dsayers

I want my money back. The message was not worth it at all. The root of all thought, from within the womb is, "I can die." This is an acceptance, not a subversion. Every thought we have after that begins with acceptance of that which we know to analyze that which we do not. Reality is a system and our thoughts are designed to be able to more accurately describe more of reality. Understanding leads to survival. Stability leads to comfort. There's comfort and survivability in understanding the consistency of matter. The systems that this article is talking about thought subverting are systems that do not accurately describe the real world. Those systems were put in place by people who used understanding of the real world to exploit others. Those people were able to inflict these bogus systems by making egregious threats against those who resist up to and including instilling in people the ability to self-attack. At which point the victims' thoughts that subvert reality accept the imposed reality that failure to conform threatens their survival. The article fails by putting the cart before the horse. In the end, he talks about rebellion against slavery as if slavery pre-dates thought. It also fails by making numerous unsubstantiated claims, including intelligence is revolutionary and cannot be otherwise, and the opening sentence: Thoughts are always subversive. I only read the whole thing because you said it was worth it. I hope you will share what you got out of it.

Ironic considering it was likely removed due to copyright claim, which is anti-free market.

You didn't answer my questions. This is the problem with speaking of grand scale "solutions": It's usually a way of avoiding the things we can actually do to make real changes that will in turn solve the grand scale problem. Or a fundamental lack of understanding of the problem itself. You don't have to answer my questions, but I think you'll find real value in exploring why you didn't.

Is this to say that the person pocketing the $50 is unaware that he did not earn it? First of all, a $50 bill that was stolen spends the same as a $50 bill that was earned. Nothing in the $50 bill itself indicates where it came from. We do know that since it was printed using machines and a system that came from people without their consent, ALL government money is rooted in theft. The only way what you're describing could be done is if they only accepted Bitcoin for example. Even then, there's no way of knowing if the Bitcoins involved were never used immorally. Except that that's not what your actions are accomplishing. So while you cannot influence what the moral component of charitable acceptance looks like, you do have the power to be honest with yourself. I say this with utmost sympathy because I too remember a time when I thought like that. Can you imagine cancer not getting cured during the lifetime of the one guy with the smarts to do it simply because his funding refused any portion of funds available to it? Not trying to appeal to emotion or make a utilitarian argument. Just pointing out that the accepting of funds is not itself immoral, it is a component of our society right now, and to not accept it only works in opposition to the charity's stated goal.

A sociopath is "a person whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience." Companies are not people, conscious, capable of behavior, or moral actors. To call a company sociopathic is to not hold accountable individuals who are capable of those things. Similarly, the word "minority" is dishonest and manipulative. It cannot be an accurate description of race because any singular race is a minority compared to the sum of all races combined. Furthermore, sociopathy exists independent of race. To bring race into something that has nothing to do with race, especially by way of terms such as "minority" is to obfuscate or frame the topic at hand. People leave jobs for various reasons every day, including decisions being made by higher ups. What did this post seek to accomplish?

I see a contradiction in simultaneously saying you are not competent in arguing the theory, but that people should argue a theory in lieu of what experts have come to agree upon. I agree with you that consensus isn't as strong as direct proof. However, like you, I am not competent in arguing the theory. In this specific case, I do not personally bow to consensus because I don't feel the item of contention is as important as things that directly impact our daily life and/or that we have control over. Did you notice Mr. Beal's point earlier that even the language you're using is a matter of consensus? Just wanted to reiterate it as it appeared that you were arguing that consensus has no value just because it has less value than direct proof. If I misunderstand your position, please clarify.

If I put a brick through your window, I own that action even though I didn't touch your window directly. I was using the brick as a tool to amplify my force and/or range. Using an intermediary is still investing value into an object to meaningfully alter it from a naturally occurring state. It has no bearing on the claim of ownership. You can point the focus on me if you'd like, but it won't change the fact that you participated in a debate, offered a counterargument, and refused to provide clarity WHILE continuing to participate as if clarity wasn't sought. You didn't address it, when it was brought up, you didn't own it, and you even tried to divert attention away from it. Sorry, but the conviction somebody has towards the truth is very important to me. I enjoy discussing challenging topics with people. Though I do not wish to waste my time discussing such things with people more interested in shoe-horning their position into reality instead of revising or abandoning their position when it's revealed to not accurately describe reality.

I appreciate where you're coming from, but that's like holding it against somebody that happens upon a $50 bill and just pockets it. Theft occurs whether any specific charity is a benefactor or not. Somebody who is in charge of a charity would be incompetent if they didn't accept whatever funding they could get.

