dsayers

I for one am not saying it necessarily does. However, I think it's probably a lot closer to that position than not. Not wearing makeup is an instinct. Wearing makeup is a decision. So what is the motivation behind that decision? I think you'll find every reason given to be an indication of a lack of self-knowledge or self-worth. At which point makeup would exacerbate that problem instead of addressing it, like self-knowledge, self-care, and self-love would. Does that make sense?

It's not real. This is the problem with belief in things like the Constitution and statism in general. You cannot tell somebody "you get to rule over me" AND how to do so. They are mutually exclusive behaviors. Ruling over people is open-ended. Every ruler (including in USA's history) has demonstrated this, with all perceived forms of restraint mystically unable to actually restrain them. The only thing people who consented to him as a ruler can do in response to him not doing exactly what they want is to admit that they were wrong to turn to institutionalized violence to solve problems created by that same institution and pledge to live their values from that moment on instead of selling them off for the illusion of comfort in the moment.

"I succeeded in using the apparatus of the State to force a ruler onto you before you could inflict your ruler onto me." Not boast-worthy or something to be proud of. How bankrupt does any person have to be to have so much emotional investment in who will rule them in a society where the ruler has little direct influence over people's daily lives.

No, but it is a damn shame that these people are railing against a symptom of the problem of institutionalized coercion, and most of us are too busy acting like we won something or mocking them for being victims of child abuse to try and help them interpret what they're feeling. We're at a flash point in human history at helping people to understand that humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories, which would evaporate the State. Instead, we're busy trying to figure out which flavor of State will help us get to that flash point. Pro-Trump/voting FDR'ers were saying they wanted this to be able to have these conversations and here's the opportunity for as much and... mockery?

"America" does not exist. It is a concept that describes a geographical region in which a select minority (ruler/enforcer class and their agents) get to, with perceived legitimacy, initiate the use of force against everybody else. It is slavery and for it to end would be a requisite of freedom and one step closer to living in reality, as humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories. This is an appeal to emotion, ad hominem, and poisoning the well. It and its implications have no bearing on whether on not humans exist in different, opposing moral categories. Of course I don't want to see the addict suffer. But the only way to get from addict to healthy is to suffer. That's not something that I am responsible for. Can you empathize with the children who are going to have to shoulder all of this because some people who otherwise know better are engaging in appeals to emotion in an attempt to draw out the inevitable for their perceived comfort in the present? That which is unsustainable cannot be sustained. The collapse was coming BY DESIGN the moment control over money was seized by the violent, who used that violence to steal from the future to get over like fat rats in the present. You can't stop it. Nobody can. History tells us so. Rational thought tells us so. You've been a member of FDR long enough to have been exposed to these ideas. I don't recall you pushing back against them at any point in time.

Or reading the part where I said in general

I won't beg the State when I could instead convince people that the State is imaginary and not worthy of our worship. With no State, there would be no institution that would have a vested interest in initiation the use of force against people who interfere with the perceived legitimacy of illegitimate institutions.

This is why I find it to be problematic that they put forth no null hypotheses. It means they will never have any reason to admit they were wrong, not even to themselves. AND they will experience no cognitive dissonance either. Why is it sad to say that slavery might finally be ended? It's progress. It's evolution. In business terms, it's creative destruction. THIS is why I've been pushing so hard for people who would otherwise be liberated within their own minds to act like it. The sentiment you shared, you are not alone for experiencing. It is a product of being raised in government schools, being force fed repeatedly rhetorical narratives such as nationalism, supporting our troops, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your inquiry is essentially saying that you cannot image humans in a world where there was no nation (America). Or that somehow, it should persist. How did you arrive at these conclusions? I'm not asking because I'm curious. I'm asking because this is something every rational thinker should be asking everybody about every conclusion they put forth. If you cannot come up with a methodology rooted in logic, reason, and evidence, then you need to revisit the conclusion.

I can't imagine investing time and energy then. Why bother now? Does it surprise/frighten you that business thus far has appeared to just be more of the same? It's like reaching for fire to put out fire and then expressing puzzlement that there's just more fire instead. Speaking of pro-Trump/voting FDR'ers in general: I think that the fact that people have NOT gone back to their lives, and have turned to celebration, gloating, and delighting in the suffering of others is the null hypothesis that their position was one of necessity. If you had to rape a person to save their life, you would not be in good humor following the act.

Rightists too. They're the ones saying murder will be okay if we just get the right guy to sit on the throne even though we accept property rights.

This is just repeating yourself without addressing my argument from first principles. The first part is like saying that wishing barely blows out the birthday candles. In fact, it does nothing to that end. To point out how nonsensical the second part is, are you talking about eating soup? Eating soup is not voting. The effects of eating soup could range from nourishing the person eating it to adding to the demand for the various steps involved in manufacturing soup. Clinging to mythology sure does lead to folks saying bizarre things. Oh and your post was deflection and moving the goal posts as you've made no effort to circle back and address your appeal to emotion or other flaws I pointed out. If you don't want to have a discussion, then I won't either.

