dsayers

I'm not an economics guy, but I would say that it does if only for its effect on our capacity to trade. We're no longer limited by business hours of a bank or proximity to an ATM or even the product we're trading for for that matter.

Until roads have chips embedded in them and cars are programmed to manage most of its operations based on its position relative to those chips and the chips of other cars, I think it's a bad idea to place things alongside a road that would distract a driver. Informative things like nearest hospital and the like can be handy, as well as food and lodging near exits for example should be fine. The race track can manage them because it's for the spectators, not the drivers.

Sorry, it wasn't. For one, I don't feel it addressed my question. Also, it doesn't really fit with the aversion I shared up front for labels. Calling the way I think about numbers by a specific name doesn't alter it, nor even accurately represent it. For example, he mentioned pi as if it's a difficult number to deal with. 22/7 is pretty straightforward. Since the division never terminates, it comes down to how precise you'd like to be (where 22/7 won't suffice). Our inability to see things that small or hold numbers that long doesn't make them less useful or more imaginary. It's not at all comparable to the square root of a negative number. I was asking where this proof was. Giggity goo.

Hello one and all. Many MP3 players and car stereos will start at the beginning of a track if you cut power to them in the middle of a track. This can be a real problem if the track is an hour long or whatever. I would like to be able to help FDR and so I thought I'd offer a service to chop up audio books/podcasts down to manageable tracks as I am able. This thread can serve as a place for people to request specific items. As a disclaimer, I am limited by factors such as my own time, my ISP's data cap, etc. Please limit requests to publicly released works by Stefan Molyneux. Some works are split in half due to host limitation of 200 MB per file. An Introduction to Philosophy 165 MB Everyday Anarchy 156 MB On Truth 98.9 MB Practical Anarchy: 1st half 124 MB - 2nd half 124 MB Real Time Relationships: 1st half 127 MB - 2nd half 125 MB Universally Preferable Behavior 78.4 MB

All I did was take the youtube series, isolate the audio, and chop it up into 3-3.5 min tracks for people who have MP3 players or car stereos that start a track over if you cut power to them in the middle of a track. It's separated by episode (folder) and then into tracks. Total size: 165.3 MB Download link: http://hugefiles.net/b498wd0275x2 [EDIT] Download link was replaced with a new version. The original link was over 3 times as large as it needed to be. Sorry!

I can't answer that question for you. I was abused for decades, so I've come to find real value in understanding WHY I want, think, feel, or believe something. I think it would be of value to you, but I could be wrong. It can be very uncomfortable facing such things, both from within and without. I think a good reason to explore it would be out of consideration for your daughter. If you can answer the question, then it will help you approach her in a way that doesn't violate her. And it can even help to establish the bond if you're honest with yourself and in turn her as to why that relationship should be given a chance. I can't speak for her, but I think it would be easy to argue that being honest and responsible for your presence or lack thereof prior would be of value to her.

You both speak as if the square root of a negative number can be proven. Where is this claim coming from? The ability to describe something isn't proof of it. Giggity.

This is true where the culprits remove choice from a decision with a moral component. Again, there is no punishment for not voting, so choosing to vote accrues the immorality to the one making the choice.

I often do puzzles at chesstempo.com

I'm very happy to hear about your sensitivity towards raising your daughter peacefully! ow old is your daughter? The following input is based on the assumption that she is old enough to communicate with her words and understand you communicating with yours. The problem I see with the scenario you describe is that she's no closer to understanding the dangers of slipping, the risk to her feet, or what it is to be able to engage in such actions without damaging the floors themselves; the things you listed as your concerns. The biggest problem with "discipline" isn't HOW it's carried out (violence vs words), but the fact that it presumes that the disciplinarian is correct. If you talked with her about what she was doing, the dangers and the risks, you might find out that you were wrong. For example, how do you know that slipping or cutting her feet is a bad thing? We all have to learn our limitations and experiencing these minor things will help us to cope in a world that poses some threats to us. Or why not put down a rug over the hard floor you're describing? That way she could have her fun and not ruin the hard flooring.

Hi there. Thank you for sharing your story. If I'm reading the timeline rightly, your daughter was 7-8 before you had any contact with her and would be 11-12 now, is that right? I don't know that two people under those circumstances could ever have a parent-child relationship. Not saying that you couldn't have a fantastic relationship with her, just wanted to make sure you didn't expect so much out of it that you would alienate her. In terms of your two conflicting principles, this kind of dissolves the first one. Do you know why you want a relationship with her?

I wonder if walking away is the right response. I say this as somebody who all too often (even a couple times on this board) give somebody way too much of my time because I just assume they're pursuing the truth. I think it might be interesting to identify the disconnect of somebody that doesn't see a young human as a human. Maybe it won't lead to anything productive. Maybe it will help them past it. If all we did was walk away though, we'd never learn how to help anybody past that hump. What do you guys think?

Well just keep in mind that most of us were once abused and had yet to process that damage. I never gave much thought to spanking before I was exposed to Stef because I had normalized it and been desensitized to it. You have to remember that some of those people might understand, but lash out out of social conformity. Not saying this is a valid excuse, but more and more exposure to the truth will diminish this comfort. The sooner the better.

You should listen to the song itself. It really is quite beautiful.

