dsayers

You can play in whatever region you want, but each region maintains different statuses. So if you were to play on a region you haven't before, you'll have to redo the tutorial and start with a beginner's collection there. I saw Wes log off a couple days ago, but not login. Sorry I missed you. Ended up not hitting legendary. No biggie.

This doesn't even acknowledge my curiosity. Why should I take your input seriously if you cannot be bothered to do as much? Is this not a topic you created? Isn't it your responsibility as the initiator of communication to make an effort towards making your communication understandable? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Very inspiring to read. I thank you for sharing and for your honesty. Does your husband's vestigial religious upbringing translate into passing fiction off as fact to your child? I phrase it that way because after being raised in a religious household myself and learning to critically think later, the part that angers me the most is that the things I were told as if they are true are things the people telling me had no proof for. How involved is your husband in helping you with the yelling? Does he help you to identify the underlying causes? Does he help by giving mommy some downtime from the child to help manage the symptoms in the moment? These are part of the job descriptions of spouse and parent I apologize if I'm coming on too strong. Sociology and developmental psychology are probably the areas of philosophy I'm drawn to the most. My former, psuedo-patriarchal white knightism has translated in trying to protect children for the purpose of ushering in a sustainable, peaceful future for the human race. What areas of philosophy are you most interested in?

I'm not sure I grasp how the "well-being" of the moon explains a topic title of good vs evil.

How do you know? Are you saying that YOU would walk right out the front door? Do you think without a State, such an action would have no consequences, both in the moment and later on? How do you square the circle of we need the State to steal from us to prevent theft from occurring? How do you explain the theft that takes place with a State in place? What exactly does the State do to "allow" "law and order" to happen?I post these questions for the benefit of others. Last time you responded to something I said, you summarized my words as "lots of stuff." Which tells me you're only seeking confirmation of your bias. Ironic since your intro to this forum involved the inability to influence others and inefficient use of one's time in trying.

Stuff like this makes it hard for me to remember a time when I thought schooling and education were synonymous and wasn't convinced that government schooling is child abuse. Subjecting those who cannot refuse or fight back to something like this just to make a family member some money is completely wretched. Not to mention that focusing on drugs would be trying to manage the symptoms and not the problem. Which will never happen in school since they are part of the problem.

I think it depends entirely on where/how the suicide is to take place. I don't think it's controversial to point out that a person owns their life and can choose to end it if they so desire. HOWEVER, most ways of doing it would leave a mess, forcing a positive obligation onto others. Take jumping in front of a bus for example. You're going to damage the bus, leave something on the road for others to have to clean up, inflict trauma on the bus driver and any spectators, etc. Nobody morally has the right to do any of that. I haven't been able to imagine a scenario where a suicide would NOT do something like this to another person. The closest I've come to is paying somebody to execute your estate once you're gone, then paying for a boat ride to the middle of nowhere and weighing yourself down in the water. Even then, you're subjecting the boat operator to trauma, so that doesn't address the issue. I think that until somebody can come up with a way to do it that doesn't impose a positive obligation onto another without their consent, it would not be immoral to obstruct somebody's attempt. I sincerely apologize for how cold all of this might sound.

Welcome! Whereabouts in Michigan if you don't mind me asking? I was just up in Ann Arbor this past weekend and have a buddy who lives in Canton. If I may be so bold, there's one part of your intro that's missing and I must ask: Have you vowed to break the cycle of violence in raising your own child? It's certainly not too late. To that end, how much do you value self-knowledge? What about your husband? As for your parents, I was in a similar boat as you. I saw one as good and the other as bad. Then as time went on, my understanding of both of them became much clearer. Both were much worse than I gave them credit for at first. One thing I wanted to share in that regard is that it's important to keep in mind that you only had the mom that you had because your dad chose that person to be your mom and vice versa. I bring this up not only to help you in your processing of it in your parents, but in the way you interact with your child.

Guys, anarchy is all around you. When you go to the store, there are people all around you. They don't run into each other despite no police being there to stop it. You say excuse me, sorry, thank you, please, you're welcome, etc and so does everybody else. Yes, when you check out, the State steps in and takes their cut. However, when not directly being actioned in this fashion, you are living in anarchy. The sooner we get people looking at their own lives instead of talking about these things as if they're in the abstract, the sooner we can begin to give peace a chance.

You know what I've observed? When what you're trying to convince somebody of is the truth, acceptance isn't required. On the other hand, those who are threatening and aggressive are basically doubling down in the face of rational rejection BECAUSE what they're selling isn't the truth. This tells me both that my initial impression was accurate, as well as what the most important aspect of you childhood was. It saddens me to learn this of you, find you here of all places, convinced enough to donate to the cause, yet lack this fundamental step in self-knowledge.

What people believe in is highly irrelevant. If I believed unicorns were made out of ice cream, it wouldn't mean anything. Belief is temporary. You believe something and then you seek out whether it is true or not. At which point it becomes knowledge or is discarded as not accurately describing the real world. @Wesley: I don't think computers are a valid example of an emergent property. They are the sum of their parts and are reducible.

Sorry, batman, but you're (contraction of "you" and "are") being incredibly manipulative in your (possessive) first paragraph. This tells me that whatever follows likely isn't honest and that you lack self-knowledge. I didn't bother reading the rest. I hope this feedback has some value for you.

