dsayers

You're such a rebel! Oh crap, now I'm an associate. Thanks for that link. I had heard otherwise, but as hearsay.

Proximity = virtue. Be that family, sports team, nation, etc. Religion. You could make a whole list on that subject alone. It's threatening. It preps you for subjugation. It passes off as fact that which has not been substantiated. It doesn't address that it cannot be substantiated or that it is internally inconsistent. Even things as seemingly minute as "don't judge a book by its cover" is designed to let vampires suck on your neck for just a little while longer. In summary, literally every conclusion that was given without a case being made turned out to be false. At least that's what I've been learning. It's really hard unlearning all that stuff. Especially since it's hard to know what it is that you don't know that you don't know.

Collectivizing is generalizing at best. So it's certainly not a term of precision to say the least. There was a time when the word was used to ostracize those who clung to an outdated, immoral paradigm. I think this is really, REALLY important. For example, the day will come when people flee from the label of statist. As opposed to present day where they instead attack the anarchist simply because they believe their brethren are behind them. Such a word could directly oppose historical momentum. Anyways, it should also be pointed out that labels in general are imprecise. Even if somebody is a racist and even if that is a blight on that person and even if society rejects such a blight, it's not all that that person is. Plus it would undoubtedly be a sign of unprocessed trauma.

I wasn't making an argument. I was correcting your error.

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. If you want to know if something is moral, immoral, or amoral, see if it's a behavior, there are more than one person, and one of the people is initiating the use of force. If it's not a behavior and/or doesn't directly involve more than one person, it is amoral. Otherwise, if there is the initiation of the use of force, it is immoral. Otherwise, it is moral.

I don't care for being collectivized. Almost as much as I don't care for expressing curiosity as to what you're trying to say only to have you avoid clarifying it, while accusing others of avoidance... then collectivizing me. When you speak of others being closed-minded, you are projecting.

Commons are non-owned, not mutli-owned. Companies are concepts. Married couples are considered legally one person, but this doesn't mean that problems couldn't arise as I've explained. Time shares are owned by their owners and rented out to people who pay money for the opportunity. It's called ownership as a marketing ploy. Vague, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Here, you're not talking about open borders, you're talking about aggression. This is different from "opposing open borders." The contradiction I observed was in your misrepresentation.

An embryo will develop into something on its own? Why then are medical professionals (and the woman's body) waiting nine months to expel it? Pepin's right; If you cite potentiality as if it's meaningful, you have to apply it universally.

By laws, I assume you mean legislation. Legislation is the initiation of the use of force. So how could opposition be described as violent?

I am very glad you've found your way through the door of rational thought. I hope you find what you're looking for and have the courage to face it even when it's uncomfortable. You've survived thus far, so while the road forward might not be easy, the worst of it is behind you. With all due sensitivity, I feel as if you haven't really said much in terms of what your experiences are. Could you elaborate?

But that doesn't answer the question. Even if you don't value self-knowledge, it's a very important question. Or before you know it, you'll find that all your friends engage in irrational behavior and it'll do your head in.

I'm not talking about the brainwash-ers. I'm talking about the brainwashed. Check out the work of Allison Gopnik. Babies are born rational and empathetic. It takes abuse to break somebody to the point of being brainwash-able. How do you know you were never abused? Part of the brainwashing is manipulating language. If your idea of what constitutes abuse, it would skew your capacity to assess whether you were abused or not. You say you were brainwashed heavily until about 19. Were you an orphan? Who brainwashed you or tried to brainwash you? Human enslavement and subjugation is a practice that is millenia old. It would be incredibly naive to think that you can make any meaningful change in the short term by addressing the leaves and the branches while ignoring the roots. But it's not up to them if other people get stolen from and if they consent to being stolen from themselves, then it's not theft. You say people think that as if that means anything. If people thought that 2+2=5, what would that mean in a dialogue about educating people on the subject of math? You were given a resource to help you achieve your stated goal, but you did not avail yourself of it. Yet you're expressing a belief on the same subject. Could this maybe explain why you have not been met with the results you'd like to see? Our values can be found in our behaviors. If you had checked out the information in that series (it's relatively short in terms of Stef material), you'd understand that you very well might not be able to convince people that theft is immoral or that is important. However, what you can do is not give people who advocate immorality the pleasure of your company and/or time. See, statism isn't a conclusion that is arrived at by way of rational thought. It is the momentum of history. Just like with slavery, racism, etc the moment it becomes unfashionable to support aggression to solve complex social issues, that is the moment that even the unprincipled will stop subscribing to it. THAT is how YOU can make a difference RIGHT NOW.

