dsayers

Abusers isolate in order to prevent their target from being able to escape. In the parent-child relationship, this can be as easy as inflicting conclusions rather than methodology. The victim had to believe the conclusion in order to survive. Once they develop the capability to overcome it, they're not trying because they were not taught to verify conclusions. Because they've internalized or normalized the abuse. I have a step-uncle who went years as a child seeing double. He was able to function, so he had no way of knowing that this was not the norm. He had normalized it because he had no reason not to. Questioning their conclusions. Asking themselves "How do I know?" Then, if they find a conclusion to be false, ask themselves, "Who benefited from me thinking/feeling this way?" Because they were forced to. Subconsciously, I knew that Christianity didn't add up, because humans are universality machines. Consciously though, a great deal of fear was inflicted upon me to make me behave as if it were real. So out of fear for burning for an eternity, I believed in something that was irrational. I hope these answers were of some use to you. How much/long have you listened to the call in shows? I know when I first found FDR, I listened to quite a few and was able to apply a lot of the same thoughts and questions to my own life, which was very helpful in learning how to understand all of this.

I wonder if there is a disconnect here between the ideas of sympathy and empathy. A "good childhood" should be a boon for the formation and cultivation of empathy.

Not even sure what this is meant to communicate. You could always address the challenges if your position is air tight. Scare tactics and exaggerations are not arguments. "Civilization" is undefined, as is proof that it would be destroyed, isn't already destroyed, could be saved, or should be saved. It's an appeal to emotion. Which does nothing to prove that you have the power to influence the outcome. Here, I've formalized the challenge for you. Were you to choose to even address one, you'd already by standing out among all self-ownership-accepting pro-voters. Wishful thinking and incredibly ignorant of all the empirical evidence to the contrary. Which does nothing to prove that you have the power to influence the outcome. That he could even accomplish such a feat... Really, it's all outlined in the link above. Hope to see you there. Only insomuch as it is an act of co-operative fantasy. Trying to transfer the ownership of that which you do not own would be theft if it weren't imaginary. Not that anybody made the claim that it was aggression. Which does nothing to prove you have the power to influence the outcome. Poisoning the well. Helping people to think rationally and accept that people cannot exist in different, opposing moral category is hardly doing nothing. Also, Hillary is a person. Everything you hate about her was here before her, might be here long after her, and will progress in other ways with or without her. You are a slave in your own mind for as long as you focus where they tell you to instead of where that focus would matter. Which does nothing to prove you have the power to influence the outcome. Oh and you cannot destroy a principle. False dichotomy. Not one argument offered. Not one null hypothesis offered. Not one challenged addressed. I'm sorry you have been led astray, brother, and that you continue to accept it

Powerful post. I admire the confidence it exudes. I was hoping to have a side conversation based on a reaction I had to this. If everybody would prefer I start a separate topic, let me know... When I read "Women who are looking for men with no anxiety are not good women," I felt anxiety and was motivated to push back on what I viewed as anxiety being portrayed as a positive thing. Reason being that I'm subscribed to the narrative that anxiety is a bad thing. Meanwhile, I am aware of the ways in which people portray anger for example as a bad thing. I am passionate about push back on that narrative, pointing out how many emotions we experience that are labeled as unsavory are harmless in and of themselves. That it's how people choose to behave in response to those emotions that could potentially be destructive. I'm wondering if this applies to anxiety as well. Is it technically an emotion? Should it be viewed as a positive thing in that it provides for us motivation and/or opportunity for self-knowledge? I'm all but convinced, but wanted to get others' thoughts on the idea. Thanks for the inspiration.

Without a curriculum, aren't you referring to unschooling?

It's a trap! If y'all will kindly focus your attention to this topic, you will see that it has been explained to elzoog what universality is and what its value is. For those who cannot be bothered to partake of that link, universality is a requisite for objective claims to be true. In order for "theft is immoral" to be true, it must be true of all people in all places at all times. Choices by definition are temporal. Saying that which is temporal is not universal is like saying an hour is not eternity. No proof should be required as it is baked right into the definitions of the words.

