dsayers

1 - Changing somebody's mind has more to do with them than you. If you haven't already, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. You can't change people's minds unless you understand how they make up their minds to begin with. 2 - Countries cannot rule people. In the US, Obama isn't going door to door telling people to do this and that. Even the enforcer class isn't going door to door. Coercive authority is an illusion. People that see through that aren't going to accept some invader that comes in and says, "Now you must all obey me," since it would be the exact same illusion they're already capable of seeing through. Meanwhile, an invader isn't going to undertake the very inefficient task of going door to door. He would instead choose a geographical location where people will obey without question. As for the topic itself, I think I know what you mean. I myself have noticed that historically, I've been easily distracted. It comes from my father mostly. He is unbelievably manipulative and if I clarify or correct him, he'll shift to something else he can use as ammo rather than revising his last attack and/or acknowledging that it didn't land. It used to be that in those situation, I was experiencing so much anxiety that I felt compelled to answer the new attack instead of focusing on the fact that he skipped over the last failed one. Is that the kind of thing you mean? On a side note, please keep in mind that people you might talk to that ignore the moral consideration for utility's sake are literally saying they're okay with violence as long as the initiator claims it's for some reason they agree with.

Yes, inflicting conclusions onto children is far inferior to teaching them how to reason, which will lead to them coming to their own correct conclusions. Where I was coming from is that the State is immoral is a fairly easy one. To not have views not fully formed or be willing to dispense with the moral consideration for utility's sake is poor methodology. I'm urging you to sort that one out before your child is old enough to understand that daddy missed an easy one. How does your partner feel about her siblings being abused by their mother? What does she think about the fact that that was their mother only because their father chose her to be?

I was really happy to read this. I've often wondered how detrimental it is to have multiple children or to have multiples too close together. It was not my intention to condescend. You mentioned having a child and I saw several items in your posts that I thought could be interpreted as imprecise. My interest is also in the best chance at success in life for your child, so I'm asking question to try and help them in that regard. I disagree that self-knowledge is only for people who have been abused. I also disagree with the claim that any adult could not classify as abused. Even those who grew up in a loving, nurturing, virtuous household eventually leave the nest and live in a very coercive world. As such, I have a hard time believing the rainbows and butterflies remark. Anyways, the important thing is that you have a child. If you or your partner lack self-knowledge, this is going to lead to bad decisions. Parents have done a LOT of damage when they thought they were doing good. It comes down to: How do you know? Somebody who has self-knowledge has the integrity to provide for their bias. To scrutinize a subject rationally. Take your lack of political views for example. Any imprecision you do not make an effort to correct is one you will pass onto your child. This is a strike against their chance at success if they're not taught rational thought and moral importance. I hope we will be able to continue this conversation.

That didn't answer my question. Also, you cannot prevent a behavior (what you call hijacking) by engaging in that behavior. Furthermore, claiming emotional problems is an assertion only. Were it the case, I think it's deplorable to attack somebody for having been abused.

I can't tell who you're talking to since multiple people offered the correction. I will say that I think that if a person does not accept their own capacity for error and suggests that the definition of terms being debated are inconsequential, they lack integrity.

The two terms are antonyms. It's like saying the polarity of a magnet can be somewhat positive and somewhat negative and that anybody that views it as one or the other is being rigid and subscribing to a false dichotomy. You are wrong.

Would you be so kind as to why you (yes, this is me getting personal for the sake of a better understanding of the conversation) need to vote? I've been advocating "none of the above" all along. You've resisted all along, but now you're saying you'd be amenable to it if it came in the form of actually casting a vote? Not voting IS casting a vote. And it happens to not be the initiation of the use of force also. I've noticed that every time I offer a correction, you just talk about something else as if nothing was said. This does not instill in me confidence that this is actually a conversation.

