dsayers

Why would a lifestyle that does not include the initiation of the use of force need defending? Also, it was unclear as to what position you were referring to. My best guess is that your question is: "Can non-heterosexuality be morally criticized?" I'll wait for clarification before answering further.

"Assault is immoral." With those three words, you accomplish so much. Assuming this is the first thing you say, you've planted the seed that morality is paramount. You've sown the seed that spanking is assault. You've disarmed them from even saying, "You don't have kids," because having kids or not doesn't alter the truth value of that statement. I know that if I was a child abuser, just hearing it called assault would give me pause. "You don't have kids," is the sound of soil turning to concrete. You cannot plant seeds in concrete. What this means for us is that we need to be efficient in our efforts. If you lead with, "assault is immoral," it won't matter if they turn to stone because you've already said everything that NEEDS to be said. That there's alternatives and utilitarian reasons not to spank is fluff you can cover with somebody who is curious about the suggestion that they're harming their children. It's triage, baby. The world won't wait for these seeds to manifest. Plant what you can in what little time they give you and move on to more fertile ground. What do you think? I thought I'd mention this approach since I think it satisfies my viewpoint as well as yours.

Just the same advice I'd give anybody, on or off the boards: Commit to truth. Think for yourself. Be honest about how you think, why, where it came from, who is responsible, etc. Self-knowledge raises the value of everything you do and experience in life. As for on the boards, be curious. Participate in discussions, figure out errors you make and help others with errors they make.

Before I reply, I just wanted to say that that's such a horrible story. Why would he adopt a child if all he's going to do is use it as a pinata of sorts? Anyways, a more important question (to you) is: Did the things you're describing ever take place in front of other people, not including other people under the influence of his wrath? If not, then you already know that he understands it's not okay and is capable of controlling it. This puts him in the sadistic column and you're probably not going to have any luck talking him out of that.

The problem with this approach is that when they say you're not a parent, they've already demonstrated that they're more interested in finding ways to ignore input that doesn't reinforce than they are in being as good a parent as they can possibly be for the sake and happiness of their children. It's kind of like talking to somebody even after they put their fingers in their ears as if continuing to talk will have any bearing on the outcome.

I could be wrong, but this feels like addressing the leaves of a large tree. If you're looking for oak leaves, but the tree has pine roots, it's going to have a pine trunk, pine branches, and it won't even have leaves at all at the ends of its branches. This is why I've found so much value in Stef's Intro to Philosophy series: It taught me the enormous value of starting from first principles. Addressing step 20 of somebody's complicated path to an unsound conclusion is just a waste of time if in step 1, they're claiming that 1 = 2 for example. If you've never checked out Stef's Intro to Philosophy series, I encourage everybody to check it out at least once. I revisit it from time to time for the sake of recalibration. It's long, but it starts from first principles and does an amazing job of helping sort through all the propaganda that has us all thinking incorrectly without even realizing it. It's on youtube if you prefer visuals or I chopped it up in the link in my sig for people who prefer to partake of it on the go. As for identifying an error in somebody's methodology at an early stage, I recommend checking out Stef's debate with Peter Joseph. Mr. Joseph have an enormously convoluted position that he was never able to fully explain as Stef was able to repeatedly identify fundamental flaws and saved them both time by not exploring something that was built on something untrue or inconsistent. In the abstract, I'm inclined to say no. I do remember that when I first started learning the truth and how to think, I became so angry towards him that he could tell and ultimately tried to verbally punish me for it. Then once I tried to talk to him and he made it clear, it was surprisingly liberating. It would've been nice if somebody who's always been in my life and whom others would tell me by title alone SHOULD be in my life, could be reasoned with and choose to try and make up for all the abuse. But knowing this will not be meant there was that much more I didn't have to plan on, word towards, or have to think about in the future. In fact, you could even argue that it enhances my pursuit of self-knowledge by supplying me with greater resistance in order to make those muscles stronger. The real detriment is the lack of mental peace. Since he's learned of my ability to think and identify flaws and illegitimate "authority," he tends to walk softer in regards to me. And when he does flare up, it's so much more obvious that he is the one with the problem. That said, I do have to constantly wonder if he'll be set off, what will set him off, and what he will do in regards to being set off. It has more than once lead to holding the roof over my head over my head coercively. So while it may not be a direct challenge to my pursuit of self-knowledge, it can be a bit taxing to my resources overall. Which likely inhibits the healing process as well. I'm constantly re-evaluating whether the money I save is worth it or not. When I first moved back in, it was out of necessity because I sort of ran out of money and employability (thanks to guess who not properly preparing me for the real world). Since then, we've sort of developed a mutually beneficial business relationship. I'm armed security by trade, so he has somebody who is home when he isn't and is awake when he's sleeping. Plus he's bought a few houses that I help him fix up an maintain. Which has improved my human capital as well as built a small rental fleet that I may inherit in part. The important thing is that regardless of what I choose, that I understand the choice and make it intentionally. I have no misgiving that being useful to him might encourage him to change. And he daily has less and less misgivings that I'm going to comply just because HE says so. It could be worse. The hardest part is trying to figure out if my decision is in fact a business one, out of fear of standing on my own feet again, or even just a matter of convenience. By that I mean that living in somebody else's house, no bills are in my own name. At a time when the empire is spiraling out of control, it's kind of nice that I'm not relegated to depending on them or otherwise participating in most of their Ponzi schemes. Sorry for laboring the point. What are your thoughts on your situation? What are your thoughts on my analysis of mine? Oh, I should also mention that I do have one really close friend of a long time. He's elated to see the changes self-knowledge have brought in me and has talked with me about these things also. So even if I didn't have FDR and similar outlets, it's not things that I am considering in isolation.

