dsayers

Sorry, no. Backing up a truck, riding shotgun, dismal science, article of faith, heretical theses, bare-knuckled globalization... I don't know what this guy is talking about. I suspect he doesn't know what he is talking about. It's hard to get three paragraphs into unsolicited oration without actually saying anything. I would read further to try and figure it out, but his choice of verbiage suggests he's not going to be providing anything honest or factual.

Forgot to point out that what this means is that you keep for yourself the option to disregard anything anybody says here. Which means nothing you do here can be considered a conversation. It's also a universality fail in that you're posting here that that which is posted here doesn't need to be taken into consideration. That accountability is present makes motive secondary. Also, what you said wasn't a consideration of motive, but a claim that it was NOT malicious. Which I pointed out that by way of negligence, it is malicious. You cared enough about protecting evil doers that you were willing to make an erroneous claim. You care enough about maintaining a self-image of infallibility that you're willing to resort to ad hominem and misrepresenting your initial claim to avoid facing that what you put forth was flawed. The irony is that you make my point for me by claiming not to care. You do not care about speaking the truth, so you put forth a falsehood that were people to buy it wholesale, it would lead to the continued crushing of countless wills of defenseless children. That the stakes are that high is why speaking accurately matters. Claiming not to care doesn't absolve you of being accountable for being complicit. Just as the design of education isn't about educating children, so people put forth a falsehood that leads to the exact opposite of their stated goal. Saying this isn't malicious is not accurate and wouldn't change things if it is accurate. The second irony is that I was never talking about YOU. I made a counterpoint to the position you put forth. You've reacted to it twice while not addressing it even once.

I don't know what this means. I do know what this means. It means you've taken a clarification personally and think that accusing the clarifier of being upset will alter the truth value of his clarification or divert attention away from the initial point that needed clarification. You said that already. To which I pointed out that it wouldn't be any better. Which means your distinction can only serve the purpose of not holding the responsible accountable. You don't have to accept my input, but you do have to acknowledge it if you wish to continue to make the same point. Repeating yourself won't make the words more accurate or my words less accurate.

I argue that money is a technology. We use vehicles to travel beyond our limitations. We use the internet to communicate beyond our limitations. We use money to trade beyond our limitations. Without money, trade would require that person A has X and wants Y, person B has Y and wants X, persons A and B value X and Y identically, and both happen to meet with X and Y in tow. That is enormously inefficient. As such, I don't see money as a value arbiter ever being separated from human interaction.

How do you define useful? What says that something has to be useful? If people are offering goods/services at whatever price and people are paying for them, it doesn't matter what you and I think about it so long as nobody is initiating the use of force. Places where people would rather be command higher prices due to competition. I just don't see an argument in your introductory post. I do see a bunch of words that when considered together appears to be appeals to emotion, sophist in its approach, or just plain vague talking point deepities. If you could organize your thoughts, write them down systematically, address the questions above, and explain why what other people voluntarily do together that doesn't initiate the use of force against anybody is any of our concern, it would be easier to have a conversation.

Sorry I&A, but I continue to see contradictions. I suspect it comes from a lack of self-knowledge or otherwise not being honest. Most alarming was describing the military as "not for me." I think something along the lines of, "A plague on this planet and its inhabitants, the right arm of psychopaths that try to enslave all of humanity," would be more accurate. I'm glad that's not for you, but that's a rather glancing description you gave. As far as contradictions, you mention facebook and how you won't conform for comfort's sake, but claim to love somebody that does. You mention her (lack of) acceptance from her father, but state it as an uncertainty. I think somebody who recognizes the importance of self-knowledge would either make an effort to be certain or admit that the lack of certainty indicates you're either not as close as you think or have picked the wrong partner. You also said she was compassionate, but I don't see that in anything you've said about her. I know you added the qualifier of "most of the time," but think about that inconsistency and what it could mean. Is she wishy washy? Or does she just lower her standards for you since you demonstrate she can get away with doing so? Or possibly out of retaliation for choosing to slight her over telling three buddies "no"? That's not the behavior of somebody in love. Finally, I just wanted to point out that I'm still not seeing YOU in the thread. How did it come to pass that you chose to join the military? Even before I fully understood they were evil, I viewed (generally speaking of course) as people that went that way as having no direction. No mention of your family or friends in regards to this decision, or the decision to get out, or the decision to chase somebody 1,000 miles who is stiff-arming you, etc.

That's quite the accusation. Since my input on the subject is text RIGHT HERE, you should have no problem pointing out where this was said. And since you are saying that if somebody is asked a question, they MUST answer, I will formally put it into question form: Where did I ever say this? Morality is objective. You can choose to cross it, but you cannot choose what it is. The very idea of making a "moral cause" "look bad" indicates you don't know what you're talking about.

What are you talking about?

Probably. George Carlin talked about this in his infamous 7 dirty words routine. He was referring to cocksucker and motherfucker, but I think words like cunt and fuck are more stabbing just because they're monosyllabic.

