dsayers

You cannot have a factual conversation with somebody who cannot differentiate between truth and falsehood. Unless the theft is limited to her alone, what she would do were she given a choice doesn't even enter into it.

I'm kind of bothered that my board status hasn't been updated yet despite an email to operations and a PM to MMD (both after a little time had passed, including a login). As somebody who is not familiar with how FDR is run behind the scenes, I can't help but wonder if there's really so many people donating for the first time ever on a day to day basis that such a thing would at all be delayed. I was at a loss as to what step to take next in addressing this. I didn't want to come across as petty. However, even before I joined the boards, there was an email reply that went unanswered despite the answer being very simple (I later found out) and important. So I thought I would at least be honest about my frustration.

Don't buy their meals from them and see if they're still your friends. Be honest about your feelings of being used and see if they're still your friends. The easiest way to tell if somebody is your friend is if you're allowed to be your emotional self in their presence. The moment they try to limit your emotions to provide for theirs, you have your answer. I think discussing anarchism to minarchists is one of the easier things we have to face. How did they arrive at the conclusion of minarchism? Why doesn't that process also apply to the aggression required to provide whatever that particular minarchist believes aggression is necessary to provide? Anarchism is simply more consistent, whether it's comfortable or not. I don't think you're going to find much open-mindedness to having no state among people who are dependent on the state.

That's really strange. If they're desperate, spending 15 mins to give somebody a ride after work to be able to get 8 hrs of work out of them seems like an easy temporary solution for them. I wonder how the cook on shift would feel knowing that this woman intentionally left him to be slammed over a single car ride in weather that can, and will kill people. I'm sorry that you're made to suffer physiologically over this. For what it's worth, the fact that they didn't even provide a proper interviewer, that the person they provided wasn't prepared, and didn't have the decency to not even hang up on you, it's probably for the better that you didn't get to develop a relationship with this company.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. How much you weigh can be used to calculate the force your couch, chair, or the ground is exerting upon you right now. Creatures are made of high contents of liquid, so they display the effects of physical trauma much greater than objects fashioned for the sake of structural integrity, such as the body of an automobile. Nevertheless, the exact same amount of force will be applied to the automobile were it to strike an animal as is applied to that animal. I tried to address this point up front by pointing out that somebody swinging a bat at a vehicle is no different than standing in front of a moving vehicle in terms of predictable property damage. The amount of damage isn't relevant if the vehicle you are damaging is owned by somebody else and therefor not yours to choose to damage.

Here is an ongoing discussion on the subject: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38595-you-dont-have-kids-so-you-dont-know-rebuttal/

This is speculation. I don't know if what you mentioned was a "jerk move." It's worth examining your intentions. 1) IF you don't want her to respond and she was already not responding, then inviting her to not respond is actually a provocation to respond. This would not make the life of somebody who didn't want to respond easier. 2) Based on that analysis, you weren't doing it for her while claiming to be doing it for her. 3) Based on those points, I think it's safe to say that "since it takes you so long to respond" was meant to shame or otherwise make her feel bad. Maybe you felt hurt so you felt justified in retaliating. Each of those points are based on the ones before it, so if I made a wrong turn somewhere, it would steer the rest of the analysis off course. If however they're accurate, then yes, I would classify those words as a jerk move. What do you think?

Your physiological response was trying to tell you something. I wouldn't have given her the time or dignified anything she said with a response. She was trying to revictimize you and you kind of let her. I understand that you weren't damaged by her verbal BS and that's good. I just hope that since she made it clear that you are of no importance to her beyond what she wants from you that you won't let her steal any more of your time in the future.

Since you posted this in the self-knowledge forum, I just wanted to point out that you're accepting blame for something that was done TO you. I think it would be more accurate to say that you were conditioned at a very young age by the people you were dependent upon to erase yourself because this was less traumatic than being erased by others.

I'd be wary. Choosing who to hire is a very important decision. The more the company has to invest in training of an individual body, the more true this is. If they're putting somebody in front of you that doesn't normally do the hiring, who comes across as unprepared, this is desperate to the point of being irresponsible and potentially far most costly in the long run. Take the job if you need the money, just be aware you may be boarding an already sinking ship.

What does THIS mean? I don't think calling science religions or theories myths is cordial. I especially do not think that ignoring a request for clarification of the same is cordial.

Pardon my ignorance as I'm not much of an economics guy. Isn't "infused nylon paper parchment" different from crypto currency? Either way, I don't feel this satisfies my inquiry about a crypto currency that has the overhead of creating those dollars and having an elaborate camera system contrasted to one that does not have those overheads. Also, how do you have a "decentralized vault"? Isn't the purpose of a vault for currency backing to centralize it? If you're referring to the control as decentralized, how would this be compatible with placing it in various "friendly governments"? I'm not trying to shit on your idea, but I think these are very real considerations that must be met before a proposal can even be made.

Momentum. People who were taught that proximity equals virtue as a child have a hard time understanding that they are an active participant in a relationship and therefor have influence over its path. Or they might be yielding to their discomfort in cutting somebody out of their lives because they would prefer to have their values AND the support of others. Or it could be the tail end of an attempt to encourage the person into rational thought and they are unwilling to accept that if that doesn't work, there's no common ground for anything that a friendship is made of.

