dsayers

If this is how you feel and think others would feel, and everything these feelings are based on were true, you could open up shop competing with the offending companies, advertise that that's your only difference, and you could run them out of business or force them to change their ways to serve their customers better. Competition and consequence is what makes capitalism self-correcting. Was this a typo? I am governed, but it is not by choice. The governed are victims. Refusing to trade with somebody on the sole basis that they are a victim is revictimizing them.

It's funny you say that because when I saw the word steer, I was picturing somebody steering a car that was on one of those trailers that carries a bunch of cars at once. "I don't appear to be altering my course, but at least I can deal with my anxiety in the moment by doing SOMETHING."

Well you're kind of comparing apples to oranges. If a child slips and falls on the ice and gets hurt, would tossing them around be appropriate? Would kicking them out of the house be appropriate? Your question felt like you were blaming the victim, which is why I asked leading questions to establish how that could be rational. You would have to come up with a scenario where tossing somebody around would be appropriate AND not accrue to the parents. All the same, let us look at your example. Did the child overpower the parents? Could they not have installed a lock on the door high enough that he couldn't operate it? Why is there ice on the sidewalk? People clear off such things for themselves or for fear of being sued by the mailman. Surely they could do it for the safety of their child. Any ways you slice it, the parents are in control of the child's environment. Also, could they not have negotiated with the child? My dad once showed me a mouse trap snap a pencil in half. I had no inclination to mess with mouse traps and he didn't have to initiate the use of force to accomplish this. I appreciate your clarification that you shouldn't have mentioned tossing around and meant to focus on being kicked out. However, I have argued that the decision to have children creates a positive obligation to them to support them until such a time that they're able to support themselves. If the kicking out occurred before such a time, it would be immoral. Additionally, I maintain that anything that would motivate the parent to kick them out would accrue to the parent, not the child. If you feel my case for the parent creating the environment is flawed or does not support this claim, I look forward to your refutation. I appreciate you addressing the misinterpretability of your opening remark. Even still, I don't think I have to be your intended askee if 1) you asked the question where there is an expectation of public participation and 2) the question appears to be abusive (blaming the victim).

Can you imagine a scenario where tossing another human being around would be justified? If so, if the child was in fact creating that scenario, would this not be a failing of the parents?

I'll give an example from my own life. I've know that I was a victim of parental abuse for a long time. I used to use that knowledge as an excuse. Since then, I've learned the truth about the nature of my abuse, the effects it has on me, the way it shapes the way I think, talk, and act. So now, the very same claim that I was a victim of parental abuse is no longer an excuse, but an explanation. It's just a statement of fact. Yes. I personally would not value a therapist that advised keeping abusive people in your life. Right. I'll use another example from my life. There's a difference in saying, "I am shy" and saying, "I was abused as a child in a way that I had to remain silent and isolated in order to survive." Both accurately describe the same thing, but assign responsibility very differently. I think there is a way to talk to somebody who believes in mysticism. It's the same way I would talk to somebody who claimed to be agnostic, so I'll talk to you about that and see if you find it convincing and/or adaptable to talking to theists. Let us suppose that Pluto had a moon. The way Earth, Pluto, and this moon move in space, we were never able to see it because Pluto was always between Earth and its moon. I describe this moon to you by saying that it is a sphere and a cube simultaneously. That it is a ball of fire and a block of ice simultaneously. Now, you could say that you don't know if there is a moon there or not, just as you say you don't know if there is a deity or not. However, take a moment to think about it and it quickly becomes clear that it's impossible. Nothing can be pure energy (fire) and a solid (ice) at the same time. Nothing came be a sphere and a cube at the same time. There are many ways of applying this same procedure to the consideration of a deity. For example, nobody can be all powerful and all knowing at the same time. If you have the power to change something, you cannot know what it will be; If you know what it will be, you are powerless to change it. We know that consciousness cannot exist without matter or energy. We know neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. The list goes on. Most importantly, we know that if something can impress upon our senses, then we can measure it and we know that if something cannot impress upon our senses, there would be no difference between it existing and not existing. We also know that most people in the present who claim to believe in God, reject the hundreds of other gods man has described over the millenia. The idea that only one of something could exist is fantastical by itself. That it just happens to be the one they were told about as a child... it's a ludicrous claim. So much so that it would require a fantastical, ludicrous amount of proof to substantiate. If you're interested in this sort of thing, I highly recommend Stef's series on youtube called An Introduction to Philosophy. He starts from first principles and meticulously develops explanations of logic and reasoning and eventually builds to the disproof of deities, countries, and governments. It's long, but it leaves no stone unturned. You can also find a chopped up audio version in the link in my signature if you wanted to use it in an MP3 player. As for whether or not to stay around abusers in order to save up more money or get out sooner, I don't know. Both are going to have their advantages and disadvantages. I think to evade your abusers as soon as possible will provide greater mental health that having to live on a stricter budget would be worth it. However, I must disclose that I'm in the exact same situation myself and have chosen to stay where I am to save up more money. There are various reasons I'd rather not go into. The ones I will share is that I've done a lot of work in self-knowledge and have confronted my father on the subjects of philosophy, violence, coercion, their impact on my life, etc. What this means is that I have a very clear picture of who he is, who I am, and why. In other words, I'm well-prepared for the minor conflicts that do arise as a result of my choosing to continue living with him. It would still be better for me to leave in terms of my mental well-being. But if I do stay, it's much better to have an honest grip of the reality of who we are and the nature of our relationship. I hope this has been helpful.

