Slavik

I personally could never understand the left's cognitive dissonance when it comes to taxation. On one hand they advocate for higher taxes on things like sugar drinks, fast food and cigarettes in order to reduce consumption, thus affirming the idea that "what you tax you get less of." On the other hand, without taking a breath to pause, they advocate higher taxes on businesses.

Frederic, there are plenty of thread open just to share something. Granted the second option could have been used, I dont see how one is better to another, nor do I see how you think that you can tell me off for something as subjective and as irrelevant as this. I guess my question is this, and its a serious one. Looking through many threads, you can find quiet a few, where people just share a video, and people either start a discussion about them or they dont. So seeing those threads I do not see you chastising authors for anything. Now the question is this, what is it specifically about me, that gave you an impression that you can approach me in order to berate me, and to talk down at me, just because you didnt like something? Do you honestly think that you are being appropriate here?

Thank you, it was a great break for me. I really enjoyed it

What this is definitely true, and in many cases very factual and evident. The government here ins the USA, to my knowledge is taking care of this "problem" of people not wasting their time by mandating licences. Licences which in many cases require college degrees. I wish it was as simple. Obama is now either trying to, or already has made internships illegal.

Hi POXER, thank you for sharing some of your story. From what I understand so far, epigenetics play a great role in adapting to environment, brain plasticity and the rest that indeed indicates that if looked for and worked on, many traits can be "mended." Changing environment which may include working on your "mind." With that said, using Stefan as an example. Stefan has mentioned a few times that he was between the R/K lifestyle and approach to life, all of which has changed when he has done tremendous amount of work on himself with he help of therapists. The change in persons behavior is shown statistically with talk therapy. Not all behaviors change, not all people guaranteed to change as the main want and the work itself largely needs your will. Hope this helps

You said "sounds like I was asking a question," well thats your assumption, since I have not said anywhere that its a question, so I do not see a reason for you to chastise me for your incorrect assumption. In many cases people are saying what will happen when there is no government, I thought it would be good to point out what happens when there is a government. I seriously have no idea what your feeling of being mislead has to do with anything. There are many ways to arm yourself, knowing what happens currently is one way. I dont really see how I am misleading, you thought I had a question, instead I am pointing out the fallacy of the question, well then your thought was erroneous. And I had no attempts to mislead anyone.

So you guys understand, I am not advertising government. This video is an answer to statists, as in "this is whats going on right now, this is what gvt. is doing" Just thought to share.

Hi Kurtis, thank you for sharing your experience. I have to say that since this post I have been in therapy for a long time. I do understand that many experiences can be different in many ways. You say, you have treated your siblings with care, well I commend you for that, you seem to have that which majority of older siblings did not do, namely treat the younger ones opposite of the way you were treated. You must be incredibly sensitive and caring person. As far as my brother goes, I tried talking to him with no results, he is no longer in my life. My father I have defood from him a very long time ago, many years ago. A few months back I called him and confronted him about leaving me behind with a sociopath (my grandfather). I stated my case, found out more information about my past, and left my father back where he belongs, in the past. My mother and I have a somewhat of a relationship, through many talks, she is beginning to understand me, and acknowledges the pain she caused. The relationship is better than it was ever before with her (although it is still barely a relationship, as I have no way of getting past the harm that was done). Im am still dealing with this and many issues in therapy, I was able to confront the anger, I was able to unearth it. I am no longer ashamed of being angry, as its anger and not rage. I feel more calm, when it comes to these issues, I have less doubt in my resolve. Thank you for the reply, I hope I have answered your questions. Feel free to ask more, or you can PM if you wish I will be happy to chat with you about anything you want

I see, so you honestly think that attempting presuppositional apologetics is going to work. Well Im done discussing anything with you until you prove existence first. But to the rest who might read my comment. This is a typical tactic where they "presuppose" god existing as an axiom without giving any proof. Then they start asking you questions as this guy is attempting to do, it might even go down to the point "how do you know you exist." When you finally get to ask them questions, they rely on a major fallacy "circular reasoning" they use scriptures as a proof of god (because it says so in the bible that god exists) and since bible is inspired by god, thats how you supposedly can be sure that its true. And the circular logic continues to no end. So yeah, if you want, feel free to engage, but I can clearly see that its a waste of time.

You are claiming existence of god first and foremost, thats the first problem in what you are saying, if you can not prove god, the rest simply can not be discussed.

Considering that you have come to this forum with intention of preaching, the burden of proof is on you to prove the existence of god. I dont have to say a word just yet until you prove that which you are preaching. Once you prove it, then I will be happy to move on to your question.

You have to first prove existence of god before claiming him giving anything.

1) Have you read UPB? It answers many questions when it comes to subjectivity of moral systems, it also shows how moral question are attached to logic, and since logic describes reality it gives moral principles roots of the real world. 2) All of the atrocities mentioned, were not done in the name of atheism, they were in the name of illogical systems such as Religion, Socialism, Communism or just statism. I would like to ask though, what are you trying to accomplish by making all of these posts? many people have done so in the past, but they have yet to provide the necessary proof for the existence of god. In order to go this far you need to show proof that god exists before you can propose following any book written by yet to be proven god

