dsayers
-
Posts
4,319 -
Joined
-
Days Won
95
Everything posted by dsayers
-
"Rape is in objectively true" is nonsensical. Something to keep in mind when accusing others of poorly wording something. Also, citing what you THINK everybody else would agree with is a profound lack of integrity, and indicative of your understanding that your "argument" cannot stand on its merits alone. Legal means that people will not initiate the use of force against you in the name of the State. It is arbitrary and therefore opinion just as I have already pointed out. You're disagreeing with me by making my point for me.
- 17 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- Islam
- gun rights
- (and 6 more)
-
Citing restrictions that reality binds everybody with has no bearing on an analysis of interpersonal interactions. You are deflecting again. Kind of like how this whole post ignores numerous challenges so that you can continue to believe things that are not true. Poisoning the well. Negotiation is an attempt at win-win and is NOT synonymous with compromise. You are demonstrating a profound lack of integrity by accusing me of altering definitions while providing none of your own. Which is more poisoning of the well because *I* didn't redefine anything. The first definition of compromise from dictionary.com is "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions." That's lose-lose. None of this changes the fact that no interaction of yours with somebody who has a gun to your head could be described as compromising with them. Something you continue to refuse to address. The point here (for the benefit of those who are actually curious and want to improve their relationships) is that when two people have competing desires, trying to compromise means approaching the problem as if win-win is not possible. Which becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Negotiation could lead to a result that allows both parties to get what they want. Win-win. Worse still is that you're talking about "compromising" with a politician. Which means that you are conceding things that belong to other people. Which you do NOT have the right to do.
-
It serves to reveal that somebody is jettisoning morality for subjective reasons. We already know why violence will always fail. It's NOT new information. Nor is it a permission slip for ANYBODY to pretend as if they own everybody else and/or that Trump/Hillary/anybody could own somebody else. *too All statism is minarchism. Because they think the government should ONLY do what THEY think it should. All minarchism is statism. Because it rejects that people cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories. People who are being institutionally stolen from are not free. Stealing a candy bar is still stealing, even if it's not stealing a car.
-
-
Doesn't matter. You made an absolute claim and I asked how you know. Deflecting isn't answering the question. ...because those SJWs perceive the State as legitimate and could use the State to destroy others. Which they would get away with because others perceive the State as legitimate. Saying black instead of African American will not pick the pockets of my unborn child. X != -X is a first principle. "SOME of what they want" is lose. In the free market, people work together to achieve their goals in a win-win arrangement. You said you're willing to compromise and I pointed out that interacting in any way with somebody who has a gun pointed at your head is NOT compromising. Let's not. You were offered a direct challenge. If you refuse to accept the truth when it is pointed out to you, that is your prerogative. This deflection, obfuscation, and avoidance will not slip by me. That's not a description of the Constitution being destroyed. That is a description of the eventuality that pretending that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories EVERY TIME. See above: perceived legitimacy.
-
I said that voting adds to the perceived legitimacy of the State. I did not address the inverse, converse, or contrapositive. Of course your vote cannot contribute to freedom because the vote not only doesn't directly translate to action, but also because the system itself is coercive. If you happened upon a gang rape, would you say that the person is getting raped anyways, so might as well cheer the rapists on? Translation: I accept that the State created this problem, so I'm going to turn to the State to fix it.
-
You're using one right now. In fact, you could say education can now be about what's in children's best internets Not joking either. You can check out Dayna Martin. She's been on the show before. There was another woman on the show around the same time, but I forget her name The idea that we need to educate new humans is like trying to figure out a way to get sponges to take on liquids. It's superfluous.
-
Freedom isn't analog. You're either free or you're not. Yes, listening to somebody and being able to repeat back to them what they've said is one of my many superpowers
-
When somebody responds to a challenge like this, they are deflecting out of bias confirmation. Thank you for being so forthcoming with your lack of integrity and closed-mindedness.
-
How do you know? No politician has ever done what they've claimed and the president is supposedly checked/balanced against two other branches of government. Political Correctness isn't picking the pocket of my unborn child. Perceived legitimacy is the lifeblood of the State. President X and voting at all contributes to this perceived legitimacy. Compromise is lose-lose and those who believe they belong to a different, opposing moral category and view violence as an option are not cooperating with you. This sounds like Stockholm Syndrome. There is no positive way to enhance a thief/batterer/rapist/murderer. Nobody listens to the press and we can piss them off in ways that aren't predicated on condoning violence. Remember: the only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself.