Obamacare for one. It's all just words though. Which is why it saddens me that people of critical thought invest anything into such things. He SAID he would repeal Obamacare. Now he saying he won't. Who knows what he will do? He doesn't HAVE to do anything. What CAN he do? It's called Obamacare so that he gets credit for what many perceive as benevolence. It's not like he sat down and wrote everything out himself. If any of it. It's just words. Live your life or else you're cooperating with your enslavement.

Why? In what way does this have any effect on the way people treat one another for example? There was a thread once that made the case that there's no such thing as nothingness existentially because even in space, the place between particles is filled with something. I tried to find the thread, but could not. It was an interesting read.

Tautology. The idea of self-ownership is in the context of relative to other people. Your assertion is that a higher power has loaned you your mind and body. If this is true, than that same higher power loaned us all the same thing. Meaning that relative to one another, we own ourselves. Or put in a way that fits your fantasy more acceptably: We have a higher claim to our body than others do. According to your delusion, in order for one of us to have a higher claim to such a body than the person in that body, it would have to be the will of the person doing the loaning out of the bodies. Which comes with an extraordinary barrier of proof, which you have not provided amid your ad hominem. The rationality disparity is intoxicating. Not boasting; Just being honest about the temptation I have to boast. I'm really thrilled that after decades of abuse and subduing of rational thought, how far I've come in so short a period of time. Oh I'm not ungrateful. Since Trump has one, I've smiled a few times just because of that. While I think victory is poisoning the well, opportunity is fair. If it HAD to be one of them, of course I would pick him. The point of contention is that I did NOT have to choose one of them, and would be doing myself and my brothers and sisters a disservice by pretending to be able to. There's a difference. In fact, I had just happened upon one of those such moment shortly before reading your post here. Describing it as "the most convincing video I've seen yet as to why we should ask for a particular master." The circus was particularly thrilling in that moment. The difference is that I recognize that it's a circus, meant to distract us from our enslavement. It doesn't matter though. What you said was an assertion and an ad hominem. As per usual, no arguments were to be found in your post.

To which I explained that enslaving hundreds of millions of people is not breaking a window, nor self-defense. It is creating a new debt, disproportionate to the scale of 300 million to 1. The flag pole scenario is meant to coax people to dispense with their self-ownership. Breaking another person's window IS immoral. And all that truth does for us is tell us that once the window is broken, who is responsible for its repair. The person on the flag pole (which has never happened; go figure) of course wouldn't have an issue paying to repair a window for the sake of saving their own life. Are the voters prepared to make restitution to all the people they pretended to enslave as the invocation of the analogy would indicate is forthcoming?

I am aware of what pro-voting/Trump FDR'ers say to make their position sound valid. They all fail the "how do you know?" test. I don't recall you ever asking any of them that. You asked how do I know and my answer indicates sound methodology. So I'm curious as to your motivation. Have I put something forth that you wish to challenge?

Every politician ever lied to get elected. That's probably the best reason to fight the "this time will be different" impulse and choose reality over fantasy. The implication here is that something changed and/or that Trump is responsible. Which would be dishonest.

Large body of work, lots of time invested, not one argument offered. Not one null hypothesis addressed. Not one even tried.

Violence has failed us for millenia. It will continue to do so because it achieves the opposite of one's stated goals.

I'm really sorry that this is your experiences, folks. I can't help but wonder if it's self-inflicted though. This is a side effect of ascribing to teams and imagining the State is valid in our own minds. A lot of pro-voting/Trump people on FDR said we needed a specific master so that we could have these conversations. He won and here is an opportunity for those conversations. I mean, right?

Self-detonating claim. I am free to pass up all the benefits or voluntarily take on all the consequences of whatever I choose. YOU cannot make that choice for me. If you would like to see me make that choice for myself, you can convince me. If the only way to get people to do what you want is to force them, then what you want to be done isn't worth doing, by your own performative admission.

Hello to you! I was wondering if you think that critical thinkers, rational, logical, and patriotism are compatible.

What if the other person utilizes this same approach? Wouldn't that end in a stalemate? In order to shake hands, you must also extend yours. I'm not saying this is bad advice. I'm just wondering if perhaps there might be better advice. You cannot form real relationships without vulnerability.

Pick one. "You are being dogmatic" is an appeal to emotion. If a bunch of people are coked out of their gourd, pretending they can fly, the man reminding them that gravity binds us all is not being dogmatic. It's a statement of reality. Kind of like these statements: Something that violates liberty is not "better" for liberty. What a person is capable of doing in the free market has no bearing on what they can/will do as a master with cooperative slaves. If anything, that's a rejection of the free market! Finally, you used the word better a lot. Compared to what? Hillary? If your method for making decision in life is that it's better than the worst, you're not challenging yourself in any way. How do you know that it wasn't a false dichotomy? Somebody said to you that you had to choose one and rather than voting for yourself, you blindly believed them. And then you think your appeal to emotion will sway me? I am moved not by such cowardice.