dsayers

Debunked far too many times to be taken seriously. People are pointing a gun at you to pay your taxes. There is no such threat to vote in most places. You cannot think of a way to live without the mafia other than filling out forms the mafia provides? Assertion and false analogy. If a gun is available when a gun is needed, you pick it up and pull the trigger. You're pointing to a candidate, so there's voter fraud/electoral college, betrayed campaign promises, other branches of government... the list goes on of steps between picking up your proverbial gun and discharging a proverbial round. What proof do you have of what ANY person WILL do? Your list contained items no one person COULD do. Wall? lol If you want to pay for a wall, go for it. That doesn't mean you get to steal from me and my unborn child to pay for it. Which by the way, neeeel, is a principled conclusion and an accurate description of reality. Walls don't stop people from initiating the use of force. Especially not one that is predicated on the initiation of the use of force. You're just spewing platitudes, offering up wishful thinking and appeals to emotion as if they're rational arguments. 1) There's no if; You cannot actually enslave 300 million people. 2) People who are capable of thought and tasks such as putting 2 and 2 together and/or looking at empirical evidence are able to understand the outcome without pretending to enslave 300 million people. 3) The enslavement of 300 million people is not a fantasy worth indulging. 4) "won't hurt" is not an accurate way of describing somebody accepting an illegitimate master. I'm actually angry right now at the level of lack of integrity you're bringing to me here. You don't own me. Got it?

No. Political voting is an act of fantasy and therefore not binding upon others. Also, somebody being told they're allowed to steal doesn't, they are free to not steal and therefore the person telling them it's okay is not responsible. The principle is that you cannot be free in your own mind if you welcome a master. You cannot contribute to a US presidential vote if you are not in the electoral college. Voter fraud is more prevalent than ever, as is rigging what constitutes a legal vote, etc. No single person has the power to effect everything. The US legal system is 3 branched. The US is smaller than "the west" and not necessarily indicative of it. "The west" isn't necessarily something worth preserving... This has been addressed far too many times to misrepresent it as the outdated idea of "it's just immoral." Principles ARE reality. What is insanity is putting forth a teddy bear as if it's representative of a grizzly bear. In order for your analogy to fit, instead of water, it would have to be gasoline, which upon dousing the fire, accelerates the fire, consuming everybody else in the process. However, even that wouldn't be a perfect fit because as indicated above, it's an act of fantasy, and the people being nodded to are free to decline. Political voting is like attending a child's make believe tea party and telling yourself that you are saving the world. Only instead of having tea, what you're pretending to do is enslave hundreds of millions of people, but it's for a good cause!

Do not try and speak for others. There are plenty of people that are able to put 2 and 2 together to get 4 without having to enslave their neighbors to satisfy their own I'm-not-free-in-my-own-head experiment.

While I accept that Stef has the integrity to do such a thing, this likely will not happen. This is the problem when one speaks in vague language like "save western civilization." By what measure? He mentions freedoms, but we don't actually have those, so how would one measure when something that is absent gets "taken away"? So no definition of what western civilization is, no explanation as to why it deserves to be saved even if it could be, no method by which to measure the outcome. We will still be slaves and knowing this going into it is the reason NOT to vote, even if it weren't just fantasy and won't influence anything. It's about being free in one's own mind. Something that begging somebody else for solutions cannot accurately describe. While that may be true, "crawl on broken glass" is an exaggeration to say the least.

I enthusiastically call shenanigans on this claim. If you'd like to hear how, you'd be listening to all the ways that have been getting pointed out for the last several months. "If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care what your answers are." If you're using phrases like "upsides to Trump" and "voting works," you're allowing yourself to be distracted from reality. In the real world, humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories. If you understand this, then you understand that voting is co-operating in your enslavement, as is wishing for a specific master, because of the ways in which you THINK he'll whip you more gently. Also, for as long as you're begging other people to solve problems for you, you will stop trying to problem solve even within your own mind.