He could've chosen a different partner. He could've chosen to not have children with such an abusive person. If he didn't know it was going on, this would be worse. Because it would mean that either he was away or he was cavalier about exposing children to destructive people. Please look at most of what you're saying. Things like there were good times, he didn't know, it could've been worse, etc. None of this changes the fact of the bad times, that it was their responsibility, and it was supposed to be healthy. And now, you've mentioned being a parent yourself, which makes this discussion 10x as important. This is because whatever excuse you make for others, you will allow for yourself.

Welcome to FDR. You said a number of traumas, but only mentioned religion. Would you be willing to share what the others are? Similarly, you mentioned psychological healing, but what about emotional healing? How did you arrive at religious traditions? Did somebody inflict them upon you? How do you feel about this? Finally, I was wondering if "it's been something I've been running away from all my life" is true. Would it be more accurate to say that others have kept you from it? Either by directly holding you back or conditioning you to hold yourself back for them? I think these are all important questions and I look forward to your reply.

@Robin: You're not alone. To me, they appear smaller and harder to read. Maybe a step up in size would make it easier? I don't understand the characteristics of fonts, so I go with default out of laziness @Nigel: The path I took to make that connection is that truth is objective and being objective means independent of time. That's why when a "truth" depends on time, we give it such a qualifier. At that point, it is not truth as it is not absolute, but will be true for as long as provided conditionals are met. I may have missed it, but I don't think you've addressed my inquiry as to what difference it makes. Can you think of a fact that only describes the past for example and if so, would it be different in the present if it also described the future?

I think that how society views femininity also damages boys. Whether it's viewing girls as fragile that means boys have to be rugged or viewing them as helpless meaning boys have to be able to manage themselves and others. Our view of gender roles has not kept pace with our understanding of human development. I think this can be attributed to the State since violence freezes things in time. Even State programs designed to help women were ill-conceived. The problem with State programs is that they say to the stated benefactor, "You are not strong enough to provide for or protect yourself." In other words, they're described as enforcing equality when in fact they guarantee a preserved inequality. Even if that means inequality in the opposite direction. It should also be noted that society clinging to a bullshit definition of masculinity damages all of us, not just the boys. Many examples can be found in our language. "Sack up," "having balls," "being a pussy," "you da man," etc. I mention this because it's a way a lot of us perpetuate this myth without meaning too. I hear Stef make this mistake a lot and it embarrasses me. I'm not condescending here. I used to describe myself as misogynistic, even when that manifested in ways that were complimentary on the surface. One of the best things about being exposed to the concept of men's rights in my own life is that I much more infrequently treat women differently just because they're female. This is important to me for my own development, for their development, and for the development of the species. Thank you so much, Adrienne for making the effort to share this with everybody. And thank you to the entire FDR effort that has made taking my mask off feel natural and rewarding, even in the face of adversity as a result of it.

I want to preface my input by sharing that as a result of abuse leveled upon me, I was once an abusive suitor. Namely in that my expectations were given greater weight than they should've been. This led to animosity towards that person when my expectations were not satisfied. I say this because while I can appreciate you wanting to do something well, there's only so much you can plan when it comes to interacting with a creature of free will. I'm also somebody who spends so much time thinking about something that I paralyze myself from doing it. So please excuse me, but these two points lead me to suggest that you not spend so much time thinking it through. I did want to say (no biases for this point) that it seems like you're not being honest with yourself. Your account seems to go out of its way to emphasize intelligence. If you're interested in getting to know her better, for any reason, then try to get to know her better. If intelligence is a requisite for you, this getting to know her better will reveal if this is the case. If not, you might still get a friend out of it. On the other hand, if it's how you genuinely view the situation, lead with that. If there's a class where she says/does something that impresses you, after class, catch up to her and let her know that she impressed you. Explain how. Let her know you thought the same thing or that you didn't, but you had to revise your thoughts in light of her take on the matter. Just be honest. Worst case scenario is that she's got a boyfriend, or getting ready to move and doesn't want to start up a new friendship, or anything else that might mean it's simply not going to happen. At which point, your mind can be free to work on whatever's next for you. In the meantime, you're just wasting time trying to orchestrate that which cannot be orchestrated. If she ends up being the girl of your dreams and there's wedding bells, planning an elaborate proposal... cool. The stakes aren't high enough here though and attempting to stage it will only come across as insincere or worse: manipulative. Even if things can't work out for whatever reason, you will be reinforcing your ability to reach out to others while your ability to overthink things to the point of not acting will atrophy. Both I think are useful steps in the right direction

This winter, I turned out of my driveway onto my very low-traffic side street. The kind that when there 6-8 inches of snow on the road (as there was this night) is very low priority in plowing order. It was after dark, but the amount of snow on the road made it anything less than dark. I had my headlights on all the same and the two people choosing to walk in the middle of the street towards me had no way of missing me coming their way. I do not fault them for walking wherever was easiest to walk. However, to continue walking in the center of the road while a car is coming, with 6-8 inches of snow in the road, is absolute suicide. If you ask me, it stems from a belief that people won't hit pedestrians. It's not limited to the disparity of flesh vs machine either. I've seen a number of motorists do really stupid things out of the belief that somebody else won't hit them, even if it wouldn't be their fault, if only to protect themselves. But won't isn't the same as can't. A yellow line or a red light has no way of physically prohibiting vehicles from traveling. Simply put, complacency in matters of life and death is very dangerous and can be lethal. This would normally be a self-correcting issue. However, with a State in play, we cannot count on careless people simply not surviving to pass on their genes.