I didn't feel as if they were likening the two. As I watched it in the moment, it felt as if they were just providing an example of what unintended consequences could look like. By the end though, seeing that they were focusing on the pill and it was made by a university, it might've been a subliminal stab of sorts. Speaking of the pill, it's not just for birth control. I have dated a couple girls that said they're on it even when they're not sexually active because it makes their periods significantly more bearable.

This was an engaging and fair introduction to the topic, but it certainly isn't the whole picture. I could have 100 naked women bent over in front of me and it's still my decision to say, "I want more than just ease of access." Self-knowledge would lead to better informed decisions even from the resources perspective the video focuses on. It requires better parenting to make self-knowledge seem important. Of course self-knowledge enhances the ability to parent as well. They had me up until the very end. I'm not talking about speaking as if the pill was the only factor, which was indeed off-putting. I was referring to their claim that the marriage market goes to the men. While there's a State in play, particularly one that clings to antiquated standards of women as fragile, the men could get their ass KICKED having done nothing wrong other than not choosing a better partner. In ways that don't happen in reverse. It's a shame that no reference to this very important things were not made. State programs have been more influential in these matters than the pill has been. I really liked the art style though, particularly the extra lighting given. It was very creative. It's a shame that so many hours of work end up in the amalgamation of just a few minutes of video.

You and me both! Welcome. Chin up because hey, you survived! And it would appear that you're not rejecting truths that are incredibly uncomfortable to face. This is really important. Keep at it and you can be as happy and free as you're willing to work towards. It's harder for those of us who have to reprogram after decades of lies, but it's possible and incredibly rewarding.

The phrase "social contract" is a contradiction in terms. A contract is a private agreement between specific people. We do not allow children to enter into contracts, yet the social contract (according to those who argue for it) binds even the unborn. "Social contract" begs the question. In the consideration of whether or not government is valid, saying that somebody can leave assumes the claim to be evaded is valid. Punching me in the face isn't moral just because I can choose to be at greater than arm's length from you. "Social contract" is internally inconsistent. In order for the claim to be valid, the country would have to own everything and everybody within it. However, if this were the case, it wouldn't need permission or agreement. "Social contract" is ex post facto justification. I don't get to throw a sandwich at you and then say that you now owe me money. Similarly, I don't get to take your money without your consent and then throw a sandwich at you as if that could alter the moral identity of stealing your money beforehand. "Social contract" is a baldfaced falsehood. People can NOT leave. Not without permission. Not without having to go to another inflicted "contract." Not without risking extreme theft of their belongings in the process.

That's pretty much the same thing except that "coherent" is subjective. They're still saying that there's a standard called coherency, it's universally preferable, and they are able to identify it. They're still demonstrating internal inconsistency by asking somebody for a coherent answer to a question that accuses them of being incoherent. Which you could argue makes the question itself incoherent.

Hello there. I was wondering if you could clarify something... The word "economy" refers to the sum of human exchange. It isn't capable of behaviors such as caring and being barbaric. As such, I find that "barbaric free market system" is quite the accusation. Especially considering that the US doesn't have a free market system. Public funding with private profits is fascistic. Finally, socialism is internally inconsistent in that it simultaneously accepts and rejects property rights. I'm not sure how something that rejects property rights could be described as caring. That quote there is an extremely heavy one, riddled with fallacies. I was hoping that some clarification was needed.

