dsayers

This is like saying one person did not assault another if the intended victim dodges.

Not one argument or attempt to address any null hypothesis put forward. Seeing fires where there aren't any and missing the ones you are trying to set is not healthy.

Assertion, appeal to emotion, strawman, appeal to emotion, and false premise. It's the people that wish to enslave a nation that wish for it to burn. Not that there is such a thing. If the best you can do is tease me for accepting reality, I can live with that.

@Dylan in the video: Cannot find an argument against?! How hard have you looked? Null Hypotheses and Political Voting - Even though "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" puts the onus on pro-voters, I've provided a list of null hypotheses that to date, not ONE PERSON has been willing to encroach a single one. I could provide other material, but the lengths I'm willing to go to use logic, reason, and evidence to offset that which wasn't arrived at by those means is diminishing. Likely to my credit. The bottom line is that you don't own me. So you couldn't actually transfer ownership of me even if political voting were anything more than an act of fantasy.

Pro-voters are pretending to be able to transfer ownership of me. If somebody reached onto your plate, there is nothing wrong with saying, "That's mine." But I was never talking about MY freedom. I was talking about those people here, who already have the knowledge and the tools to be free in their own mind, yet are begging for a master (for me) all the same. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the ways in which people are not living according to their stated values/goals. My question is: Why would you focus on this instead of the people betraying themselves and you? Because the ideas of self-ownership and the way it is universalized are realized and thanks to the internet, is at work, burning away Statism in people's minds. To see the farm is to escape it as Stef has said.

Fearmongering. You don't own me and I know better than to pretend I own you. ADDRESS THIS! All you're doing is redressing the trolley issue. I did not create the situation. I am not responsible for it. I'm not so naive as to think that engaging in a magic ritual that is predicated on pretending to own you will change a damn thing. Convincing people that they are free and here is one way to live as such is making a difference. I appreciate the perspective. However, this is the entire point of bread and circus: To divide people horizontally to stop them from dividing vertically. Stef has pointed out that the effects of the State are in the "slave on slave violence." I've been asked what my theory is as to why have voting at all if it doesn't matter; This is precisely it. It gives the illusion of choice and gives people who would otherwise be free and principled another way to faction off and render ourselves impotent against millenia of human subjugation. The people who would otherwise know better are back to co-operating with their enslavement and begging their masters to save them. It's one of the most tragic things I've beheld, and I have known loss and suffering to extreme degrees

An "appeal to emotion" is a logical fallacy. "That doesn't mean you get to steal from me and my unborn child to pay for it" is a true statement. So much personalization and ad hominem. I don't think you are a curious person seeking the truth, but rather seeking ways to make your prejudice fit.

Voting is pretending to be able to transfer ownership of me. The passive-aggressiveness in your post should be aimed at those who wish to enslave you, not the ones trying to put an end to it all by telling the truth.

Which one do you use to get over the hump that you don't own me?

My brother! My heart goes out to you. It's hard enough for those of us who have to wake up and find the world we knew to not be the real world. I can imagine how much more seemingly insurmountable it must be when you are hitched and there are children involved. Kudos to you for having the courage to face this. Your life WILL get richer. I'm curious as to how old your children are. How were they raised by the two of you? Have you been having conversations with them regarding the self-knowledge you've gained and how it might alter the face of your prior parenting? You are not alone. I hope you will reach out to me, perhaps on facebook.

You do not "save Western Civilization (undefined)" by pretending to be able to enslave hundreds of millions of people. Condoning institutionalized violence because we think it will give us what we want is what got us here in the first place. The very state you are begging to rule over me created the problem you think it can solve. Also, you use a LOT of verbiage that poisons the well. I asked you in another thread how you arrived at the conclusions you were putting forth, which went unanswered. It's very telling that the people who occupy this position refuse to shoot straight when "discussing" it. I looked back at what you said. It still seems ambiguous in light of your clarification. It's still a bogus claim with the clarification. Because if all you can do with that forum is to accept human subjugation, how can you arrive at the conclusion that this is something that SHOULD continue? It's not happening now, which I already made the point of. Along with others you chose not to address. See above "shoot straight."

This is exactly the mindset I'm combatting. If you think that you need external permission to be free INSIDE YOUR OWN HEAD, there is no internal freedom for any external source to allow to continue in the first place. The external things I THINK you're trying to claim will continue aren't even present now, you have no way of knowing what Trump will do, you don't appear to understand the limits of what one person CAN do, or that your vote doesn't influence the outcome, that by voting, you're participating in and legitimizing the system, which actively puts a halt on the things you think should continue by condoning the enslavement of all who could continue it. Human consciousness has risen above the acceptance of human subjugation in the name of the State. Which side of this evolution of mankind are you on? You can cling to your record player because the grainy pops feels more organic to you all you'd like. You do NOT get to pretend to own me and everybody else because you're afraid to tell the truth. Trump can't preserve that because you're not preserving it now.