My pleasure. Say somebody takes your bike without your consent. By doing so, they are voluntarily creating a debt to you in the amount of the bike, any effort you have to invest to recover the debt, plus damages. You weren't specific in your robbing of a store example, but I'm assuming they used a weapon and made threats. They are taking away the agency of every victim in their sphere of influence. When the clerk fires upon the thief, the clerk is trying to settle the debt first by taking the immediate threat off of the table. This is a rational response and given the presumption mentioned here, a proportionate one. This entire situation was of the thief's design. They are responsible. Does that clarify at all? Pardon my ambiguity. I did not mean to imply a gradation. If I cannot be more responsible than you for your actions, then you are responsible for your actions. If you are responsible for your actions, nobody else can be. If everybody in the world told you that it was okay to kill somebody, you can still decline to kill somebody. Meaning that if you did, the responsibility was entirely yours. The only scenario I can think of where shared responsibility sounds plausible is retaliatory force. By this I mean counter-force that is disproportionate, making it the creation of a much larger debt rather than the settling of the original debt. However, upon closer consideration, I don't think this is truly shared responsibility. I'll give an example and try to explain what I mean. Person A steals a candy bar from person B. Person B retaliates by stealing person A's car. As mentioned above, person A DID create a debt to person B and this situation is of their creation. However, person B's behavior was above and beyond the settling of that debt and is in fact the creation of a much larger debt. In this case, person A would be responsible for the creation of the situation while person B would be responsible for the value of the escalation. As such, I don't think even this scenario could be described as shared responsibility. The acts are not one in the same, even if they appear among the same chain of causality. If you can imagine a scenario where shared responsibility sounds plausible, I'd love to hear of it. It's important that these ideas are challenged. Oh and just in case it needs mentioning, all of the above are presumed to be among adults.

You cannot control the yield of an anti-person explosive. In the case of a landmine, you cannot even control under what circumstances it detonates. Even if we assume that the mines are placed on one's own property, I think the disparity between trespassing and death are such that we can easily determine this to be aggression. What do you think?

Game is bullshit. You know because they had to co-opt another word, with a vague definition to describe it. Game is shorthand, which means by definition it is imprecise. If different people have different ideas of what the word means, that's division when the topic is unity. Humility and curiosity are paramount. These are the precursors of personal growth. Intelligence and empathy are indicators of the limits of personal growth. After that, it mostly comes down to how these traits are applied. How dedicated is the person to reciprocity? Which is the key to every interpersonal relationship. How dedicated are they to using their capabilities to help mankind? I say this because we are in pretty dire times in terms of worldwide acceptance of mutilating babies, assaulting children, State power, etc. For somebody capable to not try and make a difference--even only by way of speaking out against such things, not blessing toxic people with themselves, and raising children peacefully--would be a big turn off to me. After that, it's more about nuance. How do they communicate? Are they in touch with their feelings? Are they willing to share how they are feeling? Are they invested in how you are feeling? I must admit, I've been extremely spoiled in these areas, so the bar is pretty high for me.

Faith is not analogue. An objective claim is either verifiable or it is not.

Somebody came into work wearing this shirt. I asked if he'd mind if I took a pic of it and he obliged:

Well keep in mind that what you're referring to is for the purpose of scaring the citizenry. There is no shortage of people who would vote for "free stuff" that they would need to swell the ranks for that reason alone. My brother! I think I can help by sharing with you why I adore self-ownership: It make everything simple! Here, I agree with your conclusion, but not your methodology. "Set events in motion" is vague and insufficient. A more precise way to describe it was that the thief created a debt. This is how you know that responsibility accrues to them. A hitman can decline. The person who paid them is not forcing them. The null hypothesis is that person A can never be more responsible for person B's actions than person B is. This can also be applied to "inciting riots." Accomplice to murder is vague, but I'd wager falls under this principle as well. I'm reminded of the movie Perfect Murder where Michael Douglas's character gives the would-be assassin a key and information as to how to effectively pull it off. The assassin can decline. I'm not defending these people. I would hope people would ostracize them. But it would be false to say they are responsible. Voting is not immoral. It's just a dick move, especially when carried out by people who know better. Part of the reason why democracy is so toxic is exactly this. Take me for example. Look at how many people truly despise me now, willing to downvote everything I touch because I understand that political voting is co-operative fantasy. By offering the slaves a vote, the master has one more way to divide us among ourselves. Those who are pro-voting here are willing to inflict what they view as harm for disagreeing with them. It's a way of rendering those powerful enough to inspire others to freedom impotent