I went to a Hearthstone gathering yesterday. It was really cool. A bunch of different people there, all getting along without anybody telling them what to do, what not to do, etc. It was nice having people to talk to about this pastime that I enjoy. Was wondering if others in this community have been enjoying it as well.

Actually, I've seen property defined as exclusive rights to something. I don't feel as if you've made a case for joint property. Straw man. I never said I was against restrictions. I never said I opposed Germans invading Poland. What I said was: How could something that promoted restriction be called a libertarian argument? You haven't answered that.

I'm willing to hear the case for joint property, but it doesn't sound right to me. You cannot drive it simultaneously, or one sell it while the other keeps it, etc. Even if you could, it wouldn't mean you have a claim to a different car. Not even one parked right next to it. So the idea that because we were born here, we have more of a claim to the collective land that those not born here is absurd. How could something that promoted restriction be called a libertarian argument?

Like your 74+ hr (and counting) in the making reply to a 1 paragraph question that is directly related to the thread YOU created? http://www.liquidhearth.com/forum/general/2019-michigan-hearthstone-league-sponsored-by-pharo-llc#17 I think I understand why you need for morality to be subjective: You have no issue with asserting standards for others that you excuse yourself from.

But if people were violent towards you during your formative years, you don't have the ability to just blindly decide to not be violent. Like your first post, I think you're just talking about managing symptoms without addressing the problem. This might be why you appear to be blind towards how we overcome the victim mentality.

I like to use the wild beast eating your picnic scenario. Sure, that's YOUR sandwich, but there's nothing to gain in provoking the beast that's just going to maul you for soliciting their attention. To do anything within THEIR system legitimizes their system. I say pay your protection money and otherwise live like there isn't a State. You'll be a lot happier and you won't be soliciting the attention of a predator that doesn't take kindly to you trying to take back what's yours. They don't own you. They know they don't own you. You know they don't own you. I don't see anything to gain from writing it down.

I agree that it is interesting that you could avoid a question, accuse others of avoiding, then when the hypocrisy is pointed out, claim that that is avoiding also. Your posts are almost all output and no input. For example, your sentence about seeing how many people understand X, Y, and Z is arrogant. How do you know that YOU do? If you avoid questions, do not express curiosity, and ignore challenges, then it is not the truth that you seek and we have nothing further to discuss.

Looks like "working as intended" to me. "Paper no stoppy the bullets!" -Stefan Molyneux

True. If mock rape wouldn't fly, mock assault should be right out. In fact, you could argue that they're desensitizing the dogs.

Ahead of that, you have to get yourself to tomorrow. I'm not fully aware of how a reservist fits in, but doesn't quitting entail labels such as desertion and/or dishonorable discharge? This doesn't seem to be in keeping with self-preservation. I appreciate your moral sensitivity. I'm also somebody who made the mistake of standing up to the bear that raided the campground because that was MY sandwich (figurative). Surviving comes first. I'm really sorry you were lied into such a difficult position

Why are you friends with somebody who could make such a large decision without expressing any interest in your input? Also, I don't see how the title has anything to do with the post. Are you saying that he owes you allegiance because you knew him first? Because y'all have penises and she doesn't?

I think that's a fantastic interpretation. It would seem that your subconscious is trying to tell you something. Please keep in mind that I am not a psychologist.

How do you refuse to be abusive towards others having been abused yourself? If you cannot answer that, then you too are merely managing the symptoms. If you can answer that, then you know the answer of how to overcome this (self-knowledge).