Push you out? Pissing contest? Seems like projection to me. What to do about people in our lives who support violence is an opinion. Something I've said more than once that I understand is yours to choose as you see fit, for whatever reason, with no explanation required. Everything else I've offered in this thread have been factual clarifications and truth claims. For example, whether to use violence or voluntary interaction to achieve our goals and solve problems is an opinion. Saying that the use of violence against people to make them do things they might not otherwise do is not just a simple disagreement is not an opinion. You claimed it was. I pointed it out that it wasn't. You set it aside because we weren't going to get anywhere. Which means either you're wrong and cannot admit it or I'm wrong and you cannot reveal it. Saying things like not getting anywhere or agree to disagree in regards to matters of fact is intellectual sloth and dishonest. I didn't say that at all. I said that murder and theft are morally identical. In other words, between moral, immoral, and amoral, they share the same categorization. This is important because it's a lot easier to overlook theft if we view it as "not murder" instead of viewing it as immoral. Well if you think pointing guns at people is a simple disagreement, we have little more to discuss.

I haven't watched the videos and don't know if I will. However, I did want to point out that "corporate tyranny" CAN'T (not doesn't) describe anarcho-capitalism. Corporations are fictitious creations of the State. They would not be present in anything that could be described as anarchic. Additionally, tyranny requires two things to thrive: Lack of competition and lack of consequence. These would not be present in anything that could be described as capitalistic. If you feel watching the videos would be advantageous despite this clarity, let me know and I might check them out anyways. I tend to not pursue that which dosn't even pretend to be rigorous. Many rebels without a cause rail against water as if a poisoned well is indicative of water, either oblivious or ignorant of the presence of the poison, which is in fact the nature of that which they are railing against, not the water.

I found this post to be incredibly manipulative. I'm responding primarily for the sake of letting you know that I will not be so easily manipulated. For starters, the only repetition has been on your side of the exchange. You said that you wouldn't disassociate from people over what you described as a simple disagreement. I clarified that what you were talking about wasn't a simple disagreement. To which you replied that it's not a simple disagreement, but you're still not going to disassociate from the same people. This is actually more than just repetition, it's a revelation of bigotry. You first put forth your decision as if it was a rational acknowledgement of being a difference of opinion. When it was revealed that it wasn't in fact just a difference of opinion, but also an ethically polar opposite approach to resolution, you said that you would continue to hold your position. Which is manipulative in and of itself to first pass off your conclusion as if it was arrived at by a specific methodology (psuedo-rational acknowledgement of being a difference of opinion) when in fact the conclusion is held even in the absence of that methodology. Secondly, I am making truth claims. There is no agreement or disagreement. Either I am accurately describing the real world or I am not. If I am not, then I wish to be corrected so that I can more accurately describe the real world. If however I am, then saying agree to disagree just means that you're not interested in the truth. Which I grant you is totally your prerogative. But there is a difference between disagreeing on opinions and trying to pass off opinions as truth claims and bigotry as rationalized conclusions. You have done a fair amount of goalpost moving. Like talking about everybody in the western world as if this indicates an identical relationship to those whom we'd call friend. This sentence is provably false. The honest version would be, "I do not want to make enemies." The point of contention between us has involved the intentional extraction of yourself from people who advocate violence. People who advocate violence cannot be described as spreading a positive message. Making the qualifier of, "ally in spreading a positive message," expletive. You don't want to be viewed unfavorably by those spreading a negative message (using your terminology; I think positive/negative in this regard is inaccurate) or by those spreading a positive message. Therefore, "I do not want to make enemies," would be more accurate. Again, who you choose to associate with and why are both entirely your decision. Ones that don't even need explaining. However, if you are going to explain them, you should be honest about it. Or if you are making truth claims that are either matters of opinion or just plain inaccurate, you cannot dismiss the clarification as being matters of opinions themselves. Truth claims are either accurate or they are not. This is what philosophy is for. For a more in-depth look into my views on the use of the phrase agree to disagree, please check out this thread.

