dsayers

Talk about perverse incentives. "We can't confront the parents for abusing their children since they pay our salaries, so let's distract the children by giving them garbage to play with."

I've avoided "live" entertainment (televeision, radio, etc) almost all of my adult life. If only to avoid the advertisers. I don't remember the last time I saw/heard a commercial that I wasn't able to identify a logical flaw in. Would've been almost two decades ago.

I'm trying to figure out a way to get this into an audible format. It's my bedtime, but so far, it looks like Kindle book, NVDA reader, and... ? I remember recently when looking for software to chop up long audio streams automatically, I had come across a software or two that indicated they could convert to audio without requiring it being read in real time. I recognize the importance of this book, but I'm really REALLY not a book guy. Anybody have any tips?

It IS a good part of your life, you're just not listening to it. It's not screaming to get back at her, it's identifying that this is harmful and screaming for you to get away from it and not get into something like it again.

I am interested in your reply. I've read it a few times trying to figure out exactly what is being said. As I understand it, what you're talking about could not be classified as structural violence. "Suboptimal" and "eligible for improvement" is not the same as "violence." The way you're talking about it, if I watched a goofy movie instead of reading an informative book, I could be described as a victim of structural violence for not complying to an objective standard for valuation (another contradiction in concepts). I think we differ on the view of the agent to talent relationship. An agent's value is real and their incentive is no different from that of the talent themselves: to acquire the most amount of resources with the least amount of effort. For as long as their actions do not violate the property rights of others, where can the term violence apply?

All I see are people making decisions. You seem unclear as to the contradiction of terms that "structural violence" actually is. If "the system" is abusive, it's because people made it that way in the past and use it as an excuse in the present. Referring to it as an inanimate force is a way to not accrue responsibility to the responsible. Usually to usher in one's own initiation of the use of force upon people who will not hold them responsible. Wretched.

Wow, that's really disgusting to speak of children as if they're in need of repair and/or a box full of tools with which to repair them. If you encounter this one again, just point out that your discussing rational thought and morality are tools in the toolbox of repairing broken adults. Which were likely broken because of the toolbox he mentioned. If he breaks something porcelain, does he reach for his toolbox with a jackhammer in it? Or does he realize that a tender application of super glue will likely suffice?

I would argue that it does. The term "market" denotes voluntary human interaction.

Do you mean capture? Using the word "enslave" begs the question of animals as moral actors. It also has a labor component when in fact keeping a pet is a financial loss. Would you say that all parents enslave their children by bringing them into a world where they're held captive for at least a few years?

It is manipulative and disingenuous to frame a conversation as if dissent could be classified as personalized aggression. What does this mean? Morality is derived from self-ownership. How can you say that violating property rights is a bad way to determine immorality when it is in fact the defining characteristic? Voodoo pharmacology. You're taking the free will of the 2nd actor out of the equation in an attempt to pass your claim off as causal. As far as I know, yawning (which is an involuntary action) is the only thing one person can do in front of another and cause them to do it also. Effecting others is not the same as an immoral action. It only effects these others because of their voluntary proximity with the person. Also, "drug use," while it can be an unhealthy act, is not necessarily a preface to death. So you cannot use leaving a corpse as if it is immoral (barring suicide). The drug screening would be an excellent argument if it didn't ignore an employer's free will decision to require drug screens. Also, you said "effects the nature," but if it's nature, it's there before effect. There is no such things as ADD. It was concocted to mask parental abuse and "rent seek". It's inconsistent to be making the case for drugs as an immoral act against others and then excuse an example where drugs are in fact a vehicle for immoral violation of self-ownership. Also, wouldn't meth exacerbate the symptoms that get classified as ADD, not counteract them? I take issue with your use of the word "allowed." Negative obligations arise from the existence of other people. This is very different than making a claim for positive obligation based on the decisions of other people. Again, what does OK mean? Earlier, you spoke as if you subscribe to "libertarian thought," but here you are denying that a person owns his life and therefore can choose to waste it. From morality to "OK" to "good idea." I'm sorry, but it is unclear as to what you are trying to say. Could you clarify by reposting what you want to say in a concise, precise form?

This was an absolutely fascinating watch. So many questions. The armchair quarterback in me says that I would submit to some testing if it were me. I think it's amazing that they have decided against this and people are respecting their wishes. I was crushed towards the end when the doctor said that society has yet to rule on whether they are one or two people. Who was the complainant that the parents could even lose to?

I don't know. I don't get into labels. I'm a truthist. I accept that 2+2=4. Government mandate cannot change this. The method by which I verify 2+2=4 is rigorous, objective, and repeatable, which is different from "God said so." If you do not see the difference, then I'm afraid we have little left to discuss.