I don't think "live" is defined here. I know you provided examples, but without a definition, it's hard to know if these examples even contribute. If live means to provide future you with a better life, then I hardly see how killing brain cells to lower inhibitions to do stupid things so that people will spend time with you adds to that. Clearly there is as people who have already engage in the behavior repeat it. However, I think this is again a problem of a lack of definition. Value compared to what? If you are hungry and somebody donates to you a pair of pants, they have added value to your life. But the value is not useful to you in the context of the problem you're facing. To me, the examples you put forth would be better defined as avoiding self-knowledge. Avoiding the processing of the trauma of one's past. Creating the illusion of social connection in order to avoid making more authentic connections with more authentic people. It's a way of feeling like you've escaped the abuses of your keepers, when in fact the perpetuation of this isolation serves them. For me, "living" was being promiscuous. Not slutty in terms of volume, but cheap in terms of compromising myself to achieve what I thought was a measure of a man's worth. I survived it all without any STDs or pregnancies, so one could argue that no damage was done. This couldn't be further from the truth though. I spent so much time chasing the wrong things that by time I knew better, I had squandered nearly a quarter of a century. That's time I could've instead parlayed into having grandchildren at this point had I been raised peacefully. Or at the very least children if I had taken that time to process the trauma of my past. I do not beat myself up for not knowing then the things I know now. That I didn't know these things was by design at the hands of my abusers and others that wished to subjugate me that my parents did not adequately prepare me for. I didn't truly "live" until I began to pursue self-knowledge. Until I started processing the trauma of my past. Until I started thinking rationally. Indeed, until I began putting effort into actually developing ME. More on that here. It was then that I was able to establish real connections with real people, starting with myself. And experience virtuous love instead of all the shit I had been chasing earlier in life. For me, the best "proof" is my relationship with my best mate. We have been friends for nearly two decades. I've only been what I would consider worthy of his friendship for less than four years now. And it wasn't until this year that we had begun to have very meaningful, PERSONAL conversations. As a result, the quality of his marriage of 11 years has increased significantly as of late due to the value he gets from who I am today. It's far more wonderful a feeling I got compared to when I was "living."

So employment is defined as violence-driven demand when it supports your case, but not when it doesn't?

By this do you mean that the proof isn't there? Or that I haven't linked it directly? Because proof that voter fraud is real and more rampant than ever is out there. Proof that POTUS is selected by electoral colleges, NOT by your vote is out there. Proof that POTUS is not bound by their campaign promises is out there. And so on. Putting forth knowing the unknowable as a null hypothesis doesn't accomplish anything. Luckily, this is a deflection and I can see it! Before you make the case that who sits on the throne can somehow invalidate or diminish the throne, when the point of contention is that voting is antithetical to property rights, an exercise in co-operative fantasy, etc, you would have to first prove that your vote puts somebody specific on that throne. See above. Not. Even. Close.

I had tried chat before. Most of the time, there weren't any personal conversations taking place. And when there was, most people either avoided it or tried to talk over it. I don't know how deep a connection you could establish with somebody while there's half a dozen other people trying to have other conversations or otherwise behaving in a way that would make some people not comfortable being vulnerable. Does that answer your question?

