dsayers

Source? Anybody in those places in a position of "authority" persistently victimize those not in "authority." I understand that this is the result of coercion, not the central planning. But this statement suggests these cities are kept afloat when they are cesspools. They are pre-Detroit Detroits.

You mean the Puge thing.

Happiness and pleasure are different things. We know the biochemical explanation for pleasure. This can come from foods, exercise, sexual release, etc. I think many people misuse the word happy in an attempt to repress the unprocessed trauma they suffer from. If you accept that reason = virtue = happiness, then I don't think happiness is a localized experience. As in "I pitched in at the homeless shelter and that made me happy." Following that description, we'd only achieve happiness by living a reasoned, virtuous life consistently. I think that localization is another reason why people misuse the word. It's often passed off as the opposite of sad, which is a relatively localized experience.

Doing whatever they want with their own body isn't the definition of self-ownership. Using the definition that you put forth, one could choose to use their body to commit theft, assault, rape, or murder. These are in violation of self-ownership. I'm assuming this is the contradiction you spoke of because property rights do not inherently contradict themselves. In fact, any contradiction they create reveals that the person that created them are not describing the real world.

That's hot! Thanks for sharing. I have used every one shared so far. I ended up taking the topic controls one back out since it also removed the mark forum as read button, which I do make use of.

Thanks for sharing, Ben. I was wondering why seeing a woman pregnant should beget being happy for them. As prevalent as child abuse is (be it spanking, government school, not breast feeding, etc), the likelihood that a pregnant woman is representative of two loving, rational parents is unlikely. I'm not trying to add to your sadness by pointing this out. In fact, it's a segue into promoting honesty. I don't listen to conservative radio myself, but I've been exposed to some. Like when Stef is talking with Alex Jones for example. Those people can be intense! Not that intense is a problem. Nor do I feel that identifying problems is problematic. It's when people present the problems as if they're unavoidable that can be problematic. It seems virtually endless the way the state has poisoned nearly every aspect of the world we see before us today. This can be a good thing if we have good people helping others to understand WHY this is and how we can escape it and avoid recreating it in the future. Raising children peacefully is a way to pre-empt just about all the dysfunction we face as a result of our traumatic world. What do you think about talking to these pregnant women? Especially if the father is with her. Ask them if they've considered peaceful parenting. If not, you might be able to help them. If so, you might have met people who are worth befriending. Maybe they choose quality people in their life and you can meet somebody who would be a suitable partner for you. I'm 37 and only just getting to a point where I COULD be a worthy partner and father. I am not sad that that time is working against me in this regard. If it ends up being that I am not able to continue to heal, meet somebody, and start a family, I'll know it's because the first few decades of my life were stolen from me. That much is very upsetting, but at least it wasn't my fault. Let me know if this is helpful at all. Your post kind of covered a few different things, so I wasn't sure what would be most helpful to you.

Phrases like "hold on to" and "let it go" are vague. It's not up to me whether or not I experienced something in the past. I could no more choose to hold on to an experience than I could choose to let it go. What I can do is study it to understand how it made me feel, what those feelings mean, and so on. I think when the voluntary phrase "hold on to" is used, it's meant to refer to the involuntary experience of not being able to think of something other than what's being "held on to." This would be an indication that the person has not studied it to understand how it makes them feel, what those feelings mean, and so on. Their subconscious preoccupation is an indication that it needs processing. To "let it go" would be very unhealthy. If you drive your car into a brick wall, you need to remember how it felt and the property damage that was caused to you, your car, the brick wall. Otherwise, what's stopping you from doing it again? Our ability to remember our experiences and especially the processing of the traumatic experiences saves us both from being subjected to those experiences in the future as well as subjecting others to similar experiences because of us. It's not just for the traumatic either. If we find ourselves the beneficiaries of a very satisfying experience, to process it will help us understand how to achieve satisfaction in the future as well as provide satisfaction for others. There is no flaw in allowing knowledge (and experiences if we have self-knowledge) to accumulate and improve who we are overall.