I just realized I had forgotten the most important point of all. Be warned: It is a VERY uncomfortable one. If you realize that somebody is immoral, and you then continue to allow them to be in your life, you become complicit in their immorality. Take my situation for example. My father is the largest, most consistent, and most current abuser in my life. I'm living under his roof despite being at an age that I should be able to provide for myself. When I started pursuing self-knowledge and studying philosophy, I tried to talk with him about his allowance for aggression and the impact its had on my life and ways of thinking, etc. He made it very clear that there would be no change and no further conversation. I've chosen to stay for financial reasons, but I understand full well that by not eliminating him from my life given his conviction towards allowing for aggression, I am complicit in his aggression towards others and reinforcing his aggression towards me. I wouldn't doubt that I'm making the wrong decision based on that alone. I think it might be more useful to share what you're feeling first. How much a person is your friend or worthy of being your friend can be ascertained by how much they will allow you to share your feelings openly. Opinions are conclusions and conclusions are not nearly as important as the methodology by which they were arrived upon. Sharing an opinion that you've arrived at by way of empiricism is going to be meaningless to somebody who values utility over reality for example. This is why I dislike labels in general. Like, I don't go around telling people that I think that anarchy and atheism are the most accurate and consistent positions. Somebody might discount me before hearing anything I might have to say if they identified me as a libertarian or whatever. Even though their understanding of such a label might be different from what it actually means or what I might think it means. That's why the only label I'll ever self-apply is a truth-ist. I'm happy to be wrong so long as learning that I'm not accurately describing the real world helps lead me (and the person I'm talking to) to a better understanding of what would be more accurate. I find this output better solicits constructive disagreement.

I'm happy for you that you finally get to escape that environment. Just remember it's never completely over. You'll always share walls or fences with other people, so it's always a roll of the dice. When you move, if your new neighbors don't make contact, right away, you can be the one to make that contact. A few minutes up front can save you untold amounts of stress in the long run. Depends. If her friends lack self-knowledge or otherwise allow her to hold inferior thoughts and behaviors, it could be worse than being alone. Anyways, it's never too late if it's important to you. If you try to apologize and she slams a door in your face, then you might have to wait for her to come to you. Otherwise, it's something she would probably enjoy learning about you. Just make sure the apologies are you owning your behaviors and not trying to justify or explain them away. Once she's accepted your apology and the healing has begun, then you can discuss how it came to pass. Which is easier for siblings than just friends since they typically experience similar abuses. So how soon is the move for you?

Oh I hope I can convince you (and anybody reading this who values the pursuit of self-knowledge) otherwise, for many reasons. Two heads are better than one is not bullshit. I could be talking out of my nostril, but saying something that might help connect the dots for somebody else. Or I might think I'm making a fantastic point, but it turns out I'm talking out of my nostril. Were I to not speak up, I'd never come to realize this blind spot in my own self-knowledge. I'm not saying that you are with or without error, but we need errors to learn, even if it's the errors of others. Does that make sense? The moment somebody says something like "why are you so unreasonable", or "why does it seem like you are unable to respond in a reasonable way," they are making the claims that being reasonable is 1) a standard, 2) universally preferable, and 3) something they are able to identify. The questions are a square triangle. You don't have to have self-knowledge to understand that something cannot have 3 sides and 4 sides simultaneously. In other words, somebody who is not speaking reasonably cannot use those words to form an expectation of reason if they wish to be taken seriously. It's no surprise that somebody could be reasonable and capable of acting unreasonably. If I told you that I cannot fly, this wouldn't mean anything to you as HUMANS cannot fly. Similarly if all humans were always reasonable or always unreasonable, the consideration would be meaningless. To say that somebody is typically reasonable, you are also saying they have the capacity for being unreasonable. That's why this conversation is important: The moment somebody puts forth the expectation for acting reasonably, they are bound by it themselves. Otherwise, we know that they're not speaking of an objective truth, but simply trying to put their desires over the existence of other people.

Mick, have you checked out the video I linked above? It addresses the physiological impact on the brain. I don't know if what you said about the liver is true, but unless it leads to the inability to live (literally) without alcohol, then it would be meaningless compared to the physiological impact in the brain. If no effort has been made towards self-knowledge beyond drinking alone, this would be true. Self-knowledge, including the processing of unresolved trauma, would likely not play out as you describe. It certainly wouldn't be involuntary. Taking these steps, one cannot be somebody who was never broken, but it would be a misnomer to refer to them as broken in the present. The distinction is important because understanding the cause for addiction helps those afflicted in the present and helps to prevent new victims in the future. "Once an addict always an addict" does nothing to help prevent new victims and paralyzes those who have been inflicted by telling them they can never touch the stuff again. Which is essentially letting it run your life still.

