dsayers

Calling somebody a Molyneux fanboy is marginalizing them so that you can disregard what they say without having to consider it. It's reducing somebody to a label so that you can pretend they're not a person. This is not the first such infraction you've made in this thread. How then can you claim that treating others well is more important than the origins of life when you're using the origins of life as an excuse to mistreat others?Oh and I had said this already.

I'm angry that that happened to you. If you were jane doe on the street and I heard that happened to you, I'd be angry. Would you be angry to find out these things happened to other people? If so, then I don't think it SHOULD ever go away that you're angry about such things.Obviously the intensity of the anger you feel will subside both as you "get used to it" and begin to work to counteract the damages. You're not as pissed that somebody hit your car once it's repaired and their insurance settles your repair bill for example.My questions to you are: WHY does it make you angry? Can you explain this objectively? If so, you're going to simultaneously make yourself less vulnerable to such mistreatment in the future and less likely to engage in such behavior yourself. I think that's important because some people go from being angry, which is healthy, to being enraged and wrathful, which can lead to them doing the same immoral acts done unto them, which is not healthy.

In the phrase "the initiation of the use of force," the word "force" isn't the operative word. "Initiation" is. Science tells us that we've developed entire systems of brain function above the "apes we evolved from." Systems that allow us to communicate efficiently, analyze outcomes, consequences, make decisions accordingly, etc. Philosophy is based on the real world, including this part that you hadn't taken into consideration. It's because of this that we're able to use philosophy for normative purposes.Or are you saying that in the real world, you've ever gotten a job, girlfriend, car, friend, house by way of force? You kind of have to get everything in your life by force to even consider that force is necessary to meet your needs.

I can't really go into to many backstory details as it's mostly educated guesswork. There was a point a couple weeks ago where I ended up having to reinstall my browser because I had multiple FDR tabs open and something timed out or something that cause one of my extensions to work in a very bizarre way. I had tried reinstalling the extension, relaunching the browser, turning off all other extensions, rebooting Windows, etc.Well yesterday, I started having the exact same problem again. Only this time, a browser reinstall didn't solve the issue. Near as I can tell, the most recent update to Chrome has a hardware acceleration bug that is likely the culprit, so it's now a waiting game.Anyways, the impact of the bug I'm experiencing (that I don't think has anything to do with FDR directly) is greatly reduced when I disable FDR scripts. It's not so bad since most of the site seems to function just fine, with the exception of quotes not being properly credited to their author.The purpose of this thread is to point out that the ignore preferences only seems to be available to those with scripts on. I thought maybe somebody could alter the profile page to include a link to manage the ignore list under the link to manage the friends list or something like that. Either way, thank you for your time.

My input was going to be the opposite. If your mind is running a mile a minute, I find text is a great way to write down what you're thinking, revise it, re-read it, improve it, etc.Jami, just based on what I've read from your posts, I wonder if you're trying to do things too quickly. When I first started studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge, I waited six months before I even began telling others. Part of it was so that I could absorb what I was learning and part of it was to begin on self-work. This way, by time I did get around to sharing it with others, the changes in me were apparent and I wouldn't just sound like somebody parroting what they thought should be said or they heard somebody else say. I waited another six months of discussing these things with people in my life before I took the next step of joining the boards.My concern is that if you realize you've got the right answer after many years of not realizing you were even being asked a question, it's easy to be eager to put it all into practice right away. However, if you have that expectation, you're just going to get frustrated if things don't all turn around for you immediately. It takes time, commitment, and perpetual work.

You haven't made the case for "open-minded" being virtuous or beneficial. If I accept that 2+2 != 5, it's not because I'm closed-minded. Nor would being open-minded be of any use.You know, I'm having a hard time reading what you're saying over that which you're not saying. You're basically just making your opening statement again and ignoring a LOT of challenging counterpoints. I asked you before to clarify an argument you were making and all you said was that you dare not speak of the properties of God. I think I made a fantastic point about how to treat others being more important and readily available than determining the origins of life, yet here you are favoring the origins of life, which you believe cannot be known, over not mistreating others.

Forgive me if this is more appropriate for WTMI radio (way too much information), but most of the time I have a mirror neuron episode, it is my testicles creeping up into me. The one exception I've noticed is falling in a video game. The really long fall, like from mountains, planes, or tall buildings. If those "experiences" get drawn out, I feel a mild panic and can even stop breathing for a moment, as if I'm trying to control not popping my lungs from falling.

Let me count the ways:1) It's a concept you understand whether you accept it or not.2) It's a concept you've participated in the discussion regarding.3) The thread you participated in was right there all along.4) Wikipedia apparently had your answer.5) Numerous sources have information regarding this.6) You are withholding an answer until such a time I do any of that work for you.7) I did define it, yet you continue to claim it didn't happen.8) I did define it, yet you continue to withhold the answer to my question.9) You are now claiming that you never made the claim, even though it's right there in text AND additional text is present where you explain WHY you did the thing you now claim you didn't do.9.5) You are pretending you do not know what it means to be obtuse.