Hey, cobra. Just read your story. When I got to the part about you selling the house, I thought that was some really creative problem solving there Thank you for sharing your story and I'm very sorry you are made to suffer in this way. It sounds as if you've always had to be more mature than the people who are supposed to model maturity for you. How old were you when they adopted you? If I understand rightly, you've spoken with her honestly about your feeling in regards to the way she treats you, to the point of saying things you didn't realize you were repressing. At which point, she made it clear that nothing's going to change and that in fact she's going to continue using you for her own benefit. That's clarity for you. That's closure. Yet you still feel resentment, which means something remains unprocessed. It could be argued that it is simply the fact that you're still in this situation, and that might be the case. However, I have another idea. Robin said exactly what I was going to after I first started reading your story. You've rejected his input, saying that your life is better with your father having been in it. You also said that your mother isn't all bad. How do these things matter? In regards to your mother, how does the fact that she's not abusive when she's not abusive change the fact that she's abusive when she's abusive? How can you know if your life is better having had your father in it if not having him in it might mean you didn't have her in it? As you describe it, he traveled for work, so wasn't there despite deciding to adopt a child. I'm not saying he's a bad person, but if you recognize your mother's abuse and don't recognize your father's culpability, this might be why you continue to experience resentment despite having done all you can to repair the damage she's done. This is obviously very important to you and being under your roof, is something you cannot escape on a daily basis. If it hasn't already, this is going to lead to physical suffering in addition to the mental and emotional. I encourage you to be honest with yourself as to the nature of your father's involvement in your mother's abuse of you even after he died.

Without at all addressing any of the feedback offered thus far? What incentive would anybody have to continue to speak with you if they have no reason to anticipate that their input would be acknowledged? You make it clear that you are not interested in a discussion, but just putting forth claims regardless of how (in)accurately they describe the real world. I continue only for the benefit of other people that might actually be led astray. Because you're trying to obfuscate the truth with words like innovation, evolution, revolution, etc. Simply put, central planning is internally inconsistent. It makes the claim that X is how EVERYBODY should do something. In order for this claim to be true, everybody would have to be identical with regards to the claim. However, if this were the case, then no central plan would be required as it would occur just the same. I realize I've only made the case thus far for a central plan to be superfluous or expletive. The point where it becomes internally inconsistent is that it is literally impossible for everybody to be identical with regards to a claim. Simply because how we value various things changes even within the same person given a myriad of related factors. Such as how you value a good meal after you've just eaten compared to when you haven't eaten for 12 hours. So in order for everybody to be identical in any regard that isn't fundamental, we'd have to all be identical in every other regard as well. Occupying the same space, with identical experiences, chemical makeup, etc.

Sorry for the ambiguity. I was more making the point that truth is objective and not dependent on time. I don't know how to more accurately answer that question because the future doesn't exist. Which is why my example of 2+2=5 was a bad one because numbers are concepts and the reason why 2+2=4 is because that's a definition of four as a concept. A fact is a statement of truth whereas a prediction is a description of an event before its occurrence. Both have the capacity to be false. A fact is only as accurate as our understanding allows for, but this could be said of a prediction also. "Occurrence" by definition is temporal, but this can be true of facts as well. So I'm not sure. It's almost as if the words can be similar with the main difference being tense. I don't know if the similarities are meaningful though so there's no way to test or disprove predictions except that which would be internally inconsistent or impossible based on our understanding of the real world. I was curious from the moment you asked as to why you asked. I thought it had something to do with behavior, which was why I pointed out that it's not the same thing as a fact. I'm still curious as to why you're asking. Not saying that you shouldn't; I just don't see what difference it makes. Could you provide an example?

Square4, are you trolling? You said something before in this thread, I sought clarification, and here you are posting again as if nobody asked you to elaborate on what YOU said.

I see no reason to anticipate that tomorrow 2+2=5 and gravity will cease to be an effect of matter. Future behavior cannot be certain because of free will. Facts and behaviors are different things.

Welcome and congratulations on surviving the propaganda after so much exposure to it all. This video is what got me started. It took feelings I had most of my life and put them into concise words. As I understand, the documentary Stef has been working on is for the purpose of introducing outsiders. In the meantime, I think The Story of Your Enslavement is potent. Before trying to convince others though, I'd check out the Bomb in the Brain series. It's important to understand how people think before trying to influence it.

