dsayers

*raises hand* I remember when I was in high school and I saw a cheerleader do a hip waggle, it was alluring. Nowadays, it's so ubiquitous that it's actually a turn off. To be fair, I've always found offputting that which has a popularity well beyond that which could be accurate. Speaking of accuracy, that's all I ask for out of my words. C is one of those words that people have different meanings for. So I think comparing it to vagina isn't looking at the whole picture. For example, some people use the word as a fist to the face without having to raise their hand. In this case though, it's not the specific word that matters. Can you sense my ambivalence? As much of me feels that we should try to use language that as many people can understand as possible as feels that as long as you transmit your idea to another person, the words have served their purpose.

I never said that. Self-ownership is the beginning of property rights, not the end. Same is true for capitalism since you mentioned that. We know that property rights is the default and not optional because we own ourselves. Just as we know that the Earth's gravitational pull is the default and not optional because we are microscopic by comparison. One last clarification: There is a difference between defensive force and retaliatory force. If you don't mind me asking, was your purpose in creating this thread to seek clarity (the truth)?

How much do you know about this? I was thinking about trying to do it solo by having it running on two machines that I am in control of. Can't get enough Portal. The thematics are very well done and the idea of story/dialogue/song as reward is creative. Just spent this past weekend at an out of state friend's house overnight and half the time was spent watching him play 1 and 2 since he never had before.

There is no should anymore than somebody who observes that objects are attracted to Earth is saying there SHOULD be gravity. Similarly, Tu Quoque requires choice. We do not choose property rights. We cannot say that there should be property rights. Property rights is literally inescapable BECAUSE our individual consciousnesses have the ability to innately control that which nobody else can. That it works out to be a very simple gauge by which to measure morality is a bonus.

It is misdirection. Accuse who you view as your opponent that you may avoid the scrutiny yourself.

This isn't the description of somebody who accepts the moral truth. "Necessary evil" means that evil is okay if we claim there is a benefit. A rapist would agree. If evil could be necessary, "evil" would have no meaning. Plus, people who believe it can be necessary will not be looking for the right answer, such as non-coercive alternatives. I still get your point. I just think that somebody that DOES accept the moral truth and is interested in the minutia falls into the first category I mentioned, not the second. Also, there would be nothing wrong with passing up somebody who doesn't accept the moral argument today, but might tomorrow. There's tons of material out there for anybody making that transition, and plenty of people that will help them once they've accepted the moral argument.

I admire your dedication. That was a pleasure to read The important thing is understanding that the propaganda was inflicted upon you and that this largely accrues to one's parents. As long as you've got that, and it appears that you do, you can start fresh by not owning things that aren't actually YOU, but the wrapper placed upon you by others. I know for me, the red pill has been a real joy because it's like rediscovering the world all over again. If one doesn't mind the work, I think it's a real treat.

That depends. Are they interested in the truth or avoiding the truth? If they're interested in the truth, the moral argument is all that is needed. If they're interested in avoiding the truth, discussing the minutia would just be wasting time that could be spent engaging people interested in the truth. This dichotomy is a general enough rule of engagement that it doesn't just apply to taxation/IRS. Don't forget that people that adhere to propaganda haven't arrived there by logic, reason, or evidence. So logic, reason, and evidence could not convince them otherwise. If instead we spend our time with people who are interested in the truth, it will become widespread. Once widespread, it will simply be uncomfortable for those who adhere to propaganda to continue doing so. In other words, the best way to convince people of the truth who are not interested in the truth is to convince those that are. And of course to live our values. A person has less reason to consider your position if to not do so only leads to a disagreement. Were you to take a principled stand by keeping people out of your life that wish for you to be stolen from for their gain, they have a greater incentive to consider your position.

If you mean in the context of calling your "representative," then I'd say yes. Not just tax breaks, but nailing people that they couldn't otherwise nail if they were to follow their own rules. Like Capone. I agree that for these reasons, it will never happen.

First of all, what difference does it make if an idea is original or not? Not trying to undermine your thread, but it's a question that so many people that talk about such things never consider. Secondly, what makes an idea original? Since you mentioned car, does it mean that every car ever conceived beyond the first is not original? Or is it original if it's a variant of a car not yet conceived? If it's the latter, then I would argue that literally every idea is original as no two people have ever had the exact same genetic makeup, sum of experiences, and so on. What are your thoughts on it?

Welcome to FDR from the man in the pink bunny suit. I wonder, what did this look like? Where did they come from? The red pill can be tough to swallow if we don't seek the truth even when it's uncomfortable.

How do you know? I would need a lot less. A farmer would need a lot more. The market will sort it out. The whole "everybody's going to claim the whole planet" is sensationalist nonsense.

Plus it's kind of creepy to have to take your clothes off after you're done in front of a bunch of other people, knowing the gym teacher could walk in at any time. I know all of this combined made me shy away from most physical activities for a very long time.