My dad got me a religious book aimed at adolescents when I was about 13-14. I had been raised Christian, but never formally "asked Jesus into my heart." Something about that book successfully preyed upon my need for ANY escape/explanation from/for the abuse, so I closed my eyes and "prayed hard" for several minutes.As soon as I opened my eyes, I was convinced. Everything was brighter! You know, after having my eyes closed for several minutes, desperately NEEDING to believe in this. What do you know, I ended up seeing things as brighter and believed in it. Must be God.Sorry, nothing stirs my empathy more than war and religiosity. I feel immense contempt for them for being so destructive to humanity.

What if they change the rules without your consent? What if you inherited the house from somebody that agreed to rules you don't agree with? I think "completely voluntary" is an over-simplification.If it was completely voluntary, you wouldn't even need to name the thing. Like when I go to McDonald's and give them money for a burger, we don't sit down with a contract that outlines a Goods and Services Exchange Organization.

Since you asked for critique, I'm afraid your list breaks down at 2, as importance is subjective.The list can be summed up as people are not fundamentally different from one another. I don't think so. A free society helps everybody by leaving them alone. Without state regulation, the amount of wealth and disposable income would be incredible. Poverty simply wouldn't exist and the few people down on their luck would have a lot of people with a lot more disposable income HELPING them (not just giving stuff to them).The rich guy in the scenario you describe is not violating property of others, so his action could not be described as immoral. Your scenario ignores how the man because unable to eat without the charity of others in the first place. Which of the two guys are responsible for feeding the poor guy?

Somebody who does something more is better at doing it than somebody who's done it less. Yes, I suppose that even in a free society, there will be people who have given handjobs before they reached puberty, but they will be so in the margins that I don't really think it's enough to call something that was given the caveat of not being universal into question. I have to ask: What is your purpose on these forums? Between brithing a child is assault, you don't own yourself but I'm not telling you who does, and the first time somebody picks up a basketball they're Michael Jordan, you really give off that troll vibe. Maybe it's just me.

@june: You are being obtuse, so I must ask: What is your purpose in this thread? Mine is to seek the truth.I'm not going to retype that entire topic to satisfy your question for that which was already provided. At the time you posted in that topic (entitled unimaginatively enough: where does self-ownership come from?), these two threads were adjacent.Near as I can tell, you make use of your body and you're capable of reason, therefor you own yourself.Now, you brought up your dad's computer as if usage was the only criteria. I clarified that usage alone was not enough, citing that a surgeon doesn't own your body just because you're letting him use it. At which point you said, "you don't own you" which you've now provided the explanation of As if swapping out words won't change a statement's meaning. To which I've asked you who does own me that is allowing me to make use of it. I'm not going to bother counting the amount of times to throw in your face because this reciting the minutes shit is unnecessary where there's text...Unless the person is being combative or obtuse for their own amusement. So tell me who I'm renting my body from or withdraw the demonstrably false claim. Or argument if you prefer. I don't care of its category, just that it's false and that you don't believe you can just make false statements on a philosophy board and get to escape them by asking people what the word "the" means over and over.

First of all, let me say how relieved I am that such a horrible story had a "happy ending."As for what comes next, I don't think it's the same for everybody. For me, I began to examine everything I accepted as truth to find out if it was true, if not why not, where did I get the idea from, etc. I also started looking over my communications from the past and present. I even got a voice recorder so I could review my discussions. I also take time to examine my feelings, the most underdeveloped part of me.I think it's safe to say that the people who abused you don't deserve the opportunity to abuse you further. Oh and please thank that amazing man for me, will you?

People talk about equality as if it's obtainable. If everybody had the exact same amount of money, money would be worthless as we'd never be able to spend it.

Not having traumatized parents would raise both levels. So while a peacefully raised 30 year old would have less in common with a child, a peacefully raised 16 year old would behave less like a child. The sexually knowledgeable are more enjoyable. Not claiming this as a universal, but I can only see two reasons to go against this: 1) A person is inexperienced themselves, usually of similar age. 2) A person is traumatized and gets more pleasure over conquering a creature of free will than that free will being given out of understanding, adoration, and experience.

To this, I would've asked, "How do you know?" It's one of the most important questions anybody could ask. I'm really sorry to read this. Did she even try to make sense of your feelings before using them to shame you? Again, how does she know?I admit I haven't read the other thread, but I'm really sorry anything was done to you that could make you feel this way. Though I'm also glad that the despair has given you the strength to stand up to it.I would change my number immediately if I were you. Your mother's behavior is meant to revictimize you while helping her to maintain a fantasy whereby she's a model individual, ineligible for scrutiny. For as long as that is true (in her mind), she can very easily disregard anybody that suggests she's accountable for her actions that were not so savory.Was the money in question part of a will? What I mean is, if your father were to hold it indefinitely, would you have recourse in recovering it?

