Philosphorous

I would not act in such a way again except in certain circumstances when I was protecting a friend or stopping somebody from bullying. I think part of the reason I don't feel bad is because I was in a victim's shoes. I was bullied. My parents did not pull me out of school. In high school, a kid bullied me until I finally got fed up with it and laid him out. I didn't want to do that, but it stopped the horrible treatment almost immediately. This actually happened a few times. Kids acted terribly toward me. Physicality ended that very quickly. Would I do it again? Absolutely. Bullies tend to listen closely when you speak their "language." In all seriousness, is that something about which I'm supposed to feel bad? There is only one person I can think of that I truly bullied who absolutely did not deserve it, and I feel pretty bad about that. I'm trying to find him to apologize, but I don't know how much of an effect it will have. I've met the person who bullied me and he feebly tried to apologize. I rejected his apology and walked away. Would you please relax with the combative tone? I'm not doing anything on purpose.

I was the second call. I just don't feel bad. It was decades ago, and a) I was bullied as well by my parents, relatives, and others, and b) A lot of the time people provoked me into fights. I had an obvious handicap and took a lot of heat for it. For example: one of the hospital visits happened because a bully threw sand in my friend's face. I ended that quickly--perhaps too harshly, but I just see that as a bully getting what he deserved. I'm suppposed to feel bad about this? If someone comes back from a prison camp he has been in for 20 years and acts like he is still in the camp, should we jump all over him for doing so? Even if he stops? Also, it's not like I'm still doing any of this. It ended a long time ago. I have been actually talking to people and asking questions instead of avoidance or talking about myself. Also, I am working hard to not draw conclusions before talking to people. It is slow but steady progress. I don't understand what "empathize with yourself" means. Don't we do this by default?

After two conversations with with SM and then listening to this: I have come to the realization that I lack empathy. I'm not sure what to do about it. This is a frightening realization as I am not young. I don't even really have self empathy. I am not suicidal, but if my life ended, I would not particularly care. I was wondering if when I encounter situations, I can post them here and some empaths can tell me how they would feel or deal with them. I honestly have no idea. I really thought I had empathy as I feel great emotional pain when I see animals and children suffering. Adults? Not so much. If you would indulge me--first, has anyone else had this realization? What is the first step? Begin evaluating all personal relationships? I have begun to do that. I think if I elminated them all I would be completely alone. Thank you for your input and consideration. (It baffles me why anyone would want to even help me--a complete stranger. Is empathy why something like this would matter to you?) *** I was thinking about when people actually ask me about my interests or myself. Two things typically happen: 1) I feel smothered. It gives me a horrible feeling and I want to leave. 2) I feel like they are lying--like this is a social more and they are just asking to make small talk. Even SM. (I'm not saying this is true.) I feel like he was only talking to me to boost "ratings" for the call in show, not because he actually cares. How can I possibly change this? I have felt like this my entire life. Why the hell would people care about anything I do? I have made it a point to expose myself to a very wide variety of experiences and activities. (I don't want to die with regrets.) I want to try everything. I do have a lot to talk about but... I still don't feel like people actually care. I feel like they are pretending for whatever reason. (Maybe to tell people about the guy they know who does X or Y since most people come across as incredibly boring and limited.)

Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief. If a Christian tells you atheism is a religion, they must practice it also as they do not believe in other religions' gods. (Aren't they now polytheists?) If I don't eat a banana this morning, it is not a religion. In addition, all babies are born atheists. I think it sounds a bit foolish to say that a 1-day-old human has entered into a religion.