I was actually so frustrated that the gap appeared to widen that something clicked for me. I think we need to start from the beginning because it seems as if the rest of it stems from that. By this I mean that the last 2/3 of your last post was presuming no obligation has been created while addressing the question of whether or not an obligation is created. This is because the first 1/3 of your last post (if it is correct) establishes that no such obligation is created because it is not chosen. As such, I did want to clarify that I understand that saying murder is immoral is not the same as saying one ought not to murder. While it wasn't my point when I first mentioned detonating a bomb, I did use the word obligation in my last post in regards to detonating a bomb, which was erroneous. My initial point in mentioning the detonation of the bomb was reasonably predictable outcome. Just as... There's not enough information here. IF he was somewhere that is designated for the operation of something that would be lethal to his presence, then we know that he is at least partially responsible and could be solely responsible. IF you were to cross a road AND you did not want to be injured or killed, THEN you take steps to manage this risk. Typically, looking both ways will suffice. Identically, if you are having sex and you do not want to have a child, then you take steps to manage this risk. Typically, using a prophylactic will suffice. If you walk onto a roadway and get hit by a car or you have sex and get pregnant, you chose the risks. Intention is no measure for accountability. You cannot put a brick through somebody's window and walk away because you didn't intend to get caught. You do not get to keep your money with a losing hand at the blackjack table because you intended to get 21. You knew the risk of getting caught or losing the hand, therefor the consequences of that decision belong to you. This means you owe for damages to the car, you owe the child resources until such a time they can survive on their own, you owe restitution for the broken window, and you forfeit your bet. These are all examples of voluntarily created positive obligations.

Works nicely. Thank you very much. I keep meaning to get back into web design. So much has happened since I've been away.

What about me? When Wes asked you where the personal attack was, that was my thought as well. If there is none to be identified, you should withdraw that falsehood. Otherwise, it should be easy to point out. The only attacks I saw in the thread was by somebody no longer participating in the thread, that agreed with cuthbert's stance. Oh and science and biology are offshoots of philosophy. There shouldn't be any contention as to whether or not they are fair topics.

I think you've made an explanation on why "culture" is so dangerous. Our culture tells us that circumcision is normal and advantageous even though the real world tells us that it is traumatic, destructive, and unnecessary. Empathy definitely plays a role because we're talking about being against THEIR cultural mutilation while "OUR" cultural mutilation is acceptable.

Aren't these conflicting ideas? I'm big on language so self-work/knowledge to me includes choosing my words so that there is less room for misinterpretation. This is a particularly important lesson for me because I grew up with a father who would intentionally speak in roundabout ways so that he could use my lack of frame of reference as an excuse to attack. Not saying that that's what you're doing here, but those two ideas you stated seem to conflict.

Can you edit your post to reduce the length of the ======== lines please? They break page layout and serve no purpose being that long. I keep a very unusual sleep schedule, have difficulties falling asleep, and have VERY sensitive hearing. So I can totally sympathize what you're experiencing. I did want to point out that assuming you're talking about a computer, text chat will be of no additional benefit to you. Very few keyboards are quiet enough that somebody in the next room wouldn't hear it. Are you able to put something on yourself? For the longest time, I actually fell asleep with episodes of South Park playing. It was entertaining enough that if I didn't fall asleep right away, it wasn't a complete bust. At the same time, I was familiar enough with the series that it wasn't engaging to the point of keeping me up. Meanwhile, it acted as a noise buffer to anything that might prevent me from falling asleep. Could you provide more information about your living situation? I don't understand how you could be living with somebody that doesn't know or respect you or the balance of living near/with another person, how a previous tenant could be asked to return, or how the landlord would be able to facilitate such a transition. As for the letter, I have a few tips/critiques that you can choose to ignore if you'd like. They're just my thoughts. If this is the first time you are letting the landlord know that there is a problem, I think it's too soon to be citing code with him. Give him the chance to show you what his free will will do before telling him that he is bound. Not that you're in the wrong, but I think this is a way you might be able to achieve your goal in a way that will be better received by the very person you're asking to help you. Same with the line early on saying that if something doesn't change, something will change in you. That's going to be received as a threat and will not encourage the person to help you. Secondly, I would suggest against using labels. If the noise he's making is disruptive, that might be a problem whether it can be labeled as anti-social or not. Not to mention that communicating with another person (which I assume is what he's doing) is a component of social behavior. Third, how do you know that it is a problem? Him yelling at you is a problem for sure. But is the noise itself a problem? I don't know what about your schedule makes it to where you have to go to bed at 8pm or sleep for 8-9 hours. I do know that the studies I've heard of suggest that 6-7 hours is better for overall health than 8-9 hours. Either way, this being the way you choose to live is not binding upon others. If he knows you're trying to sleep and he's noisy anyways, yeah, he's being a dick. This doesn't necessarily mean that your needs are binding upon him. I just wanted to reiterate that I have to wrestle with similar things constantly myself. And my sleep schedule is so out of whack that I risk losing half my sleep several days in a row all the time. It's not pleasant.