"I'm painting your post in a negative light for what it does not contain" Yet another definition of a straw man. "Does NurtiGirl deserve to experience the self-doubt that those podcasts trigger?" Deserve, this a non sequitur, since she is already in self doubt and asking to help explore the reason for it, deserve or not deserve is irrelevant. She is already in self doubt, and trying to explore it, the "church love bomb" approach is the opposite of self-exploration. "That you prefer to keep NurtiGirl in a position of self-doubt and insecurity" I do not prefer anything, there is no preference in my post what so ever, that yet another one of your baseless conclusions. Exploring many possibilities is how you gain self knowledge, not by saying "Im right and all of you are wrong" as you seem to be doing endlessly. No, you do not get to "reasonably" replace any words, when you do it takes on completely different meaning, by calling it "reasonable" doesnt change the fact that its a complete logical fallacy and completely unreasonable. Replacing my words and attacking a conclusion by replacing the wrods is the very definition of straw man argument. Logic 101 Considering that you have no knowledge of the subject, you are making erroneous statements and conclusions. You are really out of place trying to correct someone who has the knowledge of the subject. You seriously have no idea what it means when people say "a person has a capacity for something." Anyways I can see that you have no problem with insults straw man and baseless conclusions, so as I have nicely asked before, stay away from my future posts.

This is not a therapy session, the only thing I can do on the boards is precisely what I did. You still have not addressed your use of straw man, and using samples to paint me in a negative light. I do not see a reason to addressing anything further until you address your twisting of my words and coming to completely baseless conclusions about my previous posts. Either address my previous points or this conversation is over, and if its over and you find no problem with insulting me in such manner, then do me a favor and stay away from my posts in the future.

In order to reply to me properly, you need to stop using sampling and tread the whole thing in context, namely this part Quote:"Just a thought that came to my mind, I might be completely off here, by any means I am not saying that this is factual or that because A therefore B. There could be something different that is coming into play with you." Now do you honestly think that by taking a small sample completely out of context where I have already covered relevant part, do you think twisting this all up on its head. What are you trying to accomplish by attacking me in such manner. I am seriously getting quiet fed up with you and your incessant picking. Are you having trouble understanding subjective perspective? Do you not understand what asking a question means or making a hypothesis? Do you not know the difference between suggesting a possibility and making a conclusion? You took a sample which makes it look like I made a conclusion, read the whole thing and stop trolling

Hi Nutrigirl, thank you for sharing your experiences and concerns. What I personally find in therapy, is that things that used to bother me the most, the things I in my mind was defending against by saying "well thats not me at all," are the very things I have later came to recognize that I indeed have the capacity for. Im wondering if this might apply to you? As in you are not the type of a woman that Stef is talking about, but you have a capacity to be? The reason Im bringing this up is that by recognizing my capacity for abuse, I got o honestly work on it in therapy. In my therapist words "just because you have capacity for a bad behavior doesnt make you a bad person, it is only a part that you might want to address." Just a thought that came to my mind, I might be completely off here, by any means I am not saying that this is factual or that because A therefore B. There could be something different that is coming into play with you.

I couldnt take the test because its full of false dichotomies, had they given third options Id be interested to take it,

I will be near Austin in the near future, couple of months at the most.

Objective is that which can be verified externally by all parties without opinions. So height is objective since you can use external means to measure it. Please do not say fallacy when referring to the debate you have had. At the very best it is still debatable, your outside conclusions are irrelevant since in the debate you did not prove anything. You nee to stop talking down to people. I get that you would do that, and by what standards doe it make it moral? Again where did you see me say you should do something? Do you really not get what Im asking? I didnt say you should steal an apple, its a false dichotomy that you made up, you could have asked for the apple. And nowhere did I say if you are starving you should steal, so stop arguing a straw man.

If self interest is different to almost every person, I do not see how you can claim it to be objective, or are you back to subjective is a subset of objective argument? I gave you an example, you have not given me any. I asked for a specific example to move from abstract to something more substantial. I didnt ask for a historical example, you can give a hypothetical one, instead of saying it might be. Again, I gave an example of stealing an apple and your answer was "how can you be wrong for doing something you SHOULD do?" Can you point to where in my example I said you should do something, point it please instead of stating abstracts as yet again I asked for specifics.

That is not an instance of one its an instance of a few million. And what happened to Nazis after the fact doesnt change what can happen in with a given ideology. Can you switch from hypothetical and give an example where murder is moral? You told me I presented a should, and that is what I asked since I never have said mentioned a should. You got an ought from an is.

What Anecdote have I presented? Are you not aware of historical facts involving Nazis? The super race? Can you give me an example where some murder is in self interest? Where did you get the SHOULD?

Murder of another person is completely contrary to the "self" Existence of the person being murdered. Nazis thought that it was paramount to their "self" Existence to murder gays, invalids, Jews, and many other people. Who is going to be the arbitrator? Who is going to decide what is in one's self interest? You can argue that according to you murdering above mentioned people is not in your interest, but Nazis would have argued the opposite. When people speak of NAP, yes it does make all aggression immoral (not self defense" mind you. And in the "stealing the apple" scenario when you are hungry, you are still wrong for doing so, and all that means according to NAP is that at some point you will have to make restitution if asked for.

I would like to say a few things. 1)Obsession :a state in which someone thinks about someone or something constantly or frequently especially in a way that is not normal : someone or something that a person thinks about constantly or frequently : an activity that someone is very interested in or spends a lot of time doing Stef mentioning this once or maybe few times is not repetitive "obsessive." 2) I do not see how it is even ok to compare Hitler's motives and use of the "flea" word in order to go on a genocidal spree VS. Stef's saying that these people are getting the benefits without doing any work at all, and hindering the work. Plus Stef has never promoted violence. 3) You have an emotional reaction to this, can you expand on this? I am curious to know what is behind this reaction?