Eardrums moving are an effect. It's not at all the same as a direct action such as raising your hand. Nobody is talking about approval. In order to reject self-ownership, you have to exercise self-ownership. You cannot make the case that something is invalid when the act of making the case establishes its validity.

Well I'll add a couple more thoughts. Please understand that everything I'm saying is just based on what you're saying. I could be way out in left field. First of all, what is it that you love about her? I'm talking about in the present. You mentioned closure, which is another word for certainty, and I think the inconsistency in her behaviors is a certainty that she doesn't love you or value that you love her. It's not the kind of thing that somebody could hide. And to be blunt, it could very well be that she's non-committal because she gets everything she needs from you without committing. Earlier on, did you find yourself giving towards her at a level that wasn't normal for the level/duration of the relationship? Your initial post didn't use the word love at all. Above all, you know what I didn't see in your posts here? You. You mentioned military, but no talk since about how your changing views interacts with it. Nor did you touch base on how it came to pass that you had joined the military. No real talk about your needs or emotions. Even when addressing your views, it was all labely and not very personal at all. It's as if you find your identity in others, have one that made you feel good once before, and can't let go because you're afraid to face the void. I could be wrong. How much do you value self-knowledge? Have you put any effort into figuring such things out?

What would her answer be in regards to you? I did read the entire thing, but I don't know what you're saying. I don't know where you're coming from, how you feel, what your motivation is, or what you seek, both in terms of this girl and this thread. From what I am reading, it doesn't sound like anything more than attachment. Possibly worse: habit. Maybe you could tell us more about yourself. Particularly what you'd have to offer a different suitor were to date other people. It really sounds like you're both being unfair with yourselves and each other.

Oh? So if the guy in question could choose between running somebody over with a train, running several people over with a train, or playing golf, he'd run people over? Are people tied to train tracks a naturally occurring phenomenon or does it require human behavior to create it? I'm no engineer, but I'd imagine they're designed like big rigs where the brakes lock up in the event of a malfunction. Either way, we haven't even touched base on why the train is out of control. The bottom line is that the scenario doesn't offer enough information, it asks the wrong question, and it assumes that the answer is of any value.

Let me start by thanking you for your sensitivity in this manner. A lot of people talk about wanting to make big changes in the world and don't know how to go about doing it. It begins with our interpersonal relationships. People who hold religious views (which statism is) didn't arrive at that conclusion by way of logic, reason, or evidence. It is the momentum of the past, perpetuated by social comfort. The only way to stop it is to make it uncomfortable for people to use or support the use of violence to solve problems. One way to accomplish this is not allowing such people the pleasure of our friendship. This doesn't mean that every relationship in your life has to be founded on this. If you work for/with somebody, there's nothing wrong with keeping conversations in the realm of the mundane so as not to threaten your livelihood. How much of this (ostracism) we choose to engage in with those around us, the important thing is to be AWARE of your decision and its specifics. Just remember that association isn't passive. People you are near will imprint upon you. Others might think of you differently based on the company you keep. This can be as serious as you becoming a person of interest in a criminal investigation by the cops based on who you've associated with. The last thing I'll say is just a reminder that the internet is here and much of software and technology has been based on the interconnectivity of mankind. It's never been easier to make a principled stand in your interpersonal relationships for the betterment of the species. Good luck to you with what you decide.

Welcome to FDR! How dedicated is she to pursuing the truth? Your backstory was fun to read, but I noticed there wasn't much emotion or description of personal relationships. How old is your first child now?

Aren't these in opposition? If we're friends and I'm a thief, wouldn't bringing this up as part of me you'd like to change be a good thing? I had a similar question about your question: "Do they take the wind out of my sales by immediately pointing out flaws in my aspirations?" How do you know this is a "negative" (I think you meant undesirable)? If a friend said, "I'm going to end world hunger," wouldn't asking them how they're going to do that lead to them either having a better approach to it or revising it to be more realistic? I can't speak for others, but the greatest gift a friend could give me is challenging me. To challenge me is to be honest with me in a way that society says is rude when it isn't. To add to the thread, I think the greatest measure of a friend lies in how honest you can be with your emotions with them. It will quickly reveal if they value you as a person or if they are only using you to suit their needs.

What you're talking about is government schooling. "Public" hides the coercion and "education" is being dishonest. Your use of these words kind of makes the point you're trying to refute. If I hop into a car without knowing how to drive a car and I plow into a crowd, am I absolved of accountability if I call it incompetence? If you take on something that can harm others without doing the research on HOW to do that, it is malicious by way of negligence. In terms of schooling, you don't even need the research. If you watch the way children resist it and need to be threatened to quash the resistance is proof of the harm. In this case, not choosing to do the right thing is as malicious as choosing to do the wrong thing.