I see what you're saying. I would then argue that a caring person wouldn't behave as if to instigate or be unreasonable themselves while proposing that lack or reason is problematic. A more productive alternative for example would be sharing with the person that you feel that what they're saying in the moment is unreasonable and that you feel that this is uncharacteristic of them. With this approach, you'd be sharing your experience, which is valid even if it turns out they're not being unreasonable. This approach would not be provocative. Which has the added bonus that if they react as if it is provocative, then you have your confirmation that they are in fact being unreasonable. I think this approach is much better because it reinforces your own self-knowledge and can encourage an exploration that will enhance the self-knowledge of both parties involved.

He failed in the tag line, mentioning free market and reform as if they're compatible. Then he failed in his first sentence saying "business" as if that's a bad thing and claiming the voluntary providing of any good or service is not a business. Sorry, I didn't read on.

I don't know what it does, but if a picture is worth 1,000 words, I think I'm going to like it.

You've provided no frame of reference, so I'm unsure what you're talking about. Legislations (humans cannot make laws) are commands backed by threats of violence. They are inherently oppressive and no libertarian voice could come out in favor of the initiation of the use of force.

This is a fascinating topic. Now that you mention it, I have noticed that I am able to sleep better since I've pursued self-knowledge. I used to have a very hard time falling asleep. Stef did an amazing job of helping to explain this in his recent video about drug addiction that was brought on by Hoffman's death . I've also noticed that when I do get less sleep than I should, I'm able to function better overall than I used to. Just another one of the many things my father has tried to hold against me over the years that he is in fact the cause of.

First of all, I wanted to point out that these are different questions. The first is saying, "You are unreasonable; Why is that?" The second expresses more of a curiosity than a certainty. Secondly, both questions are unreasonable in that they are asking somebody who is accused/suspected of being unreasonable for a reasonable explanation of why they are unreasonable. Since both questions are internally inconsistent, I don't think they are eligible for empathy as they are insincere. Finally, because both questions deal with assigning fault and are internally inconsistent, we can understand that they are intended to instigate. I would also go so far as to say that somebody that could ask those questions are lacking self-knowledge as they have used irrationality to arrive at the conclusion that whatever frustration motivated them to instigate in this fashion is not at all attributable to them. On a side note, the level at which somebody can reason, or speak any language, is a direct result of what they've been exposed to. Making the questions strange in that the answer would be fairly obvious. I'd like some feedback on this post. I feel as if that's getting a whole lot more out of the question than is there. I'm curious if this is the result of propaganda of people that denounce such things in order to minimize their evil, or me being closed minded as to alternate explanations.

How? And how does this relate to the question you were posting about? What are you talking about specifically? Are you talking about New Hampshire? Seasteading? Freedom is in our interpersonal realationships. Even the ones as small as going to get groceries. You share the road with other people, you share the aisles with other people, you pay for the products you want, etc. That anarchy is perceived to be a rarity is a very corrupted narrative. This is a great facet to address. Better still is the way that parents raise their children for subservience to a state, religion, or "authority." On my way home from one of my runs tonight, I saw a cop car lit up because it pulled somebody over likely for having hurt nobody. It was dark out and his lights were very bright, distracting all the other motorists. He was taking up space on a road made for forward motion, which was dangerous for the other motorists. I got incredibly angry because I was thinking about how ridiculously people would look at/think of me if I put lights on top of my car, pulled people over for no reason, and extorted them under threat of kidnapping or even death. It's all so clear to me that I literally cannot comprehend how so many people accept this as if it's good or beneficial in any way. That's the sort of thing I mean about parenting.

I don't think so. When religions (including the state) push "morality," it is subjective, which is how you know it isn't morality. A lot of people misuse the words "morals" and "philosophy" when they mean "personal beliefs," which is why it's easy to mistake either as being subjective. If you own yourself and people are not fundamentally different, then everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. This is the definition and totality of objective morality as I understand it. I happen to think it's beautiful because those four words (theft, assault, rape, and murder) tells the entire story. Anything more convoluted beyond those four words are trying to obfuscate or abandon the truth.

Since this topic of trans-media is satisfied, mind if I do a minor jack? I was wondering if anybody knew of a way to convert an ebook to an audiobook faster than realtime. I can get Kindle for PC with Compatibility Plugin to open an ebook and NVDA to read it aloud. However, this is limited both by being realtime and that it will only read what is displayed at one time. I can make Kindle read aloud faster than the MicroMachines guy, but reconstituting it in post only makes it sound more synthesized to the point of being unbearable.