Restrict or impose. Again, I know nothing of UPB. But this is an impossible proposition. Nothing that comes AFTER a behavior has any bearing on the properties of the behavior itself. You have to understand whether an action is immoral or not before you can understand if force in response to it is itself immoral or not. Does that make sense? No. Your actions are not binding upon person A, so if person A acts upon person B, the responsibility accrues to person A (assuming we are talking about adults). This is a very compelling argument. After all, it's the fact that we understand the consequences of our actions from which self-ownership is born. However, even 50 million people telling somebody they're allowed to do immoral acts X, Y, and Z doesn't make it true. Nor does it MAKE person A commit any of them. Person A is free to decline, so the decision to do such things they are responsible for themselves. The fact that we "know better" is why we should choose to not participate in the sham or do anything to make it appear legitimate to those who do not yet know better. Careful not to be distracted by non-arguments. When people say Hitler, they're trying to invoke an emotional response. Stealing a candy bar is theft same as stealing a car. We know anybody who accepts and claims to be willing to act as if they are in a different, opposing moral category are Hitler-esque in the only way that matters. Anybody that says "I want to rule over 300 million people" has already told you everything you need to know about them.

I'm glad you found value in my input. I wonder if your use of verbiage such as "I explained" and "he was cooperative" indicate that you still view the relationship as top-down. If so, it would mean that maybe you dealt with a few weeds, but the roots are still there and will sprout again. Does that make sense? If "fair" is truly what you're going for, then it will be a decision he makes with you. Which will require you to as best as you can explain the ramifications of such a decision. The more you clean up negotiating with him, the less he'll have reason to believe that more people could be problematic. Also, if something makes it harder to focus on his well-being, then the answer is that you'll have to put forth more effort to accommodate that. Or make no such decision that would put you in a situation where you would not be able to uphold your obligation to him. What do you think of this?

Yes, we do. Ask a person if they'd rather have one leg or two and the answer is obvious. I haven't said anything about fiat currency here. This is not what "backed by" means. Backed by means representative of. A dollar backed by gold is a note that is representative of the gold. Backed by comes before a currency and demand for comes after. Making the suggestion that demand after makes something backed by before logically impossible. As for the rest, I'll bow out. As somebody who understands how destructive obfuscation can be, I don't want to try and follow a proof where step one requires specialized definitions of words. I am employed, though I do not have a job that pays me in Yen. According to your definition, I am unemployed. This is not a meaningful definition and I don't have the time to continue to push back for somebody who will not consider that may have erred.

You have to be taking the piss. I've been doing exactly this for months. In recent times, I've written three potent articles on the subject. Including my most recent one where I put forth numerous null hypotheses. Which I know you're aware of (all of it actually) because you participated in it. Just not for the purpose of actually addressing the null hypotheses or putting forth one of your own. Funny that. Even if that were not true, your claim is still false. Because I've pointed out several times the ways in which not voting is an instinct and voting is a decision. Babies have no interest in voting. It takes years of abuse and propaganda to accept as valid or productive. Meaning that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those who would claim it accomplishes ANYTHING. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof.

No, you have threatened to steal from me that which I do not have, and threatened to further steal from me if I do not comply. Unemployment MIGHT be a side effect of that, but this is not the same of fabricating a void (which is a contradiction in terms). Calling it creating unemployment only serves to conceal the underlying violence. If this thread is meant to be a proof of something, precision is key. For if the next step in your proof requires the fabrication of a void to be valid, the entire proof will fall flat.

None of this addresses any of the challenges that have been offered. The fact that pro-voters actually say things like "vote... all you can do" is a BIG indicator of what the problem is. Making real differences instead of engaging in charade is a principled strategy. You don't own me. Your vote doesn't matter. The person you're voting for won't and can't change anything in a positive direction... It's all pure fantasy and pro-voters continue to talk around all of that instead of having an honest conversation about their prejudice.

I think a more useful question would be: In a free society, would individuals choose debt as currency? Would they choose currency backed by nothing when currencies backed by something were available? Would they choose a currency somebody could hyper-inflate on a whim?

This first sentence is circular. "Legal" just means the State claims that it will not initiate the use of force against you for engaging in it. It requires a State, but you're using it as a precursor for a State. You wouldn't say you have "legal power" over your body. You own it, so of course you get to dispose of it as you see fit. Your ownership of your body is not binding upon others. So saying that property rights being valid justifies the State, there's not only no connection, but they're a contradiction in ideas.

What does "create unemployment" mean? It seems like a contradiction in terms. I didn't want to just ask that, so I thought I'd read a bit first. I stopped when I saw government and necessary in the same sentence. That's when I decided I really wanted to know the answer to this question before I invest more time.