I'm way behind on the call in shows. Have you addressed why somebody would use a crypto currency that required trust in somebody holding your metal when there are competing currencies without this drawback?

This is the problem with arbitrary rules: If it doesn't suit your purpose in having such a rule, you can just move the lines until it does. It used to be 10 Gs was the red flag line. Like the only reason somebody would need their own money is for illegal activity. Or it could be the mark of an impending collapse if a bank is so mismanaged that for somebody to withdraw that level of money would damage their ability to function as a bank. Either way, scary stuff.

You own yourself and people are not fundamentally different from one another. Therefor everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. I think your confusion comes from religion and statism's (another religion) misuse of the word to pass off their decrees as objective, absolute, and immune to scrutiny. The definition of value includes the fact that it is an opinion.

Thanks for the feedback. Earlier, I was talking with Larken Rose about possibly buying him dinner and setting him up for the night during his cross country trek for the summit in Arizona in a couple weeks. About a year ago, I did the same for Pete Eyre when the Copblock.org tour came my way. Then I realized that if I'm willing to do this for them, I have to for Stef seeing as how he's provided with me with so much value. It's not much because of my circumstances but seeing it in the above terms, I kind of had to for consistency's sake. Sorry that it wasn't sooner.

Science's inability to explain conclusively where life came from does not put it on a level with religion. Religion is anti-rational while science is repeatable, provable, and evolves as new information and methodology come to light. In the context of the origins of life, science does not claim to have the answer, but religion does. Please substantiate your comparison here.

Provide value and you will be compensated. Once upon a time, I modded for video games. I was good at it too, very thorough. I actually had somebody offer me a donation and I was just doing it for my own pleasure and releasing them because why not? I think the reason people don't believe this sort of thing happens is because of the way the state pretends to take care of everything for us AND takes half our money, leaving us with a whole lot less to put towards things we deem worthy. Thanks for sharing this. I have my fingers crossed that more and more statists will see this sort of thing and contemplate why we really need a state at all.

When I first read the synopsis of this movie (before your recommendation), I had passed on it because I thought it was going to be a bit more caustic. Now that I've seen it, part of me wishes that it had been. Why? I really couldn't figure out what the movie was trying to say. Like how did the mother and father manage the first six years of her life and then once divorced, both are never around? What are the chances that both end up picking significant others that just happen to care about the child? It was as if it had a lot of potential to be honest in an important realm and pulled most of its punches. The first time there was yelling, I was actually a little jarred. I do remember my parents yelling at each other before they were divorced, but I have mostly blocked it out. I also remember being exposed to the swearing an name calling. It also resonated with me the way the parents were using the child as a pawn to get at, and even spy on the other parent. And being dropped off here and there like I was luggage with nobody asking me what I wanted. Which was the other thing that the movie confused about: The moment when the mother actually accepted that her impact was her own fault and uncharacteristically asked what the child wanted. It pretty amazing that these sorts of things are making it into the media and the arts. I just wish they'd up their game before people start looking at it nonchalantly.

As I recall (it's been awhile) Jesus is reported to have said that he wasn't here to undo a single word of the old testament, eh?

Ooh, well in that case, you also have the wonderful and necessary opportunity to provide contrast to what her parents give her. That will be invaluable to her.

I don't know where the I take money to do violence to people comes from. I didn't hold any mirrors up. Private security is about acting as an agent of the owner in the owner's absence. It's no different from defending your own house from a home invasion because it's your house. That's not violence. IF I looked down my nose at you it would be because of your "I support immorality of the highest human order in order to eat in a world where almost everybody finds moral ways to provide for themselves." You are worse than having no moral compass because you're trying to trick me into thinking that your decisions are moral and necessary. You have the ability to choose and a standard by which to choose and intentionally choose immorality.

You differentiate theory from practice, but Andrew and I have already made the case that you practice the NAP. Therefor I find it curious that you did not address this. If a serial rapist stood before you, would you petition for "minimalistic and slowly shrink away" his evil? Would you not seek to end his reign of terror regardless of what's done with his ropes, chloroform, and windowless van? I'm not suggesting your consideration is an irrational one, just pointing out how flawed the approach is just because it's government you're talking about. What to do with the holdings of the government is a fine exploration. It's just one to engage in AFTER we accept that government is immoral, not as an excuse to not accept this truth.

@Mr. Harris: I thank you for sharing your experience. I appreciate you bringing a perspective to the table that I was not able to articulate myself even though I was making the case for exactly what you describe. @rvd: "Baby killer" is unresolved trauma from your past. Here, if you're talking to me, you're talking about somebody that gave you the benefit of the doubt of being culpable until such a time you demonstrated that you're in fact responsible. For example: You're aware that you're stealing from everybody, including those close to home, whom you care about, who you use as an excuse to act as an agent of evil. You're aware that you're taking mercenary money so as not to have to compete in the market. I guess you thought calling who pays me into question was supposed to distract from this.