dsayers

I don't think so. Trump would probably be a better ruler than Hillary, but rulers should not be tolerated. Seems accurate to me.

Thank you for the clarifications. This does nothing to address the challenges I've offered though. To which I now add that "existing criminal code" is about as arbitrary a standard as one could apply. THESE are the conversations people "should" be having.

I've argued before that "step in the right direction" is a myth. It's a way of getting good people to play by the rules of bad people. Trump in the FDR community is a FANTASTIC example of how I mean.

To be clear, voting is NOT immoral. For two reasons. First of all, it's attempting to transfer ownership of people the voter does not own. So it's an act of fantasy. Secondly because even if everybody in the world tells you it's okay to murder, you are still free to decline. So voting, even if it were not fantasy, would not be binding upon another. It's despicable, but not immoral. Your analogy is not analogous I'm afraid. What a person does to their own body is their choice. Voting is people pretending/trying to bind others. There simply isn't a "better way" to rape. While I appreciate the earnest of your approach, I'm getting annoyed as this is essentially what you're trying to figure out. If a person accepts self-ownership and understands that the State is predicated on the violation of property, then time spent trying to convince others of which master MIGHT whip softer IF you had the capability of choosing one of them is time NOT spent convincing those same people that they own themselves. People who want to defeat Clinton could evaporate the gun in the room. You don't have to choose (the lesser of two) evil. Clinton is only dangerous because of the gun in the room. It's the only reason anybody knows her name. It is the eventuality of such a weapon being available and perceived as legitimate. Wasting time convincing slaves which master might whip softer only keeps that gun in the room as a fixture of the human condition that much longer. We don't have the right and it's a cowardly thing to do for the sake of our imaginary comfort in the present.

What does "support Trump" mean?! Why can't people just be honest and say I accept this person's claim to be able to rule over others? I can't help but imagine that people use the word "support" to feel like they're doing more than they actually are. How do you justify "supporting" somebody's claim to be able to rule over others? Crook? Do you think you will not be stolen from under Trump? How do you know? "Should be talking about" according to whom? I think this is a self-detonating claim. Because you are talking about who should sit on the throne rather than whether or not the throne is valid; Whether or not people can exist in different, opposing moral categories.

How can other people convince you if you're going to marginalize their response as just "wall of text," which addresses its length, not its truth value? Have you checked out the Bomb in the Brain series before? In order to influence somebody, you have to first understand WHY they believe what they believe.

How do you know? Wouldn't this be more of a reflection of her lack of self-knowledge in staffing her support network with people who care about her enough to NOT criticize her for such things than of her choice to not wear makeup? This is the point I keep trying to make and it's surprising to me that nobody else is willing to discuss the correlation with self-knowledge. Thank you for sharing your experience. Sounds Aristotilian mean-y. However, I don't see how it could enhance virtue as it would serve as a distraction from that virtue.

If only Trump supporters allowed this to infiltrate their own conclusion.

Because there's no such thing as a square triangle. "Political candidate" and "libertarian" are incompatible as one is predicated on the violating liberty. Freedom is not analog. A person is free or they are not. When they choose to vote, they are telling you that they are not free even within their own head. Voting is an act of fantasy, for all the reasons which I've listed many times. Believing that fantasy can influence the real world (other than signaling to others that the fantasy is real) is wishful thinking at best. You have no way of knowing this. You don't own me with which to try. And we know by his own admission that he is anti-freedom. Well put. I just wanted to add that even if all of that were not true, *I* own me and I don't want a master. Political voting is akin to gang rape. I will be forced to have a master. Which I realize at this point in the game is going to happen anyways. It's just that my self-ownership accepting tribe shouldn't be asking for/condoning it. Thanks for the link. Just wanted to push back on the claim of "less government." Like freedom, government isn't analog. The people chose one master over another, which is not at all the same as choosing freedom.

Neither one of them said anything about morality.

While I don't think "cannot resist" is accurate, I'm glad you phrased it this way. To me, manipulation is being dishonest for the purpose of altering the thoughts, feelings, or behaviors of another. As such, wearing makeup is manipulative!

Wuzzums offered good push back to this. I just wanted to add that it's subjective, so no absolute statement could be true. Since finding self-knowledge (why is nobody else touching that variable), I tend to look down on makeup and actively try to compensate for the ways in which as a male, my body is designed to ease my inhibitions at the proposition of the possibility of reproducing. Using this perspective, one could also say that wearing a short skirt would have you being seen as more favorable in the workplace... to those who only think of you as your body. Somebody like me, who is more interested in your personality and productivity could actually potentially mark you down for this blatant attempt at artificial value. You need to define moral then. For a behavior to have any moral component, it must be binding upon others. Applying makeup to one's self does not fit the criteria.