Hi there. Welcome to FDR. There is an introduction forum, but that's not terribly important. I wanted to respond to this first by acknowledging my bias that anything that can be described as a belief is an admission of being fasle. Let us suppose for a moment that ghosts exist. Either they will impress upon our senses or they will not. If they do, we will be able to measure them and no belief would be required. If they do not, then it would be no different than if they did not exist. Either way, our belief in them would be meaningless. If you accept this dichotomy, then I would ask you: What does believing in God mean to you?

I don't think I've ever seen anybody say agree to disagree in regards to matters of opinion. That would fall into the goes without saying category. When somebody says that, they're telling me three things. The first is that the truth isn't what they're interested in, or else they'd want to test their own theory or help me to revise mine. Secondly, they're also telling me that rather than admit that they're not interested in the truth, they wish to pretend to occupy an artificial high ground. As if pursuing the truth means brow-beating those who don't agree with you. Which means the third thing they're telling me is that rather than expose the discussion to rigorous exploration, they'd rather preempt any effort on my part to continue the exploration by labeling as being emotionally insensitive. It's really quite manipulative. Like saying to somebody whom you have no expectation isn't calm, "Calm down." So it's no surprise that somebody who IS emotionally sensitive and interested in the truth would have residual feelings of discomfort. If somebody tries to tie your hands behind your back, that's not a peaceful interaction. The way I prefer to proceed is not let it end on that note. With the caveat that I am biased towards letting it be know to somebody who is trying to manipulate me that I'm not so naive that I don't understand what they're doing. Which means my motivation might be prideful. I'm not sure if that's necessarily a bad thing. Thank you for this topic. It's inspired me to gather my thoughts on a subject that has bothered me also.

Long story short, I used to program my own websites back in the day (1999-2004). When myspace came along, I viewed it as a sort of site builder for people who couldn't build sites (while making no effort to find out if my view was accurate). As such, when facebook and twitter came along, I viewed them collectively as being more of the same, but with more leaving your personal info out there willy nilly, posting updates about the mundane details of one's life. Since then, I've allowed confirmation bias to allow in all the horror stories of selling off personal info, contempt for its popularity to fester, while never providing for the possible benefits. Plus, I find the rush of similar social medias (pinterest, flickr, reddit) to be off-putting. Well, I'm here to allow others to convince me of the error of my ways. Most specifically, I'm interested in the potential of these technologies to aide in building friendships. Partially for the purpose and hope of building more friendships with virtuous people near me. Partially to learn where virtuous people can be found in the event that I choose to move elsewhere. Am I missing out? Or am I one of the precious few that never fell for an overhyped, unnecessary fad?

If you have a fear of being lonely, I can understand allowing those people to remain in your life. As long as you understand the truth of who they are, who you are, and the relationship you have with them from their perspective. I would urge you in the meantime to start working on how to be able to do what's best for you while not keeping people who are bad for you in your life. With the internet and social media, this is easier than ever. I've seen numerous start ups for local meet groups for this and that. If there's not one near you, try to set one up. You just never know when/where you're going to meet your best friend or spouse. I'm really sorry that you were told that only family can be trusted. It's one thing to indoctrinate somebody to revere evil as good, but it's something else entirely to portray evil as the only good.