I enjoy that Stefan is focusing on men's rights; it is a topic that I have been passionate about for a long time. A decade or so ago, I found this book: http://www.revolucionantifeminista.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/how-can-women-make-the-rules.pdf It is a bit dated and occasionally the tone is quite confrontational, but I highly recommend reading it. It contains hundreds of examples of "pheminism," or female sexism. Jack Kammer, the author, was inspired to write it after seeing this (just imagine if it was about black people or any other group!): The Rules a fax dated April 14, 1997 and posted on a woman’s office wall in Washington DC • The female always makes The Rules. • The Rules are subject to change at any time without prior notification. • No male can possibly know all The Rules. • If the female suspects the male knows all The Rules, she must immediately change some or all of The Rules. • The female is NEVER wrong. • If the female is wrong, it is due to a misunderstanding which was a direct result of something the male did or said wrong. • The male must apologize immediately for causing said misunderstanding. • The female may change her mind at any time. • The male must never change his mind without the express written consent of the female. • The female has every right to be angry or upset at any time. • The male must remain calm at all times unless the female wants him to be angry and/or upset. • The female must under no circumstances let the male know whether or not she wants him to be angry and/or upset. • The male is expected to mind read at all times. • The female is ready when she is ready. • The male must be ready at all times. • Any attempt to document The Rules could result in bodily harm. • The male who doesn’t abide by The Rules lacks backbone and is a wimp.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex "Japan's under-40s appear to be losing interest in conventional relationships. Millions aren't even dating, and increasing numbers can't be bothered with sex. For their government, "celibacy syndrome" is part of a looming national catastrophe. Japan already has one of the world's lowest birth rates. Its population of 126 million, which has been shrinking for the past decade, is projected to plunge a further one-third by 2060. Aoyama believes the country is experiencing "a flight from human intimacy" – and it's partly the government's fault." Government: passively and actively killing productive people for 12,000+ years!

You wouldn't feel any guilt for killing or displacing all the animals living there? I'm not trying to start an argument. If you wouldn't, I want to know how. I am envious of that position.

But doesn't that give us the obligation to protect nature rather than destroy it? I guess the real question is where do we draw the line? I mean... I REALLY like ice cream, and I like hot showers, and I like a warm bed. I don't particularly want to give any of that up, but in the system today, all of that stuff involves unspeakable violence toward nature. Sadly, about 99% of this is because of the state. I'm just tired of feeling guilty for being alive. Perhaps I'm looking for a confirmation bias but I'd like to enjoy some part of life rather than feeling terrible because something got hurt to make it happen. I was a vegan for a while but intellectually worked my way out of it. I would like to do the same with primitivism. I didn't invent any of the systems in place today, but the whole community is insistent on throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I like some of it, and I feel terrible about that. Thank you. There's much to think about here.

Hello all:I have been searching for an answer to a basic question but I have yet to find one. This is a serious question. This is causing me great distress. My life is filled with guilt because of it.If we see nature as things that we can and should use (I mean past basic survival and comfort), what is stopping us from viewing vulnerable or 'weak" humans in the same light?For example: if someone buys land and clears it (let's assume it's forest), lots of plants and animals are going to be displaced or die. Let's also assume that person clears the land for a golf course or some other luxury purpose.Obviously, we are beyond Descarte, so we can agree that animals feel pain and emotional distress. When the land owner destroys their habitat, it will affect them.There is also some fledgling science that plants also react to negative circumstances: http://www.jperla.com/blog/post/plant-sufferingMany deny that plants and animals feel pain and/or suffer like humans, which I think it a little short-sighted.For this, let's assume they do feel pain. Some animals especially are very intelligent and have incredibly sophisticated ways of communication, structures, etc.We would never allow a land developer to displace or kill a severely mentally retarded human. It would violate the non-aggression principle.Assuming there are very intelligent animals and some mentally handicapped humans, one can assume that we cannot simply discard animals because they are not intelligent.Is it just because they are not human? What are the credentials to determine suffering?I feel like "strong" humans dominating and destroying animals and plants for luxury would lead down a slippery slope. How can we teach our children to not bully or harm when we do it to animals, plants, and the land for things beyond our basic survival?Further, since government has the guns, they dominate and oppress "normal" humans because they see us as livestock--lower than them. Well, WE see livestock as livestock--lower than us. The answer couldn't possibly be because they're not human. How can we reconcile exploiting nature because we can as acceptable, yet rail against the state for doing the same to us because they can? Thank you.