That is my argument, yes. I think it's reprehensible to try and pretend to enslave others. Particularly so for those who accept property rights and recognize the immorality of behaviors carried out in the name of the State. Because it only serves to signal to others that the mass delusion is righteous. It's not immoral. Good question! I can't help but wonder if it matters though. ANY assault has the potentiality of death. With stabbing having a high incidence of as much. In a free society, would you feel any safer around somebody who has willfully stabbed another human being that happened to survive than you would around a murderer? A reasonable person would expect that a stab victim could die. It is attempted murder. Morality is digital, so there's no difference there. However, in terms of damages, I don't think they should be weighted differently. The only real difference is that restitution would be owed the survivor rather than their estate/kin/support network. I think I see what you're asking. It's hard to know. My thought process is thus: Alison Gopnik's work demonstrates that humans are naturally empathetic. This makes sense when you consider ideas like we are a social species, the value of division of labor, etc. I've always wondered if this is a feature of human beings today, or is this something that has been with us from "the beginning," which allowed for us to flourish as we have. I remember once positing on FDR that we were once savage and as technology advanced, we were given the tools with which to cooperate to achieve goals larger than we could on our own. Somebody offered a very convincing case as to why it made sense that empathy would've been with us throughout. I have no recollection of who it was, what that case was, or what verbiage we could use to search for it (if it hasn't been archived). The question is important though. We have mirror neurons. We have empathy. Present day, it's very clear that a level of dissociation must occur in order to be able to assault at all (barring psychopathy et al). Would this be present in the fictional society you describe? I do not know. What I do know is that self-ownership stems from our capacity for reason. Our ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. So I think regardless of all of the above (and I apologize if it is frustrating that I had included all of the above anyways; I've been thanked for my mind dumps, so I'm just rolling with it), the answer would be that responsibility is going to be based on the degree to which the person committing the act was capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. If a person understands self, the other, and that a consequence of a voluntary action of theirs could be the death of the other, they are responsible for that killing. I think this is easier than it might seem. I think this is a false dichotomy and I think this is not a hypothetical. As given the widespread acceptance of the State worldwide, this is sort of where we are now. My answer would be I would want to remove the acceptance of murder in the society. This not only heals the society, but the society would in turn ostracize the murderers. So you get all of the above by choosing none of the above. Just about everything I've done since I've found FDR has been to the goal of removing acceptance of immorality, and I've become exceedingly efficient at it (yay Matrix quote opportunity!). You as well. I think this place is far more interesting and challenging with you in it. I enjoy you sticking with this and providing me with the opportunity to mentally exercise in ways I'm not accustomed to. THIS is why I wish the bright people of integrity would get off of politics; So we can start applying those resources to meaningful conversations instead of drawing lines in the sand between one another at the expense of our collective values. We should be immune to such divide and conquer given our elevated capability of vision.

Meanwhile we have lots of empirical evidence that he CAN'T effect the things he claims, a citizen vote CAN'T influence a POTUS election, that the US CAN'T determine the course of the west (as it is smaller and has been marginal for some time). The first time I went to read this, I noticed a few items that seemed like a lack of integrity. I intend to do a full debunking as time permits. Just not sure how soon that will be. Me plate be overloaded ATM.

From the title: "why rationality is not the best method..." A statement (as opposed to question) beginning with the word "why" indicated that an explanation is coming. In order to be convincing, it needs to be a rational explanation. So your thread with either fail to make your case, or will contradict your underlying premise as you do.

No entity intentionally chips away at their own survival.