This is manipulative. As is talking about going with the tide and challenge for the sake of challenge. Either 2+2=4 or it does not. Accepting that it does isn't going with the tide; It's testing it out and accepting the results. Challenging 2+2=4 is NOT virtuous. Also, I don't know that anybody has talked about YOU at all. We're discussing behaviors, positions, beliefs. What is to gain by personalizing it? Are you suggesting that voting is immoral, except for you? That the truth is a good thing, except from me? "enact minimalist policies" is the initiation of the use of force. To grant permission to (vote for) somebody that will do this is the initiation of the use of force. Also, your "Reps and Dems did bad, but 3rd party might not" was already addressed above when I asked if paying a guy to off a guy isn't immoral because he might not do it. Which you didn't answer. It's like being witness to a gang rape and rather than leaving the situation or trying to stop it, you say, "Wait, let's see what guy #3 does. Maybe he'll rape her less, and that's closer to no rape." If you think you can infiltrate a corrupt system and convert it to virtue, test your theory. To begin with the largest, most legitimate-perceived band of thugs in human history with no reason to believe it would work is anti-progress. Because if somebody who understands that the initiation of the use of force is immoral is willing to make use of it FOR ANY REASON, there's that many more people that will be comfortable continuing to cheer it on.

I'm not sure what you mean by regardless. You had attributed it to being home schooled. If the source is not to be regarded, why make the connection? You live a life where you meet all of your goals without initiating the use of force against others, but are uncertain if an absence of coercion is possible in the real world? So just in case, we should have institutionalized, pseudo-legitimate coercion? For what it's worth, I think it's dangerous to reproduce with/as somebody that doesn't prioritize self-knowledge. Also, to agree to not spank only is just plain dangerous. Preparation is a requisite of doing something right/well. What could be more important than guiding/shaping another human being? If you don't mind me asking, what method do you use to determine what is true and what is not?

I've been on other forums and have never seen this feature. When I first saw it here, I misinterpreted it as being closed to conversation. However, I cannot thank whomever is responsible enough for having this feature. It is such a handy time (and sanity) saver.

You realize this can't even be classified as feedback, right?

The question marks in my post put the ball in your court. I don't see any attempt to answer. It's unfortunate too because when you think you have the answer, you stop looking for the right answer. I'm not only giving you great advice, I'm living my values by trying to help you in this way. You're missing it entirely because it doesn't confirm your bias.

It's a common misconception that intimate means physical. The definition given above indicates closeness, such as knowing a person, being familiar with them as a person. My pleasure. Thanks for sharing. Isn't it amazing how what we experience in our formative years shapes our experiences our entire lives? You never experienced affection, so displays of affection strike you as inappropriate because you only know of them in a sexual context. Since I did experience it, it never occurred to me that it could be seen as inappropriate. I know what you mean about the song though. As a baby, I was given this little yellow lion that you could wind up and his head would slowly move while music box innards played "My Little Sunshine." I'm told my father's mother gave it to me. She was one of the most gentle people in my childhood and died when I was 14-ish. I had that lion for the longest time, but don't know where it is now. To this day, if I hear that song, particularly if I envision as played in a music box form, my eyes well up. When I was a bit younger, it was also accompanied by memories of her, but that has since faded.

More accurately, it would be better to not give of yourself to somebody who would initiate the use of force against you. By stating that you oppose the initiation of force, to find somebody willing to do that to you, and then give of yourself to them, you're condoning their position. Statism is not a rational conclusion. It is the momentum of the past. This momentum only flourishes because of the amount of people that applaud others for this initiation of the use of force by proxy. If we instead make it uncomfortable to maintain such a position, it would disappear. This will do more to change the world than debating somebody who lacks integrity.

I did read your posts. And then I posed that question. So to me, it's not all there. And I offered a counterpoint that should lead to either a revision of your position or a clarification of it. Are you saying you're unwilling to clarify your own communication?