Okay. Perhaps birds should judge you on how well you can fly. Or spiders on how well you can spin a web. Or perhaps the trees will find you pathetic because you cannot live on sun and water alone. The entire argument is a specieist domination cul-de-sac. If you're human, you own the Earth and can do what you want to everything so long as you don't hurt other humans--even though by hurting animals and ecosystems, there's no way to know the extent of the damage and therefore no way to know for sure you aren't hurting other humans. Watch my video above please. It outlines how absurd the non-aggression principle is.

But you realize personal actions do not bring about social change? If I were in the woods, please explain to me what I'd do if I a) Died b) Got arrested for doing so c) Succeeded and then didn't tell anybody d) Was removed in one way or another because somebody claimed to own the land. I hate that Stefan Molyneux has made character attacks popular. If I was in hospice telling you this, or in a wheelchair, or whatever--would you still attack me instead of the message? It's just data. I didn't make any of it up.

Wow. That is pathetic. "Wild animals can't act human." That's all you said. This is my whole problem with ancaps. If it's not human, fuck it. Humans know best!

Well yeah, since I'm a human. How does what you just said disprove that humans can't judge other species except by the Human Yardstick (i.e. how human they act/are)?

Please have a look and pass on if you find this useful.I'm trying to get a show on one of the "underground" radio networks. There are no ads and never will be, as I'm not interested in profiting off of this.http://youtu.be/i68x0KdCfxoOutline/sources:1) Climate changeRising C02http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/14/entire-marine-food-chain-at-risk-from-rising-co2-levels-in-waterStrange weather (like Hurricane Sandy)http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/world/americas/hurricane-sandy-fast-facts/Polar vortexhttp://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/climate-change-skeptics-winter-cold-global-warming-still-real-20140107California droughtshttp://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CALast few years hottest on recordhttp://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-2013-nasa-2013-7th-hottest-year-20140121,0,2770402.storyTrillions of tons of waste into the atmospherehttp://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/26-trillion-pounds-of-garbage-where-does-the-worlds-trash-go/258234/2) Fukushimahttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/fukushima-leak-nuclear-pacificRadioactive waters reaching the USA:http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/03/16/radioactive-fukushima-waters-arrive-at-west-coast-of-america/Leaking nuclear reactorshttp://money.cnn.com/2011/03/15/news/economy/nuclear_plants_us/Half a million to a million year radioactivityhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/3) CivilizationExponential growthhttp://hotmath.com/hotmath_help/topics/exponential-growth.html2 Earths by 2030http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/16/wwf-warns-that-we-will-need-two-earths-by-2030_n_1520449.html27 Earths by 2050http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/mora/Publications/MoraPress1.pdfOver 200,000 people born each dayhttp://populationaction.org/Articles/Whats_Your_Number/Summary.php200 species go extinct every dayhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/un-environment-programme-_n_684562.htmlRush Limbaugh article: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/05/17/enviro_idiots_two_earths_needed_by_2030

Funny; that's what they're saying about you folks. http://www.molyneuxrevealed.com/ Primitivism is the only true, just and sustainable philosphy. Humans lived that way for hundreds of thousands of years. Give capitalism a few thousand years and look at the state of the planet. Case closed.

Assuming that humans can judge consciousness (read: compare it to how humans view the world) is so incredibly arrogant. You are coming from a speciesist, human supremacist willfully limited point of view. Sure, if you think humans have the capacity to judge the rest of the world... Well, good for you I guess. We know shit about shit.

Freedom? Do you know that when settlers came to the US, they said there were so many birds in the sky that it would black it out for hours at a time? So many fish in the ocean that they couldn't sleep because of their tails slapping? So many berries in the woods that their horses would end up with stained underbellies? TONS of food. Minimal work to get it. THAT is freedom. More technology that divides us is not. Leave the planet? Seriously? That is your solution instead of undoing the damage (i.e. getting out of the way) we have done here?