I enthusiastically disagree. I also want to point out that I think taking responsibility for something somebody else is responsible for inflicting upon you would only add to your agony. If you assign responsibility to you that which somebody else is responsible for, you simultaneously are powerless to change it or escape it. The very definition of agony. If however you assign responsibility where it belongs, you'll be able to begin to see how it has altered your thoughts, your feelings, and your actions. If you accept that it was not your responsibility, you will have an easier time being honest with yourself about who you really are. Put the two together, and you have a foundation for real healing to begin. For example, I have an understanding of who I am and who I feel I should be. By being honest with myself about myself and the origins of the things in me I think need my effort and attention to change, I am empowered with the capacity to actually change them. In the meantime, it is less tortuous to me to be a carrier for such things because I understand that they are not there by my choice or by any fault of mine. Please let me know if there's anything here you disagree with or see as being unhelpful or not applying to you.

Thank you both. For awhile there, I was considering getting an addon that allows for layout override. Since I already use ABP, the suggestions above fits the bill just fine. How do we kill the page title also? It's very large as well. It can be helpful for thread titles, but not useful to me for section titles. I'd like to try eliminating it altogether, but it's been a LONG time since I've done HTML. I tried: board.freedomainradio.com##.ipsType_pagetitle It got rid of the text, but not the whole section. Here's a picture of what I mean, with the desired culling overlayed in red: http://i.imgur.com/dBXnePa.jpg

I can certainly relate. Not to project my own experiences onto you, but I was buried in irrationality as a child. I have no doubt that my amygdala is overdeveloped, leading to a higher susceptibility to being in a fight or flight mode. In keeping with the suggestion above that youtube isn't the most likely place to convince others of the truth, I do find that it does have one advantage: It's text based. What this means is that there is a delay between when you're provoked to reply and when the reply is made. Just be aware that this passage of time is not useful if you "stew in it." So walk away. Count to 10. Do something you enjoy. That way IF you reply, it won't even be for the purpose of addressing the attack. Doing this, you might even find you don't end up replying at all. And if you do manage to either not reply or stay on topic and not dignify the attack, you'll actually be reinforcing this and in time, there won't be as much of a need to walk away. I hope that's helpful.

This is a false claim three times over. You don't have to accept my refutation, but you do have to acknowledge if you want to continue the conversation. Also, saying "the universe allowed" is an anthropomorphism.

Self-knowledge. Like helping somebody understand that "would like to act in the best interest of them" is not tantamount to helping anybody. Do you accept that you couldn't possibly know what is in my best interest?

The claim "I don't care what others think of me" is self-contradictory. If a person could not care what others think of them, they would have no reason to make the claim. The claim is made specifically to influence the way others think about the person. I think a person might be motivated to say such a thing if they feel they are powerless in some portion of their life. They don't realize that to aspire to not care what others think is actually self-destructive. I think it's a good thing to be able to not allow irrational people to alter you, but this is different from not caring what others think. It wouldn't surprise me if many people who say such a thing are actually trying to communicate that idea and just do not see the difference.

Listen to a few FDR call in shows. You might be amazed how much anti-social behavior directly stems from abuse. Ad hominem attacks are (to me) very easy to deal with because I understand that it's not at all about me.

You've only confirmed by observation. Rather than being able to offer an explanation, you assume a given and shift the onus onto the person who suggests it's not a given. I never indicated I had an opinion. I stated an uncertainty as to how YOU arrived at that evaluation. In another thread, I had spoken out against words that promoted and protected the assault of defenseless children of somebody who turned out to be Hoppe. To which somebody replied that Hoppe was an accomplished philosopher. How would we rank him compared to somebody that isn't a philosopher at all but accepts that assaulting defenseless children is immoral? People aren't a number that you can just compare. Or add to the number by talking about education and healthcare. They are complex creatures with complex scenarios and complex experiences.

I would say consequence. Responsibility accruing to the responsible. In a free market, soylent green is people means people stop consuming soylent green. In a coercive market, "protection" stealing and preying upon the "protected" leads to more of the same. I say this while observing my bias in that I came to the conclusion that "competition and consequence enable a free market to be self-correcting" while considering why the statist paradigm is impervious to correction. So there may be more or it may be that these aren't applicable outside of the consideration of a statist paradigm. What do you think?

Chosen ignorance + responsibility = negligence. If somebody hope into a car, doesn't know how to operate it, and runs a bunch of people over, they don't get to cite ignorance and walk away. They accepted a responsibility that they did not attempt to prepare for. This is negligence, it is destructive, and it belongs to the person who engages in it. I never said animosity. I did multiple times say that any excuse you make for others you will allow for yourself and that my concern is for your children. So the question becomes: Why is it difficult for you to understand? The answer, were you to be honest with yourself, is shameful.

Got my threads mixed up *blush*

Until SCHOOL is voluntary and synonymous with education, I think comparing government to private schools is asking the wrong question.