Yep. You used to be a child, everybody you speak with who is not a child used to be a child. "2+2=5" "Actually, 2+2=4" "You're not a calculator!" Being a parent means your sperm/egg met with somebody else's egg/sperm. That's it. Unless they've actually taken the time to study, being a parent doesn't actually change anything. In fact, if you've done the research and they haven't, you're more of a parent than they are whether either of you have children or not. It's an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. 2+2=4 whether you have a degree or not.

This doesn't even address what you find issue with, let alone refute or correct it.

Let us suppose that from the moment you were born, people around you created a false reality for you. While you instinctively try to walk, talk, and explore, you're told to sit down, shut up, and don't question. It's like this every where you turn and everywhere you turn, there are problems. You never question the problems or even imagine they could be the result of being told to sit down, shut up, and don't question. How could they when sit down, shut up, and don't question are how those problems are dealt with. The problems don't go away, but everybody says they are dealt with. If something new comes up, we turn to those telling us to sit down, shut up, and don't question for the solution. Let us suppose that this is all you know for 20, 40, or 60 years. Let us suppose now that you are part of a small percentage of those people that came to realize that walking, talking, and exploring felt better. That it was something we could actively do together. That because of this, problems would be fewer, smaller in scope, and easier to address. But everybody else was told by everybody else that we were to sit down, shut up, and don't question. That this would be the solution to the problem it creates. That the disparity was so overwhelming that seeing a better way made you worse off. An outcast of those who sit down, shut up, and don't question. Except towards you, where they then become very mobile, vocal, and undermining to preserve the normalcy of sit down, shut up, and don't question. Which path would you prefer? If you were a member of the first group, would you transition into the second group if you could? How would you feel if you did? If you were a member of the second group, would you transition into the first group if you could? How would you feel if you did? Should it bother either group that sit down, shut up, and don't question is paradoxical in that if anybody adhered to it, there would be nobody left telling anybody to not question and therefore nothing to not question?

I'm inspired by your story of overcoming the effects of abuse in your personal life! I am sorry to read this part, but I was wondering if you'd be comfortable elaborating. The specifics seem as if they'd alter whatever comes next, both from within and without. Plus, if you don't mind me saying so, the pace of your post was pretty in depth, except that part, which seemed glossed over. Given the enormity of its effects and this uncharacteristic lack of depth in the post, I wonder if there's some honesty missing. Please don't take offense to that. It literally could be that from my perspective, I cannot envision a scenario where that claim would be true.

/tar Kev /pat Crap! Now they know I used to play World of Warcraft! @june: Where does self-ownership come from is a discussion ongoing right here in a thread that you have participated in. If you wish to come to a definition by asking on these boards, that would be a great place to start. In the meantime, you've made the claim that I do not own my body, so I'm asking who does. Your claim did not imply uncertainty, so this question would be easy to answer WHILE trying to "pry from me" that which is elaborate and on display in a place I know you are familiar with. If you can tell me who owns my body and you are right, then it doesn't matter what self-ownership is or the fact that I accept it because it will have been superceded.

I definitely agree with that. Statism isn't embraced as a rational conclusion, but as a conformity to social norms. If we can make using violence as a solution uncomfortable, more people would have greater incentive to think. I don't think we can reach that step by abandoning our values in order to sell them if that makes any sense. I have a sensible friend who is giving "government is immoral" a chance simply because he understands that such a conclusion comes from somebody utilizing a process that has affected very real and positive changes in me very quickly.

Actually, I'm in the exact same boat as you, just on a smaller scale. I live under my abusive father's roof as a result of poor life skills and choices as a result of having an abusive father (and mother and teachers) throughout my childhood. Studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge, there's all sorts of things that interest me that I could capitalize on to make a life for myself "out there." However, to pursue them, it would mean making decisions that would lead to home and job uncertainties. While I'm here, I'm still under oppressive reign, so leaving is necessary. At the same time, staying means I get to keep more of my money and I have a bit more time to engage in content consumption and self-work. Not quite the same scenario as you, but definitely the same ambivalence. Though yours has extra facets and requires bigger decisions. I think I might give into the exhilaration of taking the leap if I had somebody to do it with. On the other hand, I have a history of losing myself in relationships due to a lack of identity. On the other other hand, you seem to have the identity thing down and are approaching it from the very rational position of considering housing and work. At the risk of projecting, could your ambivalence be coming from letting your heart lead when you've been secure in leaving things to your brain? I recently starting watching the Philosopher's Toolkit and one of the most valuable lessons I got from it was how excluding our emotions from our thoughts actually inhibits our ability to think better. Maybe for as long as you do have a deep, rational investment into the decision, it might be good for you to let yourself be all of yourself. I can't tell you what to do and I might be way off base here. But how does that sound to you?