@Magnus: Thanks for making that contrast. It was educational.

Philosophy is the method by which to test the truth value of objective claims. There is nothing wrong with likening it to the scientific method. Science after all is a branch of philosophy. Originally know as natural philosophy.

Do you believe that? I thought the point of showing violence eating peaceful opposition was to show that coercion offers no alternatives. Coercion has a way of freezing something in time. In the case of hate speech or discrimination, coercion makes it so that people are afraid to say/do anything, not to re-examine their position and conform due to some moral awakening.

Obligation? No. You cannot survive without destroying nature. Nature cannot survive without destroying nature. The thing about nature is that until the point that it is eradicated, it is replenished and reproduced. I'm sorry that you feel guilty for being alive. That must be horrible. I appreciate your sensitivity and agree that there are things we can do that would be better for our coexistence with nature on this planet. A lot of that is already in place and underway. Without a State, I agree that things will really take off in this regard. The thing to keep in mind is that we are to the planet just as bacteria are to us. We benefit a great deal from all the "destruction" they bring to us. However, when they get out of hand, we can ravage them. The planet shows us every day who is in charge. We're just doing what we can to survive in the meantime. We can certainly do a lot better and I hope with people like yourself--particularly if they do not allow themselves to be consumed by irrationale--I have no doubt whatsoever that we will

I've added you, Wes. Though the next couple days, I'll be focused on ranked play. As an ex-Magic player who did the local tournament scene, I think I have it in me to attain legendary rank. Was rank 3 with 5 stars last night and I started the day off as rank 6. Yeah, there's some RNG in the game. However, skilled play means that despite RNG, you'll win a lot more than you'll lose. Plus, I think losing is fun because of what the game is capable of, even based on RNG. But even things like which cards to mulligan offers tremendously opportunities for skill/mistakes.

Basically, your question is how are humans moral actors while animals and plants are not. The answer is the capacity for reason. We have the capability of determining an ideal, choosing behaviors based on that ideal, and anticipating the outcome of those behaviors.

Murder is immoral because it is the exercising of ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. Namely their life, not their potential.

Performative contradiction. "manipulative, pseudo-intellectual bullies" are shaming words, ostracism, and a smear tactic. Calling upon a State to solve ANY issue (other than the issue of not enough violence) is the behavior of manipulative, pseudo-intellectual bullies. So you also cross your own fake claim when you say: Ostracism is a morally acceptable way of bringing about change. I cannot make somebody not think/act like a racist, but I can choose to not associate with them. Yes, I can also make the case to them if I'm so inclined, but it is not obligatory. I don't think anybody called you a statist, but I appreciate you sharing it. Performative contradiction. With a State, you don't get criminal justice, you get stealing from people they say are bad. Also, you cannot have actual criminal justice and a State army at the same time. As for roads, they existed before the State controlled them. The idea that people could not build a flat thing without everybody being stolen from is absurd. Also, without State coercion entrenching us in oil-based transportation and/or regulatory stifling of innovation, whose to say we'd even need roads? I DO know that we don't actually have roads with a State. At least not based on the lack of maintenance I'm seeing on the roads today. This is what naturally follows a lack of accountability and competition. I thank you very much for your post, tiepolo. I expect it's going to save me a fair amount of time in the future.

I don't know if that question can be answered. Maybe you could help by sharing where this is going or what exactly it is that you're fishing for.

I found Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy to be immensely helpful in ushering me into my own personal era of critical thinking. However, I am not too familiar with other works in this area. So I cannot say for sure if my recommendation is based on what it did for me or because it's actually that good. Though either way, I think it needs a redux with some of the excess trimmed out and re-recorded with the awesome equipment he now has access to.

I think so. What you're saying is that the legislation IS the violent opposition? I think this is one of those times where less is more. Or put another way, trusting the intelligence of your audience makes the art more engaging. If you were to black out the words violent opposition altogether, people would see non-violent being eaten by legislation and get that you were saying that legislation is violent AND displaces non-violent alternatives. Keeping that in mind, even now as I re-examine the image, I'm curious about the acceptance area. Like it seems as if its placement relative to the other areas doesn't really add to it. Or am I missing something with that also? Like what if non-violent opposition was to the left of acceptance with some subtle clue indicating that you're communicating that it would lead to acceptance. Then you could have the legislation area coming from above to indicate it has no relation with the natural left to right progression, but instead is implemented top down. On a side note, I've always had a problem with the word discrimination as well as the phrase hate speech. The word discrimination implies wrong doing on the part of the perpetrator. However, what somebody does with their own property is their's to decide. If people found not hiring somebody because of such things as race or gender, they would alienate their customers for doing so. But it doesn't make the act itself wrong. As for hate speech, the phrase is dishonest. Racial slurs aren't the only form of "hateful" speech. I would even argue that you cannot legitimately hate something with which you're not acquainted, which would require more than the knowledge of their heritage. Not saying you should consider removing these ideas form your image. After all, they are widely understood ideas. Thought I'd share my thoughts since I was already thinking about the image.

That's actually one of my favorite things about him. The underlying message in his Truth About (person) series is to not idolize people.