But protecting the individual protects the father, the child, the grandchild, all of their friends and neighbors... I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. As I look back, the root point of contention here is that "That doesn't mean you get to steal from me and my unborn child to pay for it" is a true statement" is a logical fallacy to you and a true statement to me. How does saying there was no one to land an assault on diminish my pointing out that you don't get to steal from me? Do you realize that the word "assault" is predicated on there being an assailant and a target? "no one to land an assault on" is nonsensical.

I'm tempted not to answer this question. I don't think it's fair amid a river of people who would throw me under the bus for pointing out the ways in which they're living contrary to their values for me to do the work for them that they're not willing to do themselves. Nor do I wish to give those I feel have been led astray more reason to stay there. That said, I really appreciate the question. I appreciate its fairness and the challenge to remain consistent with my own values. Namely that one's theories need to be tested and even discarded in the event that they are found to not conform with the real world. I think the most convincing rhetoric one could level in support of political voting is trying to apply the wisdom in using the State amid the otherwise free market. By this I mean the ways in which businesses can use the gun in the room to gain artificial footing ahead of their competitors. Or even for example, the way Trump has boasted of paying no taxes. I think the analogy Stef has used is that if testosterone was permitted in professional sports, then those not making use of it would be outperformed by those who are. Essentially using the gun in the room to inflict your will first to avoid others using it to inflict their will first. There are two reasons why I think this is valid in the first example and invalid in the context of political voting. The first (and most important for anybody who accepts self-ownership) is that those using the State for business/financial gain don't see it as grabbing for a gun. They only see that they live in a world where the State is believed to be valid, so they're making use of it just as an athlete would use testosterone. Secondly, the product "we" are trying to sell is freedom. Reaching for the gun in the room is self-detonating. It is antithetical. It's like hitting a child for hitting somebody. Well the word "practical" here destroys the claim. Imagination can be a fantastic way of envisioning alternative paths to a solution. Treating fantasy as real is very impractical, and is in fact antithetical to our very survival. By that I mean that calling things by their proper names is paramount to our survival (teddy bear vs grizzly bear). Voting to address a problem is like passing up antibiotics in favor of prayer. The moment you pretend that praying will have ANY influence over the problem, your action becomes ineligible for the descriptor "practical." Would you agree? This is both cowardly and emulating tyrants. It's basically saying that one is okay with subjugating humanity as long as it's for a good cause. That's how we got here! ALL government is a credible threat of harm. It doesn't matter who sits on the throne. We will all continue to be stolen from, threatened to be caged for arbitrary shit, and threatened to be murdered if we try to resist any of it. You render Hillary impotent by taking away the perceived legitimacy of the State. Something one cannot do while pretending the State is valid by playing along with its silly rituals. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Not only is this not a special case, but there could be no special case. Because as my null hypotheses remind us, there's no way of knowing what a person will do once they have the ring of power. We do know that everything they claim to do will be coupled by the very institutionalized violence that is the problem. The Milgram Experiments showed us the way power over another corrupts. What human could even be fit to rule? They would have to know what's best for everybody and then inflict it upon them. Isn't inflicting something upon somebody antithetical to what's best for them? Wouldn't the person doing the inflicting be engaging in performative contradiction by exercising their will by preventing others the exercising of their will? There is nothing fundamentally different about Trump. He's a human being, same as all of us. I look forward to your reply

Cheating or not, I wouldn't want a relationship with somebody that didn't want to be with me. I would want omebody who despite having a very late day herself, really appreciated the amazing conversations we had that day, the excellent self-knowledge growth I was helpful in that day, the physical connections we shared that day that even though I had to go outside to clear some snow, would want to stay up a bit later so that we could go to bed together (for example).

If you refuse people the use of your body, then you already understand this.

Hello! I'm from Ohio. Is that the Great Lakes state? I've never heard any state referred to as that. Stef's earlier work was instrumental in my evolution as well. Things like accepting my capacity for error, thinking rationally, and identifying all the abuse I had been subjected to has given me the gift of ME and the power to sculpt me into an amazing person. A far departure from the life of a pinball I was living before. I'm glad you've received so much value from such things too!