OKay. I agree that it is an injustice that the Feds are uprooting this guy. However, I'm looking for some consistency. It IS okay for the rancher to cage, manage, and butcher the cattle for profit. It IS okay for the rancher to chase other animals off of "his" land. It IS okay for the rancher to chop down trees, build over other habitats (trees are habitats), or eliminate "pests" (other animals) on "his" land. It IS okay for "might is right"; in other words, the rancher is stronger and more capable than the other animals, so it is fine for him to do what he's doing. But... It IS NOT okay for the government to treat Cliven Bundy like he treats the animals and land--with force? Why? Because he's human? So... make something up (the non-aggression principle) and it IS okay to dominate the land and animals (use force) for profit since the animals don't have the resolve to fight back, but it IS NOT okay for the BLM to dominate the humans (use force) for profit (probably fracking)? Seems a little inconsistent. Please advise. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz5GXDpwWN8

No; trees are not like humans. But to assume, using the Human Yardstick, that trees are not conscious is a little ridiculous, don't you think? It's like the old Cartesian argument that animals don't feel pain because they don't express it like humans. Does anyone on this forum do anything except attack the messenger and talk about childhood? I know that's all SM does, but I didn't realize that all of his followers do the same.

Prove to me that trees are not conscious please. Your statements epitomize the arrogance of the human species in thinking that it has the capability or right to determine what or how other species think or feel. Considering the really shitty job humans do on themselves and others, your speciesist position seems really ridiculous. I wanted to cover a range of topics on the show and did exactly that. When someone is as conditioned as Stefan Molyneux, it's hard to justify trying to introduce ideas like living sustainably. He was a software engineer and capitalism worked for him, so it's unlikely he'll change position from that. Capitalism began with agriculture. The market was free and it turned into what we had today. It has had its chance and thousands of years to prove itself, and it has been an utter failure. Stone Age living, once again, worked for many millions of years. That fact is undeniable. We wouldn't be here if it was wrong. It is the only chance we have of survival. You were born from the Earth and to it you shall return--just like everything else. How much more evidence do you need that it is your master and, despite what capitalists tell you, you do not own it and are not its master? Lastly, I'm an atheist, but good looking out? More character attacks. I understand. Stone Age living cannot be debated.

Because I'd die. I don't (yet) have the skills. Also, if I do and some asshole nukes the world, please explain to me how that my personal withdrawal helped anyone. And again, as I said above, why are you paying your taxes and obeying laws? You could move off into the wilderness and you wouldn't have to do either. Here; let me help you: What living things died at the hands of your capitalist use of your body, time, and energy to make this post? It tickles me to watch somebody malign capitalism while not realizing that their every action in life is an acceptance and an affirmation of capitalism. All non-arguments aimed at decrying me instead of the common sense notion that we shouldn't be murdering the planet for profit. Capitalism is turning natural resources into products, making money, allocating resources, or any other number of euphemisms for making living things dead. This post is a personal choice, not me making profit at the expense of someone else. "I can't really comment on the off-topic rant that followed other than to say that it, like the opening post, suggests unprocessed trauma that has nothing to do with the symbols you're offering up as if they are the source." Ugh... More Molyneux. Forget simply acknowleding that we are a crash course with destruction. It must my personal experiences. This, for example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/un-environment-programme-_n_684562.html That's totally my unprocessed trauma, not reality. Also, you calling out my arguments as something wrong with me (unprocessed trauma) is yet another character attack. Do you have anything else? How about this: Sone Age living worked for hundreds of thousands of years. Humans lived with the planet taking only what it gave instead of enslaving and domesticating our fellow Earthlings. Please explain to me why anarcho-capitalism, which is pure theory (and horribly flawed at that) is something someone should consider over what worked for the vast vast VAST majority of human history.

What a surprise--a character attack. It's really too bad that Molyneux made that safe and acceptable. Attacking the messenger solves every problem every time. Hey--do you pay your taxes? Do you follow all laws? You don't have to; go live in the wilderness and you won't have to do either. But, since you probably do both of those things, everything you say is now invalid according to the Molyneux anarcho-capitalists (which is an oxymoron, since anarchy = no hierarchies, and capitalism is nothing but hierarchies). The answer is Stone Age living, which worked for hundreds of thousands of years and is beyond debate. But, nobody wants to give up their toys, so what you're asking is how humans can keep murdering the planet and still live on it.