All that's necessary for a good analogy here is the potential to damage others without acknowledging the potential to damage others. This is what having a child with no research equates to, as well as hopping into a car without knowing how to operate it. Bottom line: ignorance + responsibility = negligence. This was exactly my point: You won't see it as an excuse if in your mind, it's an accurate description of the way things are.

Back when I played WOW, I met numerous couples that took up the tank + healer roles. They pretty much wrote their own tickets. So you could have the benefit of meeting other people or ignoring the rude ones.

There is no such thing. Contracts are only helpful when they can be enforced. A cartel can only exist behind the protection of state interference.

*cringe* What you are experiencing is the result of being victimized, this is true. But not by some microbial. People who say things like this are securing their failure. You cannot fix a problem you don't understand the nature of. Please, I urge you once more to watch the first half of that video I linked. The reason I found it so helpful was that it explained the physiology of addiction.

How do you know? What is a prophet? How do you know? I thought you spoke of excessive simplification as if it was synonymous with less useful. What is different from 8 years and 7 years and 364 days? This arrogantly assumes that a presence of gratitude, school, sports, and God are correct. There is no such thing as a negative emotion. All too often I see people say negative when they mean undesirable. Additionally, we do not choose the emotions we feel. If we're taught to reason and to value reason, then we will not choose people or situations that would lead to emotions that are undesirable. Even still, we will feel those emotions as we encounter things that need additional attention. To call them negative, to arrogantly presume they are destructive, is itself destructive. Why are these words capitalized? I seriously dislike the author's willingness to part with the truth. In the context of the article, this is saying that it is okay for a parent to not give more than they're comfortable with. However, this is a consideration to make before making any decision with long term commitments. If you cannot handle the responsibility of having children, don't have children. You don't get to have a child and then punish them because you've changed your mind. Nor is it okay to rely on (enter form of mysticism here) and hope what happens in the absence of your adherence to your responsibility turns out okay. How do you know? Science has taught us that in terms of behavior and personality (what this article is about), it is almost entirely the environment and experiences of the blank human that is what that human gets imprinted with. Just as water takes the shape of its container. I have little to say here. This is one of those things that even if you believe it to be true, you don't say to other people, lest you destroy any credibility you could have. "God has already made it clear to me that if he needed to, he could steer my automobile successfully without my help," would not hold up in traffic court after you veered off the road and took out the local cafe. Way too mystic and excusing of parental neglect for me.

Is this for you or somebody you know?

As far as I understand it, the model for "______ Anonymous" is religion based. Nevermind the 5% success rate they share with people trying to quit substance abuse without such a program. Have you pursued self-knowledge at all? Understanding the nature of addiction can be a phenomenal first step. Stef did a video recently talking about this that I found very helpful. You can find it .

Ah, that's the frame of reference. Thank you. If he is putting this forth, why would it bother him that the definition of "exist" excludes deities? Or that people talking about the real world reject deities because they are claimed to not be bound by the laws of the real world? Isn't the virtue of religion believing in that which cannot be proven? It's the same as if we're talking about ghosts: Either they exist and therefor we can measure them, or we cannot measure them and therefor even if they existed, it would be no different than them not existing. We have many, way more important things to be talking about than the potential existence of something that has no bearing on our lives or the world we live in at all. That's what I think.

Where is all this taking place? You didn't provide any frame of reference.

This is the type of thing that has me concerned that you're not being honest with yourself about the situation you're in. "What she stands for," is usually words used to describe a connection to somebody that is not principled to make it sound principled. As I read, she stands for distancing herself from somebody that suggests that child abuse is wretched while sticking up for the abusers. Is this what you know of her? What is to love or respect in that? Emotional and intellectual capacity doesn't precede birth. While trauma during gestation can alter it to some degree, it is something that is formed within the first few years of life. Besides, what difference would it make that somebody who has inhaled smoke for a couple decades was born with healthy lungs? It only serves as a frame of reference to accurately measure the extent of the damage. Anger is a signal that we need to act. To say, "it didn't do any good," is to either say, "I didn't enjoy it," or "I didn't do it right." If it wasn't done right, then doing it right would be better than abandoning it. If it was uncomfortable, that's an unfortunate characteristic of being angry at people that society tells us we are to accept no matter what. Honesty however, removes a huge burden on the person who was victimized. Being angry about past abuse is simply being honest about the fact that there was abuse and it was wrong. I don't believe that she truly "went through an anger phase" if your anger towards her abusers caused a reaction in her that was to defend them and push you away.

How is you choosing to enter into business with him any different from him choosing to enter into matrimony with her? If you want to know what you can do to help, the last thing you should do is reward the guy by assisting him in making money. It's unwise to expose your financial future to the destructive potential of somebody who could make such poor decisions against his own better judgement. Are you not in control of your own life? You seemed to reject my point that your friendship is just as in question and that you have control over your own life. If you keep irrational people in your life, their irrationality will impact your life also. Such as keeping somebody in your life because they were already in your life rather than because they earn it by adhering to rationality. This is as true for consideration of friends as it is for consideration of business partner.