Thank you for sharing. I hope you don't mind if I ask you a few questions and/or offer some insight. Does your partner have self-knowledge? Do the two of your prioritize self-knowledge? Have the two of you committed to peaceful parenting? I wanted to correct the conclusion that is stated here. First of all, grouping children by age is actually a relatively new practice and one with no perceived benefits. Contrasted to the older model of children of different ages learning together, separation by age actually leads to comparatively reduced social skills. Still, being home-schooled is not causal in lacking social skills. If your parents did not socialize with you or model for you and your brothers socialization, then this is something to be attributed to them. It was their obligation to you to model the social skills needed to function on a planet with 7 billion others. Could this be due to a lack of understanding of what human nature is? I recommend checking out The Philosophical Baby by Alison Gopnik. Human nature is unbelievably impressive. Unfortunately, it can mostly be described as adapting and so many people are willing to use aggression towards children, causing them to adapt accordingly. In other words, what you may attribute to human nature is likely not nature at all if it leaves you with a low opinion of it. Have you yet been exposed to the idea of self-ownership? It leads to the understanding of morality and therefore the immorality of government. Politics is just the initiation of force against other people. I found learning these ideas to be incredibly liberating. So if I'm coming on too strong, this is why. Is there anything about this that you do not accept or find challenging? Welcome to FDR!

I know you said you weren't kissed on the lips as a child. How was affection modeled for/shared with you? The reason I ask is because while I certainly acknowledge that this is an interesting conversation, I experience no creepiness from those images. Although I would challenge the use of the word intimacy. You don't have to know somebody as a person to kiss them on the lips. I think affection is a more accurate classification.

Sadly, yes. Things like empathy and language skills have windows of opportunity. If empathy is not developed by a certain point, it cannot be. I don't know if this is to say that somebody that lacks empathy can choose to make moral decisions despite the destroyed ability to empathize. If they could, it wouldn't at all be the same as somebody that experiences it naturally.

I don't follow. Are you saying that theft is good because it reduces people's debt? Inflation would still be theft and in the transaction you're talking about, the debtor is getting stolen from. Please reconcile the square circle of theft is good (for the economy).

How do you know? Do you think it's not possible for a coercive home to break a child's innate empathy?

The exchange you offered lacked curiosity and had conclusions without methodology. I think this might be where the accusation of arrogance is coming from. Not saying that it's the right way for them to react in the moment or productive. As stated above, the evolution from fetus to baby to child to moral actor is one of the hardest areas to be morally consistent with, making it not the best place to start in determining one's philosophical chops.

Could you define inflation please? Under a State monopoly, you're talking about an artificial increase in the money supply, which is theft of value. This is bad for 99% of folks and could not be described as good for the economy. Also, could you define "real wage" and compare/contrast it to wage? I view use of this phrase as a red flag.

How do you minimize it by legitimizing it? How do you minimize it by adding to it? How do you minimize it by being a +1 in the participants of it list? You're speaking of a mythological creature again. The way to minimize it is to help those who have been propagandized to see the gun in the room. To understand that taxation is theft. That voting is the initiation of the use of force. That spanking is assault. That making decisions for other people is unethical. That pretending we can give to others that which we do not possess is fictional. However, if you say these things and then participate in a coercive system, such as by way of voting, then the people you're trying to help will only see that you can't even be bothered to live the values you espouse. You cannot minimize aggression by condoning aggression.

lol. That was my reaction too. Were you kissed on the lips by family as a child? I ask because your surprise surprises me. It was a part of my childhood so until now, I never gave it a second thought. Interesting question. I'm ambivalent as an initial reaction. On the one hand, affection is EXTREMELY important to model for a child, including the child. On the other hand, there are ways to be affectionate without kissing on the lips. Then again, kisses are given with the lips, so it's not the same as genitals even if it can be used by adults as an erogenous zone. As such, I would say that it comes down to intent since the behavior itself isn't problematic.

This is contradictory. Are you looking to deliver a message or discussing philosophy? I see the former as a soliloquy and the latter as a conversation. So my answer would be to try and understand where the person you're talking to is coming from. If you haven't already, I'd check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. You won't change minds if you don't understand how minds are made up in the first place. For example, if you're talking truth to somebody more interested in comfort, there is no way to deliver the message. "2+2=4" "What, like all the time, everywhere? That's arrogant!" Could you make the case for "the NAP" to me? Maybe I can help refine your approach.