When I started pursuing self-knowledge, I began to get turned off by makeup in general. My mother spent lots of time every day putting makeup on, just for around the house. It was indication of a lack of inner beauty. This was and still is my bias. Then Stef had done a video on makeup and I felt vindicated. In it, he talked about the way a woman's lips and cheeks can become flush during arousal. I had no idea what he was talking about at almost 40 years of age! Then I met a woman who had already decided for herself to stop wearing makeup. She noticed that the quality of men that would approach her and the quality of topics that would approach her about improved conspicuously. It was one of many decision/efforts she had made to improve herself. She was so impressive to me in every way that we got engaged. For the first time, I got to see what Stef was talking about. The way her lips and cheeks would signal how she was feeling. Even the areas around her eyes assisted in my empathizing with her in the moment. Sometimes even detecting her feelings/moods before she did. Having known that, I don't think I could ever settle for a less organic experience. Then when we were together, I also noticed how much less time and money she spent on such frivolity. So yes, even though I was turned off by makeup before, I am thoroughly opposed to it. Yes, I shower and shave and I realize there is a fine line between self-care and compensation. So I also look for practicality. Such as manner of dress. Is the woman practical? Or is she putting herself forward as a trophy of sorts. None of which is a deal-breaker per se, but have I ever been spoiled! I would rather a woman lead with her self-knowledge than her outer beauty. And I'm not one to judge. I bite my nails, including my toes. I see it as pragmatic. It even has the nifty side effect of boosting my immune system. Though I would fully understand it being written off as unprocessed trauma and/or an otherwise bad habit. So I try not to isolate myself over such things. In the end, I also very much enjoy a lack of makeup because it is counter-culture. Most of what I would want in a partner is, so that's a promising signal for me.

Whose children? Under what circumstances? Not enough information. I think the way a person is with animals can be a good indication too. But again, would depend on the circumstances. I don't think you can make either an absolute rule.

Perhaps the steepest cliff of upside down "logic" I've ever seen! This is called an unchosen positive obligation and it is an unethical proposition. The only way any person is capable of the level of destruction you describe is if there's a State and there is widespread belief in its legitimacy. Which voting validates and perpetuates.

Certainly. I've been doing much to try and find as many high quality people as possible. I think the thing to keep in mind is that humans are a K selected species. It's only the perpetuation of the perceived legitimacy of the state that allows humans to behave as r selected with any real success. Institutionalized coercion socializes the consequences of irresponsible behavior. How could anybody know anything? Stef has published the characteristics of the two. If somebody were to go down the list and recognize that they conform to one and not the other... right? Questions cannot be virtuous. This is an ad hominem. How do you know? If you accept that the State is predicated on immorality and a potential friend mentally desperately needs for the State to be valid, it seems like a good idea to focus on this divide so as not to irresponsibly allocate one's resources. Same as any other investment.

Criminal doesn't mean anything since the lines one has to cross to get there are arbitrary. How do they define corrupt? Ultimately, it doesn't matter. It will take a LOT LOT longer to try and discuss the traits of each and every individual that wants to sit on the throne. It's much more efficient to focus on whether or not the throne exists and is valid. You can't change people's minds with logic, reason, and evidence if they didn't arrive at their conclusion by ways outside of logic, reason, and evidence. Trying to do so will only serve to make them believe in their position MORE. If you haven't already, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series.

I wish people would stop using the word "support" incorrectly. Anyways, this is the cognitive dissonance I'm trying to combat. If you accept that person A can never have a greater claim of ownership over person B than person B does, engaging in political voting is not consistent with this. Because with your vote, you are saying that human subjugation is valid, you choose that particular master, and that you transfer to them ownership of everybody within the jurisdiction they're running for. If this bothers you, then don't vote. Instead, live according to your values.

I would take it a step further and say it helps keep reality front and center. Much of the dissent I experience is the time-honored tradition of praying to a deity to save us despite the fact that the same deity put us here in the first place. At least tossing people into volcanoes had flare (nyuk nyuk). Not sure what you mean. I have yet to see a counter-ARGUMENT or an encroaching of any of the null hypotheses I've put forth. Or do you mean my approach to the null hypotheses others have put forth? Because that hasn't happened either. The closest thing was a recent podcast of Stef's, which I debunked the same night it was released here. If I received a credible threat of harm in the event that I did not vote. Where coercion is present, choice is not. Kind of like how I pay my protection money only as much as they make me and then I live my values as I'm able. It's so bizarre to me that such things even need to be said in a place like this; The whole reason why voting is not required is because it's more effective not to! If the State threatened people who didn't vote, all we'd see is a big bully. If instead you leave the vote up to the people, but indoctrinate the children to believe gang rape (democracy) is benevolent, then they will rise up in droves, swearing it is a duty and an honor to pick a master, ostracizing anybody who would have the audacity not even to tell them they ought to be free, but just abstaining for any reason! It's SO effective and some of the brightest minds STILL fall for it. And for the same tired reasons that gets trotted out every cycle. It's the definition of insanity. Pardon the rant there. It wasn't aimed at you, luxfelix. Thank you for the thought-provoking questions. It's a refreshing change of pace from [scan for agreement] -> [no agreement found] -> *spew*.