False analogy. You don't own me, so your vote--that is, your attempt to transfer ownership of me to another person--is fantasy. And we can again get into all the ways in which a vote doesn't influence the outcome and such. To fit your analogy, the voter is making a gun with their fingers and yelling bang bang while deliberately aiming at everybody. Sure, the fact that they're aiming at everybody indicates intent, but they're only playing pretend. No binding action, no responsibility. I think you're describing different scenarios. A child who is traumatized will indeed experience diminished choice due to the artificial cages their abusers inflicted upon them. However, we were talking about adults. Person A telling person B that it is okay to kill person C is not binding upon person B. If person B kills, they are responsible for their murder. You are begging the question when you say "this world strips you of your choice." And when you mentioned being next to suffer their psychopathy, now you're moving the goalposts to a scenario where there is an active, credible threat. So person A and person B are stabbing person C. In this scenario, person A is responsible for A's stabbing and not B's stabbing and person B is responsible for B's stabbing and not A's. No need to apologize. I heard Stef say something a long time ago that has never left my mind: When people get morality wrong, millions of people get killed. It's very important that we figure these things out.

That's what they said about 9/11. Was that just buying us time? What happened in that time? Those precious western values such as freedom of speech have been blinked out. The State people are begging to save us set the stage and ushered in the so-called barbarians. Primarily to get rational individuals to forsake their values and fall in line. It's disgusting. Meanwhile every terrorist attack on US soil was a false flag attack. The US has paid to have terrorist videos spoofed... I don't pay attention to people and events by choice, but things wash up on my shore. I haven't heard of any terrorist attacks on US soil in awhile. Perhaps they thought that once the greatest philosophy show on Earth was willing to commit so much of its resources to dignifying them and legitimizing the system, the pendulum was already swinging enough that they didn't need any more. This is same old shit, different day. While a bunch of people who would otherwise rightly be described as empiricists are swearing it's something new just because the circus got that much more spectacular.

Whoops. And you had such a strong start! Nobody is qualified to rule over other humans. They'd have to be fundamentally different in a way that puts them in a different, opposing moral category. As you said, no such person exists.

Thank you for your honesty and integrity. I completely understand the fear. I very much want to be able to teach and unleash peace right this second! But you can't fix a problem you don't understand and I think turning to voting is exactly this. ESPECIALLY among people that accept property rights. No, I have not followed Trump's journey. Because of FDR and FB, I've been exposed to this and that. For me, there's only one meaningful way to divide people: Those willing to initiate the use of force to achieve their goals and those who will not. As Trump is clearly and unapologetically in the former, I wish I didn't even know his name.

Saying not an argument isn't an argument. Or it is an argument and therefore what I posted that you claim isn't an argument IS an argument. "God exists." "That's not true." "Not an argument." "Doesn't need to be. You made an extraordinary claim and haven't substantiated it. I don't need an argument to refute nothingness."

Those values were already being aggressively eroded. It was what made the message of peaceful parenting so necessary. That message acts against that erosion. Turning to begging the masters is the personification of such erosion. It is antithetical to restoring western values. Not arguing with YOU of course; Just pointing out why I think such a shift isn't rational.

...is an objective claim. Performative contradiction. How does one construct something that is valid with or without them? I also noticed you used very specific words to communicate ideas.

Are the people there free of aggression in the name of the State? In fact, those who voted accepted their slavery and signaled to others that it's righteous. As soon as somebody tells you that something that is simple is more complicated, they're trying to sell you a lie. It starts in childhood when toxic adults try to override a child's natural scrutiny and universality. I don't know who sold you this particular lie, but it's the same as above. People are waking up to human slavery, so the puppet masters threaten the slaves with a more brutal master so that the slaves will clamor for the less brutal master instead of choosing freedom even inside their own head. Clearly it works since so many of the best minds we have today are falling for it despite knowing better. It doesn't matter what comes next because we've already established that your vote has no influence, they don't have to do what they say, and you don't own me. You want to trade with Trump, cool. You don't get to try to enslave me or my future child as part of your transaction. Period! Not an argument. It's fearmongering. Even if it were true, it's not a license to turn our back on reality and pretend we can enslave our neighbors. If it were true, it would be a reason to continue to help people to understand that the mafia is NOT the solution to the mafia. Baseless assertion that has been debunked too many times. Your vote has no influence, you don't know what politician X will do, you cannot know that you are buying anything. What you are selling is yourself, me, and everybody else. It's playing pretend and believing what you are doing is real and it is very dangerous for all of us. Doesn't matter. Even if slave master Y would be more brutal than slave master X, X is still a slave master. And you don't know what they will do (still). All you know for sure is that they think they can rule over people and you know that is false. Even if you believe it is true, you cannot own me and therefore trying to sell me to X or Y is pure fantasy. It's nice that we have just enough speech capability to make people think that free speech is a thing and that we have it. There are near infinite examples that we do NOT have free speech. It's only allowed as much as it is because people who know better are willing to respond to scaremongering by abandoning their values and clamoring to sell their neighbors into slavery for the illusion of time and safety. What's that old adage? If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care what your answer are. Right now, you have the capacity and intellect to examine whether or not humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. Instead, you're using those resources to come up with reasons why we should turn our back on reason and submit to slavery. You are not a threat to them, so why would they care if you can talk or not? Your speech only aides them.