Are they? If you wanted to become a boxer, punching a five year old not only won't improve your ability to box, it will actually make you worse. Before my decades of abuse, I had a couple good years as a child. It helped me to be intelligent and empathetic, but then the abuse gave me the desire to punish others. It lead to me spending a lot of time out-talking people just to prove that I could. Even after I saw the error of my ways, and chose to talk about things of greater importance, I too spent time arguing against sophists to exercise my argumentation skills. The problem was, that while I got really good at dissecting straw men, I wasn't exercising what really mattered, like focusing on the moral argument. I was spinning my wheels, patting myself on the back like I was winning the Indy 500. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't do this or that, but you only have so much time. If you want to spend that exploring the truth and helping others to do the same, it's better to find somebody willing to help with that rather than cling to their propaganda because it's more comfortable. Plus if you connect with more people who are curious, you'll come to better conclusions, as will they, and before you know it, the day will be here that people who cling to propaganda will no longer have the comfort of being in the majority anymore. What better way to win an argument that to wipe irrational dissent out of human consciousness once and for all? As for your situation, I'll share what I feel to be a good gauge: Does the abuser commit the abuse in front of other people? If not, then it's a good indication that they are aware what they're doing is wrong AND are capable of not doing it. This was true of my father. I chose to try and talk with him anyway because I have this imperfection where I try to be blameless in front of an audience that isn't there anyway. I'm glad I did because he made it clear that it's actually worse than I thought. I hope it's different with your mother. Not for your comfort, but for her to be able to triumph over this. My father always has to be right, so it's pretty fantastic how far he'll go to avoid considering that he did something wrong at all. Surprisingly enough, what helped me more than anything else is this very simple question: Who owns you? Learning about self-ownership, how property rights stems from it, as does morality puts everything in a very simple light. As a result, I think clearer, sleep better, and yes, am able to identify people. It's even aided in my ability to empathize.

If I'm at a picnic and a mosquito is buzzing about, I mostly ignore it. I don't see much use in trying to infiltrate its ranks to influence it to be not a mosquito. Anyways, if you have a theory, by all means test it. For example, do you refuse to use violence in your own life? Do you refuse to allow anybody into your life that promotes or uses violence? Are you able to convince neighbors or coworkers who promote or use violence to change their ways?

Your premise is flawed. The definition of convention is: a rule, method, or practice established by usage. You're saying that anybody who deviates from what is most common needs to justify their actions. This is inflicting a positive obligation on other people. Unchosen positive obligations are immoral. If moral criticism is your interest, this is something you can address within your own life. I already pointed out that not being heterosexual is not synonymous with initiating the use of force. Therefor it cannot fall under moral criticism. Additionally, and admittedly less important, I'd like to expand on the "established by usage" part of the definition of convention. I confess that as a heterosexual who understands that non-heterosexuals aren't initiating the use of force, I don't spend too much time, effort, or attention on the subject. However, it is my understanding that the best science we have available to us suggests that the incidence of non-heterosexuality in the human species, which is perpetuated by heterosexual interaction, is the result of trauma in utero. This means that as near as we can tell, sexual preference is not a choice. Which means that the act of demanding justification is traumatizing somebody for having been traumatized. I don't think morality is your motivation here.

I have to agree. Specifically, I think your understanding of terms such as profit and capitalism is lacking. You used your body, your time, your computer, your internet access, and your access to this forum (your capital) to make this thread. You made this thread out of a perception that it was the best use of your time in that moment (profit). Profit means advantage. benefit, or gain. It doesn't have to be monetary. Neither does capitalism. You are born with a body so you are a capitalist and everything you do is a form of capitalism as a result. Even just sitting there and thinking. "People respond to incentives." This is correct. There is a reason why you posted this thread here instead of taking out a newspaper ad or buying some air time, both of which would potentially reach more people. You did it first of all because it was free by comparison. Monetarily speaking; you did have to invest your capital (time) as stated above. The second is because you believe people here are interested both in this topic and with honesty, so you thought it would be helpful. Like profit and capitalism, you cannot escape incentive, even if you make a poor decision as (self-contradictory) proof that you are not motivated by it. Steve Jobs was able to sell a lot more iPads than Apple 1s. Facebook is more popular than myspace. These things would be true if one was developed for personal pleasure and the other was designed to make lots of money or the other way around. People are more interested in and/or willing to pay (more) for that which better addresses their desires. In other words, it wouldn't matter if you did something for the purpose of making money if what you did doesn't appeal to other people. The motivation is incidental.

There's only one meaningful way to divide human beings: Those who initiate the use of force and those who do not. Left and right are just different ways people initiate the use of force. The distinction isn't worth focusing on IMO.