@Mr. Fleming: "ahead of us" suggests that progress is a linear path when it's not. What if the race that visits never really had to deal with aggression and they view our nukes as useful tools to clear mountains on their planet? What if they communicate telepathically and find our keyboards to be a neat children's toy or way to build up a new skill? What if they only have one arm and find the progress we've made in terms or prosthetics and/or devices that allow people with one arm to function on par with those who have two as a way of doubling their ability to be productive? Even if you look at the cultures of Earth and how they've progressed differently at different times in history, you can see the differences. And those are all of the same species!

Could you clarify this please? I read it a few times and am not sure exactly what you're saying. Near as I can tell, you're saying that "2" cannot be derived from the senses. Is that right?

A great point. If I understand your rightly, you're saying that voting could lead to less violence, making those votes count towards minimizing the violence. I don't feel this diminishes my position. In order to know if the act of voting is the initiation of the use of force or not, we need only look at whether or not that decision is a choice. Without somebody saying or implying "vote or such and such will happen," there is no coercion relating to the act of voting itself. Or put another way, the way you describe it, a voter would be choosing between their neighbors being struck often or being struck infrequently. Unless there's an option for not struck at all, to vote for one would still be the initiation of the use of force. I suspect one might counter that in both scenarios, the violence is coming either way. I feel this is even more proof that the choice to participate is the initiation of the use of force.

Year-long investigation? Doesn't that make the investigators culpable after say, day one? I'm waiting for the headline, "Prisons Found to Hold People Against Their Will Who Harmed Nobody". The article is about something horrible for sure. Why is it though that when men get raped in prison, an entire subculture of humor is born? "Don't drop the soap! hardy har"

There's always one more step, even if we don't know what it is yet. It is frustrating to see the next step others can take when they can't. "I agree with not initiating the use of force... except for a little bit. I don't believe in gods... except this one." Doh!

We just have to be careful to remain precise and help others. The media co-opting could be a way to diffuse the movement by tying it to bullshit preconceptions and advice. Poisoning the well as it were.

So if most of the rest of the world thought dogs were cats, this would make it so? You can't be imprecise when you're talking about definitions. Especially in a thread about just that. I recommend you partake of Stef's Introduction to Philosophy series. It's long, but is very helpful in helping to get past these sorts of basic thinking errors.

This reminds me of a Joe Rogan standup routine I heard once. It was his speculative explanation as to how the pyramids came to be and/or how future life on the planet would view our buildings in the event that we wipe ourselves out. I don't mind the long-windedness. Part of my appreciation here stems from you putting into the words something that I might understand to be correct, but have a really hard time putting into a compelling description. I'll try to clarify my nuclear dilemma since I didn't do too well explaining it. Your answer was from a peaceful vs aggressive standpoint, which is understandable since that's what the rest of the discussion is about. However I meant from an aggressor vs aggressor standpoint. I'll try to elaborate, though I must confess that I'm not big into world politics. Anyways, as I understand it, Iran has been working towards becoming a nuclear power for a long time now. It would be to everybody's benefit since other nations would finally stop fucking with them. However, the US (and others I presume) constantly meddles with this, trying to sell its own aggression as "nukes are bad" while sitting on piles of them. I think that if more nations achieved nuclear weaponry (in a world where it's already pursued elsewhere), there'd be a lot less war/genocide level conflict in the world, which would help us all to usher peace in that much more easily. See above, the nature of the very topic itself's consideration of being attacked from without.

I do, yes. Casting a vote is saying to somebody, "I approve of YOU stealing from everybody to pay for something *I* believe is worth stealing from people to pay for." Or just the last part in terms of voting on so-called issues.

This was the first effort you made towards "making a case" for your position. It got me thinking quite a bit and I even reversed my previous stance on the "guy walks in front of a bus" moral scenario. However, the thoughts I had on the matter were numerous enough that I thought it warranted its own topic. Here it is. Ask that same woman if her perception is that the world is flat. Doesn't make it so. Appeals to emotion are not sound argumentation. It doesn't appear that you're interested in the truth or are at all open to the possibility that your prejudice could be wrong.

Whether the man is blind, attempting suicide, or unknown, we hear this moral question fairly regularly in regards to what is force and what is violence. I'd like to see a discussion on the ins and outs of this scenario, recognizing in full that it simply never happens. I used to argue that to pull such a man back is the initiation of the use of force. Of course were it a blind man, he'd thank you, there'd be no complainant, and life would move on whether your act was immoral or not. In the case of the man who was committing suicide, I used to argue that it was an intentional violation of his self-ownership. I had an epiphany earlier and now I don't see things the same way. If nothing else, man vs bus is still going to result in the bus being damaged. Stopping such a person, even in the event of attempted suicide, is akin to interrupting somebody swinging a bat at somebody else's car. This much I'm clear about. It's the other ideas I had that I was hoping we could talk about. If person A is stopping person B from stepping in front of a bus for the purpose of willfully terminating the life he has ownership over, could it be considered defensive force considering that: a) the bus driver would be forced into involuntary manslaughter, complete with all the emotional and psychological trauma therein? b) bystanders would be similarly traumatized, as well as exposed to blood borne illness? c) somebody would be forced to clean a mess up that they did not create?