I rather like the old adage: If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care what your answers are. I think there's FAR MORE VALUE in questioning the validity of a bully telling you what you can and cannot do when you're not initiating the use of force than trying to get the bully to agree to something. I use the word bully because this is like begging the bully who's stolen your lunch money for a little of it back. It's pathetic when you think about the fact that they cannot steal your dignity, but you can give it to them. When you do, then they know they own you. It reinforces their theft, legitimizes their claim. I'm not saying that if I had the choice between living amid a cannabis ban and living without one that I would choose to live with the ban. I just think that if these people put the same amount of effort into spreading awareness on what the definitions of child abuse are, how it is tantamount to tyranny, and that violence is what has failed us as a species, we'd get cannabis... and so much more, that much sooner. I mean, it's a demonstration of a fundamental lack of understanding how the ban came to be in the first place. You can cut the head off a dandelion 100 times. It's not until you pull the root out that you've made any appreciable difference.

I addressed the 100% trust thing already. It doesn't appear you had anything to say about it despite its accusation of provable inconsistency. harrowing - extremely disturbing or distressing; grievous That quote is you portraying voluntary monogamy as extremely disturbing or distressing; grievous. If you and I were in a relationship, agreed to be exclusive, and were sexually active, I would be horrified to find that you view YOUR VOLUNTARY COMMITMENT as extremely disturbing or distressing; grievous. If I paid $5 for a sandwich, what would it mean if I said that I found it extremely disturbing or distressing; grievous that that person has that level of ownership over my $5? Wouldn't you find that to be a bizarre description of my voluntary transaction? I've been trying to refrain from drawing parallels since my example is a permanent exchange whereas what you're talking about is more akin to lending. Which is why the only time (before now) I didn't delete it after typing it out was talking about lending something out. The point remains that it's the description of a voluntary act as traumatic, which means trauma has been associated with that voluntary, commonplace act for you. I will apologize if progress in this regard has been arrested due to my use of the word "slavery" specifically. However, I personally do not see a discrepancy since slavery is asserting an involuntary ownership over a person's body or time.

The entire populace of the western world is not the same subset as associating with people, which is not the same subset as friends. There's a difference between handing money to the statist working the Taco Bell window who hands you your food and allowing him to be part of your life. The pleasure of your company is a gift and you're talking about handing it to people who advocate violence against you. The whole reason statism persists to this day is because people choose comfort of conformity over principled living. It's really not. Even though the damage is greater, theft is morally identical to murder and rape. They are all immoral. The only difference between rape, murder, and "taxation is not theft," is the obfuscating cloud of propaganda. So by all means, dissipate the cloud for them. Help them to see clearly. By doing this, you give the greatest gift of all: responsibility. If they hide from the responsibility, then from that day forward, you are complicit to their support of violence. Again, this is a decision that is yours to make, but in keeping with what I've just claimed, I am pointing this out to you so that you can be aware of that decision and its implications.

