turly illogical you would see humans genuinely believing in God but not attending churches or praying or various other things that such God requires. 3.+Rebuttal responce: Matter and energy are consistent, we are composed of matter and energy thus in order for us to live we must accept and act according to logic. Apple is apple A is A. Things arent inconsistent so accepting they arent is basis for eatin right things or eating at all. If you are hungry you eat food. You dont try to eat rocks. You use your own arms and dont ry to use someone elses, when you eat an apple you dont feel nor think youre feeding someone else. Thus you accept and act accordingly to self ownership.To refuse self ownership would be to try to eat an apple with someone elses mouth. So the reason why i dont go to churches and tell that theyre wrong? Reason i dont tell children (not my own) that santa isint real? Because it is not required for life to be honest or confrontational. What is required for life is Exersicing self ownership and using logic. Its perfectly logcial for me from refraining from doing thses things because theyre detrimental for me and even to spread of rational thought and scinetific method. If nto detrimental thena tleast waste of time. Chess is not debate, it is a game. Debate is not a game. Now i also assert that even if you prefer not to live you must still exersice self ownership and logic. ONLY if you want nothing at all... no wait still got to exercise self ownership and logic. This is the... "implicit" agreement with self ownership and logic which stefan talks about in UPB. By living and acting you are asserting all thses axioms. I rest my case, and if you have further objection id much rather debated in video or audio form. I grow tired of texting.

1. I control my fingers "I" control my legs. The legs nor fingers control me, the "I" here is the individual mind and person both of which are deprived from the brain. The brain doesnt "own" or control anything by itself rather the emergent property of the brain known as the mind/counciousness does. A coffee mug doesnt have such a thin, a coffee mug doesnt posses free will. A sufficiently developed AI would or rather could have self ownership if it had all the characteristics of a self. If you mean by not adressing the "All the rules are projected from our minds into the world, including the rules of debate." Then i have to say i did: Logic and Self ownership are (among other axioms and principles) are derived from REALITY form matter and energy. From the consistent behavior of matter and energy. We do not project these rules outward from our minds (initially), rather reality provides them to us trough our senses. A rock falls down and we see it, we understand that matter falls to (is attracted by) larger matter. All matter and energy behaves consistently thus we understand and accept the axiom of consistency. We further accept and validate this to be true trough continued testing of our senses and ideas. Ect. 2. ...that is exactly the same thign you just said there in differant way. Again we do not assume logic, logic is inherently derived from consistency of matter and energy as i said before. This means that the 3 laws of logic arent merely true and valid for debates they are true regardless if humans (or any sentient or debateable beings) existed. I am feeling bit frutrated now partly due either one of us not clicking or because we are using differant definations and just dont know it. Either way do you feel this is becoming waste of time? Would ou rather talk about this in call and see if that would work better? (I myself naturyll think it might be useful and solve this.)

1. How is a debate an artificial construct seperate from rest of our lives? Do you stop using principles and acting accoring to them outside of debates? Actions without words are still assertions of ones values and principles, i dont see anythign disconnecting debate from the rest of our lives. If i say in debate that "yes reason and evidence and logic hold sway and i must assume X, Y and Z" and then i go away into rest of my day and steal and lie and manipulate people in non-debates then i am a Hypocrite. Now if you NEVER debate that might get you off the hook but even then you are asserting propert right, self ownership and Consistency as principles BY YOUR ACTIONS. I dont know what defination of Hypocrite you are using and so i asked, if you dont want to delve into that, thats your choice but i think this is the source of the disagreement. Defination is waht philosofy should start with, as Stef say and i agree with him.

1. Ok but that wasnt my main question though. 2. I feel like this is weaseling out of responceability, just my feeling that youre trying to validate being hyporcrite somehow, maybe i am completely off and worried for no good reason but this is how i feel. I think theres fear there too. And so what do YOU think being hypocritical would mean? I think we may differ on the understanding of that word along with my fear. Perhaps i feel fear because i dont understand what you define as hypocracy.

Huh, alright then. IU am supriced that oen could be DnD out on forgotten realsm and outer (and demi) planes but ok. Any particular reason or is it just decades of repetation? Huh, alright then. IU am supriced that oen could be DnD out on forgotten realsm and outer (and demi) planes but ok. Any particular reason or is it just decades of repetation?

"Why would we apply the rules of debate to life at large?" Do mean to say why should we? "Would" seems to indicate a question for motivation which is all but induvidual. Some people clearly dont and are thus hyprocrites.

Id prefer good old Forgotten realms of planes- of said realms setting. But hmmm if everyone else prefer chuthulu more then its passable for me (Especially the potential hilarity/horror of silly effects from that game)

BUMBing this post to see if anyone Besides me or Bacon are still interested in DND? Anyone? Even if you psoted earlier psot again if youre interested. One can easily have a game with a DM and 3 players (4 or 5 would be preferable but 3 is still preferable to NOTHING.)

I found whitelisting pretty useful feature to use on sites and people i support

So... hack at the revenue source since thats all they understand Yes? (And advice friends and aquiuntaces to do the same, ignore and ablock and remain skeptical)

Kill the mainstream medias revenue source! (And academies too) Everyone got adblock off to those sites and on for the good and honest ones? Everyone informed friends to adblock too? To see and serach revenue sources for these companies propaganda agengies? Those 2 fuel it like noooo other. PS. http://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/revenue-sources-a-heavy-dependence-on-advertising/

Well then, i guess well have to wait for others to chime in since i dout 1 DM and 1 player would be any fun Also theres an abandoned google+ group for FDR roleplayers. I or you could ask the owner to hand it over. https://plus.google.com/communities/110159883727694267250