My understanding of sympathy and empathy are the exact opposite; Sympathy is the ability to relate and empathy is the ability to feel without necessarily having the ability to relate. Oh and how is a parent that exposes a child to such a teacher (or schools in general) not abusive?

Pointing out that politicians have tried to scare the populace to coax them into giving up more freedom for the illusion of safety, and pointing out that a US citizen's vote has no influence on the outcome of the election, let alone the yield of the outcome of that election ARE arguments. Which is generous considering they are offered in response to the proposition that voting can make a difference. Which itself is not an argument, and therefore that which indicates why a person might reject such an extraordinary claim doesn't even have to be an argument. The onus is on the people making the extraordinary claims.

Considering that everything he says present day is in the context of "I want to rule over 300 million people," this is probably true. A lot of people could save a lot of time if they stopped focusing on individuals, things they say and do, and discuss ideas. Such people would see that he claims to be able to rule over others and move on with their lives.

Waking people up to how perverse the mainstream media is is fantastic. It doesn't explain though how anybody else can transfer ownership of me or could own me, how any vote can be thought to have any influence on the outcome, how anybody knows that any politician is going to do what they say, only what they say, and everybody wants exactly that, that one person has the power to do any of that, that you can change the mafia from within the mafia, and so on. Pretending the State is legitimate does nothing to contribute towards freedom and directly acts against it by pretending it is real and legitimate.

If I had to guess in advance, I think I would've wanted two. By time I found a woman that we were going to have kids, we decided on one. I think she had wanted more than one too. But given our circumstances, one was what would be best for our child(ren). I maintain that this is unknowable until you actually find your partner. By relationship, do you mean romantic relationship? Because even a romantic relationship that's worth pursuing will have a solid foundation in friendship. I would go so far as to assert that they would literally be your best friend before even being eligible for a healthy romantic partner (though I'm no expert, so I could be wrong about that part). I would caution against throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. This world is FULL of phonies. A willingness to be vulnerable is a rare quality, and one that I would argue is a requisite for establishing a true connection. Not long ago, I had my greatest vulnerability exploited worse than ever before by somebody who I never though could do such a thing. I'm VERY glad that I didn't stop being vulnerable to others. The connections I've made since are some of the best I've ever had.

With each other, or generally speaking? If it's with each other, I'm not sure how you could come to such a conclusion with somebody who would lie to you. If in general, I'm not sure how you could come to such a conclusion without knowing who your partner would be. If a person has to lie to you to earn your affection, they don't deserve it. If a person would lie to you after receiving your affection, they don't deserve it.

If we accept property rights and turn to an institution that is predicated on the violation of property rights, we have no hope of spreading philosophy. Focusing on Trump for a year is a year's worth of time. NotDarkYet's post does a good job of explaining the motivation behind what you've observed. Rest assured that there are those of us who understand that enslaving our neighbors for our preferences is wrong and not even worth pretending to be able to do. I've done much to speak out against political voting only to be largely met with non-arguments and ostracism. Luckily, no amount of downvotes impacts the truth value of an objective claim

Reading this post, I wondered if peaceful parenting, which is essential to all of the above, would be present. When I found that it was, I liked the page. Don't be afraid to add me personally