Stefan always talks about reason and evidence, right? Well, let's examine how humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years. They lived in small communities with no leaders. They had chiefs, but those were usually the oldest/most experienced or best hunters. The chiefs were not kings; they worked just like everyone else. These groups generally were nomadic. They knew the land on which they lived, so they would travel to an area for a certain period of time (say, near a river during salmon season). They would move when the seasons began to change to get, say, berries during the season. They moved several times throughout the year. There may be have been limitied agriculture, but nothing like the draw-down monocropping that goes on today. We must kill to live. That is a fact of life. If you are living sustainably, you are killing to live, but you are not harming the general landbase and population where you are living. Think about it. If you planned on living somewhere for 500 or 5,000 years, would you get a new cell phone every year? Would you build a house that requires constant maintenance against the elements? Would you force everything off of your land (animals and plants alike) and force the land, via agriculture, to grow what you wanted? (You wouldn't because the top soil would be destroyed.) Here's a video I did regarding our plastic lifestyle. I enjoy the anarchy talk from FDR, but a true sustainable society would not be compatible with anything that is happening today. Here's why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJmC8Ue3Ixk&list=UUFfywJ42MkQG4GXxAobf4qg I'm not a vegetarian, so....?

Here is Stefan's take on the subject (toward the end): He addresses factory farming, animal testing, etc. However, he props up property in the entire video, and he never questions capitalism. Part of the video he said someone might buy land to build a tower that would obstruct someone's view of the ocean. Well, let's think about that: 1) Cut down all the trees in that area. Lots of animals live in trees. They either die or are displaced. (That's pretty abusive.) 2) Extract the material from the Earth to build the tower. Animals live everywhere. Suppose, for example, we're talking about mining to get metals for the wiring. Bugs live in the mines. Are bugs not animals subject to abuse? 3) Transport it all. That all requires infrastructure, which, of course, requires getting nature out of the way, which requires killing or displacing animals. I think what he means is, "don't abuse animals we favor, but if they get in the way of free market capitalism, move or destroy them." Capitalism is making living things dead for profit. That's all it is. Also, teaching children not to harm certain animals is not going to stop deviant behavior. Capitalism is hierarchies, which teaches children that humans have the right to buy and sell the Earth because... well, we can. Trees are "below" us, for example, and in the way of a shopping mall, so move them. Trees, rivers, rocks, the land, the air, animals, etc. are not subject to the non-aggression principle--only humans.

I've heard enough of ancap theory--including Stefan's takes. There really is no argument. Civilization is destroying the planet. Stefan doesn't acknowledge the third party in "voluntary" trade--the environment. He take jabs on "primitive" living, which I addressed in another thread. He made a laughable sustainability video, which I also addressed. Until humans get over this dominion power trip that the Earth is here for them to do with what they please, there will be no peace. First will come dominating nature, then animals, and then vulnerable humans. The State is just an extension of "vulnerable humans." Stefan also barely mentioned that NAP does not apply to animals. Domesticating plants and animals is not ethical. Well, I suppose it is if you just make shit up that supports your point of view, which is exactly what Stefan does. The "free market" supports industrial capitalism, which is unsustainable. Anarchy is anti-authority. True anarchy realizes that the Earth does not need to be managed and that humans do not have the right to view the entire damn planet as dollar bills. The ancap definition of anarchy is basically "humans can't rule other humans but they can certainly rule everything else." Ownership, which is fictional, is the opposite of anarchy. Ownership is just something humans made up to justify dominating the Earth. It's the old "might is right" I've been talking about for a while. I mean--if you can cut down a tree, which is destroying a mini habitat, why can't you spank children? The tree is "weak" and vulnerable as is the kid. But the kid gets preferential treatment because it's a human? Do you see the disgusting speciesism in this? THIS is the type of world you want--where humans trample the weak because there's profit to be made? It's pretty ironic that Stefan is an atheist becuase this is the kind of drivel religions like Christianity put forward: that the Earth is here for humans to use. Just make up stuff like NAP, property rights (for humans--never the animals that were here first) and ownership so humans can do what they want and everything will be alright!