Kudos to you for facing you mistakes and owning them. I wonder how many parents out there learn the truth half way through and then stay on course just for the sake of their own comfort. How much do you value self-knowledge? How much time and effort do you spend examining your conclusions, your process, your thoughts, and your feelings? The reason I ask is because I think the important question is what do you model to your son? If you model a self-assured, rational individual, it would help him with his self-image. This one might be a challenge since authoritarianism models a profound lack of self-confidence. How much do you spend with him examining his thoughts and feelings? Are you not only open to his experience but solicit it from him? Let him know that not only is it welcome, but it's something that healthy people are able to talk about because it's important? I would recommend not just being there for him but also inviting him to make use of that availability. If he comes to you with something, empathize with him. Your initial facial expression for example should mirror his experience so that he knows that as you explore it together, even if it turns out he was wrong to think/feel a certain way, that it was okay for him to do so as this is how we learn. One thing that was hard for me (and this might have absolutely no bearing on your situation or your son) was allowing myself to be valuable. Even once I re-learned the beauty of universalization, I found myself erasing me in ways I would never erase others or allow them to erase me. Like it or not, you've implanted in him voices that he will call upon to erase him in the manner in which you used to. I really wish I knew more to offer in terms of how to counteract that. Sadly, I do not. I mention it all the same because I think it's an important consideration and one most would not acknowledge, again out of personal comfort. I hope that you and your wife and the strength to continue down this virtuous path. If I could, I would choose you over my own parents because they've never even considered that maybe they were wrong.

I'm certainly in no position to say those conclusions are wrong. However, I don't think they were logically arrived upon. Being able to see that 8 of something is more than 6 of it is not the same as counting. Especially in the realm of food. If you set out a container with 2 teddy bears, one beside it with 3 teddy bears and then an empty container, and the elephant was able to put 4 (counting), 5 (adding), or 6 (multiplying) teddy bears into it, and then repeated the test with varying numbers to combat against chance, I don't see how "can count" can be concluded from "chooses more food." For all you know, the quickly filled containers might've been chosen by a more predominant aroma. Also, I don't know that you can call what you say an elephant does with their dead as an expression of sadness or otherwise apply human meaning to it. Especially when you consider how irrational what humans do in regards to their dead actually is. Again, not saying you're wrong, but I do see several steps missing in the information you're sharing.

Thanks. My initial impression of them is pretty good, so I'll begin re-uploading now. I really like their content retention policy. Will make this thread far more productive in the long run since anything I convert will more or less be available indefinitely. Plus, I think I've downloaded from them before and the experience was less of a hassle than the host I used at first. [EDIT] All links now restored.

I feel so modernly uneducated. With no context as to what medium you were referring to, I went to go see if it was available on Netflix

Again, ccuthbert, most of what you talked about was the state. It's like saying that grocery shopping is a violent act because criminals walk in, take stuff, hold people at gunpoint, etc. Even with all the governmental influence, joe scmoe can still come along, prove something false or explain something better, and impact our understanding of reality. Meanwhile, God is all knowing, creates humans, kills almost all of them off for being the evil he knew they were going to be, while telling them killing will land you in eternal hellfire, but he loves you. Ask anybody religious about these contradictions and they won't even consider it because the "word of God" is not to be questioned. You can talk about how government tries to model one onto the other (possibly in an attempt to dissuade people from relying on rational thought that doesn't lead to the necessity of the state). But you cannot reconcile your comparison of science to religion. I for one would appreciate it if you withdrew that claim and made the case you had to make based on its merits rather than calling it a disparaging name.

What is the implication here? Also, I don't see how "chooses more food" in the context of "requires food to survive" is evidence of counting.

It certainly might. I am by no means saying don't partake of schooling. I was just pointing out, as it would appear you already understand, that schooling isn't the same as education. Good luck to you with whichever route you choose.

I apologize. I used the words "no bureaucracy" when what I was challenging was your claim of a "bureaucratic nature." The words I should've chosen would've been "not naturally bureaucratic." Almost all of your list of bureaucracy is based on the state, which is in and of itself philosophically false and therefore cannot be used as a measure of truth. As for journals, grants, and peer review, I'm not sure why you'd take issue with these. Particularly peer review. How else will you know if something is true if you do not test it? If others, who have no incentive in it being true, test it also? All of this is very different from religion. I continue to challenge your comparison while you continue to dodge the challenge. An easy way to lose your audience is to overstate your case. Which is why I've focused on your comparison of science to religion and theory to myth. If your position was valid, you wouldn't need to make use of these tactics.

It would appear that the host is down, possibly permanently. Does anybody have a suggestion for a free host? The longer they'll host a given file without it being accessed, the better.

Rather than assigning a gradation to it, I think it's more accurate and useful to say that given that humans are born truth-seeking universality machines, any rejection of the truth must be due to subjective reasons. Such as valuing one's own parents' behavior over the truth. Does this help you to state your hypothesis more clearly? I found "mildly bad childhoods" to be imprecise and even inaccurate if it is described as leading to damaged empathy and/or inability to accept the truth.

People live in houses for the shelter they provide. The ability to identify somebody living there as an idiot would not effect the house's ability to mitigate external factors such as temperature and predators. Nor does living under a roof owned by somebody else preclude them from being identified by a guest as an idiot. Some people do not have the means by which to choose to live in a different house. I fail to see how living in house + identifying house owner as an idiot = irrational.

Can an objective truth have a subjective experience as a requisite?

That's good to know. I thought he was sharp, if not a little biased (towards the truth). I really like Larken Rose. However, in my personal journey, I sort of tossed him aside in favor of Stef because Stef doesn't stick to just government and his manner of presentation was less caustic. Not that I held that against Larken, especially when you consider that in interviews and debates, he's quite personable. I just thought it was more of a turn off to outsiders. I must say though that lately, he's really overcome this one "flaw" of his. I know this debate isn't recent, but I was impressed with how well he handled himself. At first at least. I only watched the first half because everybody involved sort of started going off track at that point. Mishelle, if you don't mind me asking, what did you learn from the video?