False dichotomy and poisoning the well (upset). I can't speak for "they," but I understand both that you cannot influence the outcome and that your participation legitimizes it. The reason why I invest effort (what you refer to as "upset") is because to participate means you're not free in your own mind. Something that anarchists, capitalists, people that accept property rights, people that reject government, and people who think rationally should be able to attain based on that status. Where coercion is present, choice is not. When somebody is given a credible threat of violence, the ways in which they're not living their values doesn't mean they don't hold those values. We're talking about the VOLUNTARY action of voting and you know it. This is just very base line sophistry, that YOU have seen ME debunk a dozen times that you throw out to give yourself reason to reject the truth.

How do you know that your position is worth convincing others of? From their perspective, it might seem like they'd like advice on how to influence you. What does "flack" look like? Do you think that word poisons the well? From me, "flack" would be reminding you of many things you probably already know, not the least of which is that you don't own me. What does "supporting" Trump look like? Do you think his bid for owning me is valid? Do you "support" human slavery? Because they want a different master or because they reject masters?

You are welcome. I'm glad you are getting value from it Have you watched the Bomb in the Brain series? You can't influence people until you understand WHY they believe what they believe. I can only guess what "fundamental disagreement" is, but chances are, to change her position would mean to accept that everybody she ever trusted lied to her. That is a scary proposition for anybody; To suddenly wake up and find yourself in what is effectively a new world. I cannot even imagine forming a connection who thinks "I'm right, you're wrong, we can't talk about this," let alone growing such a deep connection as to want to marry the person. How did you come to be attracted and marry somebody you cannot have a conversation with? Were there any signs such a disconnect could occur?

I don't have to watch anything to accurately determine that you don't own me and therefore trying to transfer ownership of me is an act of fantasy. It's like saying you reject 2+2=4 if I don't have a calculator. Except that in my experience, if I was then to produce a calculator, the goal posts would get moved. Because this isn't a conversation about what is true.

Anarchists don't vote. Also, I'm not at all interested in WHY somebody would try to pretend to own me. I stopped here because I've already invested too much time in company that isn't listening.

I'm not sure what's being talked about here. Aren't ideologies just another form of culture, which is incompatible with philosophy? If one can see the truth in something, isn't it reality that's being discussed, not an ideology?

1) Honesty is a continuum. In the most rewarding conversations I've had, honesty meant being forthcoming with your feeling in the moment. Not editing yourself out of fear of how you would be received. 2) Not sure what you're asking. 3) Not sure what you're asking. It would depend on the subject matter. I'm inclined to lean to yes though because in order for communication to be effective, there needs to be some common ground. Things how to establish what is true, how to negotiate conflict, etc. 4) Not sure what you're asking. If they're ready to hear what you have to say is going to change based on who you're talking to and what about. If they're not ready to hear what you have to say, then it wouldn't make much sense to communicate with them anyways. Not sure who your councilor is or why these things are being discussed. Perhaps this in fact partially answers one of your questions since no frame of reference was provided.

Appeals to emotion. I for one am not interested in WHY you would pretend to be able to enslave me.

Except the part where nobody's life is on the line and the act is one of fantasy. Now that I mention it, they're not at all comparable!

It's easier to pick on a smaller target that you do not fear. I get it. But the truth is the people that are bullying principled people into a fearful state; The people who are trying to handcuff and handicap are the ones that create false flag scenarios to get those otherwise principled people to abandon their principles to engage in acts of fantasy while telling themselves they're making a difference. By the by, for completeness's sake, I point out that your verbiage was poisoning the well, begging the question, and appeals to emotion. Are you angry because you don't own me? Or because somebody told you it was okay to pretend to as long as it's for a reason you agree with and you fell for it? The latter is not a principled conclusion, so I would challenge you to provide the evidence that somebody that would condone slavery is a principled person. What is my evidence that somebody choosing to call the thief that victimizes them legitimate is not choosing less theft? I don't even know how to explain it. People who "choose less theft" don't ask to be stolen from. Don't ask for others to be stolen from.

False dichotomy. Also, the idea that you have a choice to be stolen from less is illusory. It's a test to see how many people still accept their enslavement. No, this conversation revolves around your assertion that taxes and voting are comparable. Because it has been debunked and you're just moving the goalposts, trying to make your prejudices fit, you reveal to me that I can save my energy.

Allow denotes consent. Stolen from denotes lack of consent. The point was that where coercion is present, choice is not. Taxes are stolen under threat of violence. No such threat is in place regarding political voting. Therefore voting and paying taxes are not comparable. If you are a person of integrity and are interested in finding the truth rather than making your prejudice fit, you will withdraw your debunked claim so that an honest conversation may begin/continue.

Current stuff or the older stuff? How did you come to find FDR? Which topics are of interest to you?