Thank you for the feedback This was all I was trying to say. It's not that YOU chose bad people, it's that people who abused you broke you into a shape that chose people who would recreate that unprocessed abuse. To not perpetuate the abuse in your own life is to face the reality that your abusers were abusive. In a world that heralds family as de facto virtuous, this is not an easy thing to face. Abusing people for being abused indeed! It really upsets me when people say things liked, "Everybody has that in their lives." Like it's not abuse if everybody is abused equally. Like we should accept abuse because of is omnipresence. I could go on. It totally misses the point and... abuses you for having been abused. Most people say it to avoid that their caregivers were not saintly. See the above mentioned conundrum. There is nothing wrong with calling yourself a victim. You are! You were in the past, and thanks to societal norms like "Everybody has that in their lives," you are today. I think, if I may be so bold as to put words into your mouth, is that you're trying to demonstrate the difference between hiding behind the label victim as an excuse and accepting that you were a victim as a means of being responsible. I could be projecting with that bit. I had a heart to heart with a friend not long ago about the things I've learned and the potential it has unlocked for me. When he talked to his wife about it all, her reaction was the same everybody has that in their lives. I was trying to be sympathetic to her viewpoint for his sake. It was then that I realized it may be that she misunderstood my acknowledgement as an excuse to be a douchebag. When it fact it was my way of saying, "I get it now. From this point forward, *I* am responsible for my actions." I think this sort of distinction is missed by the masses not only because of the way it would force them to face their own abusers, but also because in the absence of abuse, this is a transition (into responsibility) that humans would undertake as adolescents, not people into their 30s, 40s, and beyond. Not that this retardation is our fault, but people who lack self-knowledge aren't capable of understanding this. The reason why I asked about your dad's efforts was because of the lack of accountability I saw towards your mom. Which I'm glad you clarified about. The key thing being that even if she wasn't at all neglectful, she chose the men in your life, which led to the men you chose in your own life (the bad ones). What has your dad done other than contrast his treatment of you to that of his blood lineage? Has he made any efforts at self improvement? Has he offered to pay for therapy for him, you, or both? Not saying he has to; I just felt that given the perceived lack of accountability towards your mother in your opening post, that you might be amenable to "letting him off the hook" too easily. I hope that makes sense because I realize my choice of words makes it sound vindictive when I'm trying to talk about protecting yourself. Sometimes when people say, "I'm sorry," they're saying, "I'd like for you to treat me as if I never abused you." If you could elaborate on what it looked like, or just plain tell me to mind my own business because you've got it under control, I would appreciate it. I felt as if your elaboration was glancing, as if to avoid going into detail.

While we wait for the documentary to hit, I thought it might be good if we came together to share materials we've found that make for a good introduction to statists that maybe, just maybe they've been lied to. I just came across today. I like the way it models a non-confrontational transition from propaganda to truth. Also, the way it is animated, it will likely come off to a statist as not being preachy or threatening. Please share materials that you feel are good first steps for coaxing a statist out of the propaganda fog.

In this quote, I feel that you have equated an imposed limitation as being free. I made the case by pointing out how freedom within a cage isn't freedom, which you accepted when you said: In that first quote, I also read that monogamy is slavery. I agree with you that polygamy is perfectly fine where all parties involved voluntarily consent to that arrangement. However, a person who wants to make the point that there is nothing immoral about polygamy would not need to equate monogamy to slavery. Since I feel that you have, I suspect your motivation was more than: It's not an implication. I've been forthcoming with the fact that I think there is a gap in your self-knowledge. Please understand that I'm not blaming you! I remember when I first started studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge, I giggled in desperation as I was horrified at how much of the world I was lied to about. It wasn't just that I didn't know the truth, it was that I didn't know that I didn't know the truth. Because everybody that supposedly cared about me took advantage of their power disparity over me to keep me subservient to them. Anyways, a person doesn't come to the conclusion that a voluntary choice is akin to the initiation of the use of force. It is natural to assume that this conclusion was either inflicted upon you directly or modeled for you. That you're willing to say it aloud indicated that you were not aware that the conclusion doesn't accurately describe the real world. Hence my inquiry into if you were aware of the source of this error or not. You mentioned that you feel this exchange isn't going anywhere, but why? Have you refuted my assertion that monogamy is not slavery? I don't see that you have. I have seen you not answer a question. I've seen you say that you didn't make a claim to the contrary, which is not the same as refuting my assertion. Now I see you expressing frustration in the fact that it's not going anywhere. I feel this is a resistance of examining how you came to that conclusion because of the discomfort it would provide about whomever inflicted that conclusion upon you. If I'm totally off base, I am truly sorry. But I do feel the evidence is consistent. For what it is worth, there was a time in my life, quite recently in fact, where I too had a laissez-faire intention towards romantic relationships. It's not because I had intentions or desires of cheating, but that I've behaved like an owner in the past and I felt the reminder that I am still in competition would help me maintain a higher standard of treating that person well. Since I have begun studying philosophy, I have come to accept that what you gain from a committed relationship (assuming you have the self-knowledge to choose a partner virtuously) far outweighs the VOLUNTARY positive obligation you create to not be romantically available to others. I'm not saying others have to adopt this outlook, but even when I anticipated open relationships, I never experienced the drive to describe monogamy as being tied down or taken from. I'm sorry this exchange is frustrating for you. I hope that at some point, it proves to be of value to you.