I've come across more and more threads that offer no frame of reference. So I wanted to make a sort of PSA reminding would be thread starters to provide links or explain what it is you're talking about. Or if the thread is meant to be a response to something, just make it a reply to that thing and it will provide the frame of reference for you. Sorry, but this applies to posts that contain nothing but a video as well. Just take a moment to let us know why we should take the moment. Please and thank you. As a test, feel free to point out the way that this thread (intentionally) violates the plea for frame of reference.

I actually just got done listening to that one a couple hours ago, so it's still fresh in my mind. Here's the link for those of you into having a frame of reference. Stef never said anything about Islam. It is true that he spoke of Muslims, which does imply that Islam had something to do with the practice. However, it's a distinction without a difference. Religions are held up as if they're moral ideals. For this reason, if Islam doesn't condone the practice, it would be worse that they engaged in the practice while holding religious beliefs to the contrary.

I've been torn with what to say in response or if to say anything at all. In the end, I've chosen to speak up since I voiced my concern on the subject of self-knowledge in your intro thread and you welcomed feedback while placing importance on self-knowledge. I found much of your reply to me to be self-contradictory. For example, you spoke of programming, but continue to use the word "we" even after it was pointed out to you. You mention the domino effect at the national level, but rejected my encouragement to start a positive domino effect at the personal level. Everything you're saying is nationalistic. When you mentioned your friend, you didn't just say friend, you identified them by way of all the psychopaths that have claimed ownership over them. Not that you NEED a reason to care for people. Which makes me wonder if you brought it up as if to suggest that people who don't know anybody over there cannot feel for them or understand that tyranny is wrong, or how serious the threat is. It's an appeal to emotion. I'm not saying this to devalue your emotions. I think they could be a powerful ally if you actually applied them instead of considering things you have no control over. Take your opening sentence for example: "maintain our dollar" "our inability to maintain a balanced national budget." These aren't things you have any control over. You're not even talking about people at all, just saying "we" like that makes any sense. The psychopaths who claim ownership over you WANT you to be thinking on their terms, on their scale, on subjects you cannot influence. You're playing right into their hand. You're taking yourself out of the equation by looking past the aforementioned contradictions to focus instead on things you can't change. You're talking about stopping aggression without making any effort to understand where aggression comes from. Do you think this is an approach that will result in meeting the goal you've set by making this thread? Do you think that North Korea and the US represent the entirety of the globe? Tyranny sucks and we're a long ways away from being rid of it entirely. The transition will come sooner if we focus on self-knowledge and our interpersonal relationships. Address the cause, not the symptom.

If people are tied to train tracks, the person who tied them there is the aggressor. Scenarios like this are meant to obfuscate that which is more useful the clearer it is. Notice the lack of consideration of the person who tied these people up in the first place? I don't mean you. I know that this is an age old question. I'm not sure what you mean by consent though. The people who are tied to the tracks are not capable of giving consent because they don't have free will in the moment and are under duress.

Does the wind have consciousness and the ability to reason? Then it is not a moral actor. I suspect you were dishonest with me when you said the purpose of the thread is to seek the truth. The wind owns the leaves? It's hard to take you seriously. To that end, I am unclear as to why you continue to try to separate self-ownership from property rights from capitalism. They're the same thing. You own yourself. Your body, time, and effort are your capital. You're essentially saying that you accept shoes, but can't wrap your head around soles.

I am not embedded in any such situation, so I would not be walking away from it in the event that the US disbanded. A select few psychopaths who believe that other people are theirs to send to their death put people someplace under a certain flag for reasons we can only speculate. How could anybody guess what happens next? Plus, I think we would need more information. Like why did the US disband? Did it just run out of money and fizzle, did the enforcer class say "no more," did the general public wake up to self-ownership and objective morality? I think each one of these would have a different outcome. Not just as localized as the subject you're considering, but what other countries would do in a post US world. It could be that the rest of the world tells North Korea "no!" It could be that people all over the globe say that if the people of the US can take a principled stand, they can too. For that matter, how would the psychopaths in question get away with any of the things they do if people focused more on their own self-knowledge and interpersonal relationship skills (the things they can actually control and are responsible for) instead of stuff like this that is well out of anybody's control? Especially when you consider that the former preempts the latter.

The reason why I questioned your intent is because you continue to select verbiage that suggests a presupposition combined with an unwillingness to revise. Here you used the word defend in place of explain and imply in place of denote. Then there's the "this is where it begins" being addressed as if it were "this is all that it is." If you own yourself then you own the effects of your actions. This syllogism takes us from self-ownership to property rights (and capitalism). You make a chair, you own that chair. If you break somebody else's chair, you owe them a chair. Fundamentally, it's just that simple. If this is unclear or you find fault with this, I'll happily examine it with you to find out how to improve upon it so that it more accurately describes the real world. At this point though, it is unclear where the disconnect lies.

I think this is absolutely true, and for two reasons. The first being that welfare programs leave folks with less disposable income. The second being that it leaves folks with less perspective. "I won't give because they're already being taken care of."