You spoke of it as if it was a simple disagreement, which is not true. The explanation I offered was specifically worded to reflect that it doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, taxation is theft. If you see the theft and continue to associate with them, you are complicit in their support of theft. Whether you associate with them or not is your decision, so long as you're aware of the decision and its implications. Are you familiar with the against me argument? A lot of people support violence because it's been glossed over with propaganda and often only discussed in the abstract. If you walk them through the understanding that by voting anything, they're encouraging that people with guns come and steal FROM YOU to pay for their stuff. The problem isn't that they don't think theft is unethical, it's that they think taxation isn't theft. I wasn't sure if/where to share , so I'll post it here. Maybe it will be of use to you. I especially like the non-confrontational approach it takes. I don't see where that connection was made. The root of suffering is irrelevant. Your claim was that amid suffering, people look to a higher power. I pointed out that this is an effect of perceived higher powers. In the event that it was believed no higher power were present, a person would have no choice but to forge ahead based on their own merits. You spoke as if higher powers exist because people suffer and seek out a higher power. I was pointing out that seeking out a higher power only exists where a higher power is believed to be. Furthermore, I reject your claim that religions and States are formed out of personal suffering looking for a solution. These things are created by people who wish to exploit those who cannot resists it, possibly because they are suffering. You seem to be going out of your way to excuse people who would use violence to accomplish their goals. Additionally, it seems as if this belief is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of how these problems come to be.

It surprises you that a forum about philosophy finds value in honesty and self-knowledge? You made the analogy that monogamy (which is voluntary) equates to slavery (the initiation of the use of force) and that imposed limitation equates to freedom. There is a reason for this. If it's not something you'd like to learn about yourself, that's fine. It's only important that you are aware that you are choosing to not explore that.

What a horrific story! I appreciate you sharing it; that could not have been easy at all. The only thing worse than abusing somebody is abusing them for having been abused. If you don't mind a little feedback: I see very little honesty, anger, accountability aimed at your mother. Is this something you have addressed at all? Your recount seemed mostly dismissive of her involvement and even seemed like you made excuses for her a couple times. Starting with: This struck me as owning something that is an effect of abuse inflicted upon you. The rest of the read sort of confirmed this. Also, I'm curious: When you say your dad sought you out to repair the damage, what did that look like? I'm very happy that you found somebody who was able to help you with all of this.

I wonder if the singular 53' piece of siding is a smart method of approach. The fun part about stuff like this is that it occurs despite State coercion and regulation. Imagine where we'd be without that threat/burden.

Belief in something doesn't alter it's (state of) existence. Also, I did not say treat them like somebody evil. If you choose to continue to allow them in your life, what is important is being aware of that decision and being honest about the nature of their behavior. I wanted to ask you why you would want extended family and friends who support abusing people who cannot defend themselves? I'm not being insensitive to the plight of taking a principled stand or the repercussions of people who support evil leaving you for taking a principled stand. But I think it's a question you should be able to answer as part of being honest with yourself. The fact that you feel conflicted is your subconscious telling you that it is very important and requires an in depth analysis by you. It's great that you have identified this.

Happiness is a product. It cannot be attained in a void. You entered the world a blank slate. You have arrived at a conclusion about something. The something has benefits but the conclusion not only provides a purely unfavorable perspective, it misrepresents the subject matter. This is trauma. Sexuality and especially human interaction are formed as a child. While I agree that it isn't necessarily something from your childhood, it's virtually a statistical certainty. I can now add to that your claim that you trust everybody 100%. Not only is this unrealistic (indicating trauma), but you didn't trust my perspective More important would be that you avoided the question. You don't have to answer it obviously, but you'll derive value from exploring your own aversion to doing so.

If the value you would receive from him helping you to do the project he committed to is greater than the expenditure of showing up to a party for an hour with a gift in tow, then you can go even if the person is a total stranger to you. For your own benefit. This wouldn't even be classified as using him since near as I can tell, he made the commitment regardless of your attendance to the party. Just be very skeptical and honest with yourself about whether this guy will help you even if you do attend. He blew you off once before and didn't bother telling you until you addressed it with him.