-
Phenomenally on par post over all! I just wanted to quote this part to add to it: For those who cite immigration, the State is why we have the problem that we do in the first place. From free goodies stolen from all the productive folk, to FORCING good people to let intruders into their backyards. The death of (insert empire here) was the establishment -> perceived legitimacy -> health of (insert same empire here). History tells us so. Saying more State will save us from the State is like saying more rigging of fiat currency will save fiat currency. It's a pipe dream with oodles of empirical evidence to the contrary. shirgall put it best when he pointed out that the system CAN'T work, which is why it's in place. Consider the following: IF you are "lucky" enough to live in California, you get to vote for 2% of the Senate and 12% of the House of Representatives. That's 98% of the Senate and at least 88% of the House of Representatives any US citizen can NOT vote for. This branch is a check/balance against the president. It's a sham. I am so sorry that so many people need the warm fuzzies that they cannot accept this and would in fact attack others who are trying to help them live their values by not falling for yet another "ermagerd, problemz!!111! needs gubment! halp!"
-
Ad hominem, appeal to insecurity, appeal to emotion, and deflection. Oh and rational discourse with somebody of integrity who wishes to remain trues to their values and is willing to challenge me and show me how when I'm not remaining true to mine is the sexiest thing I've ever experienced. Though I don't fault you for this stance as I too, when first exposed to the idea that love is a response to virtue, also thought that it sounded dull and tedious.
-
Personalization, poisoning the well, bias, projection, and false dichotomy. You're saying that I have to agree with you or else I'm blasting you. This is precisely the division I was referencing before. I've tried having a conversation with you. I've made rational arguments and challenges. All you've done is this bullshit. You don't own me is a statement of fact, not blasting you. You are free to attempt to prove otherwise. Until you do, you are advocating the transfer of that ownership to somebody else, which you do not have the right to do. Which means even if I WERE blasting you, it would be called for. It would be more defensive than you voting because if X gets elected, your life wouldn't change if you were free in your own mind. But if you vote, you are actively trying to transfer ownership of me to somebody else. Hypocrite.
-
Detractors are not offering arguments. Just logical fallacies and yummy downvotes to demonstrate the emotional root that the lack of integrity embodies. And I HAVE responded to those. You just keep making false claims with no circling back to correct for them once they're revealed to be false. Totally called that one too.
-
Notice how you're pointing at me as opposed to making any arguments? Oh, and don't think for a second that I'm the only person who sees this. shirgall, you've shifted from presidential to local several times now. Are you not willing to answer the challenges made of the claims you've put forth regarding the presidential election? I reject your claim that asking your masters to whip you softer is fighting FOR your property rights. $20 off a month is still $X on where X > 20 by no small margin I expect. I understand the temptation. Still, voting is cooperating with people who claim to have the power to own other people. They have no reason to suspect that they don't, because... hey... look at how everybody plays along. You can sell yourself all you like, but you don't have the power to sell your children and your neighbors.
-
For clarity's sake, I don't see all that which is amoral as being pragmatic or not. Also, I did NOT accept that you were being pragmatic. In fact, I've twice claimed that because you are expending effort when you know it will have no effect, you are not being pragmatic. This is one of the challenges that I see as having gone unanswered. I do not wish to antagonize others either FWIW. As a man of integrity, I would want contradictions within me brought to my attention. As such, I'm trying to show others that political voting is antithetical to the acceptance of property rights and in a way that both legitimized AND perpetuates the machine.
-
I didn't get that that is what he was saying. Either way, this is a falsehood. X != -X is one of the first principles. Inaction can never be action. A moment's consideration will reveal this pretty clearly when you consider all of the actions you're NOT engaging in right now.
-
Show me where I've claimed to own anybody, to have powers nobody has, told others they have powers nobody has, or tried to give somebody that which I don't have to give. I'll bet when you're unable to, you don't retract this claim :/ This is an appeal to popularity and therefore not an argument. It's also moving the goalposts since previously, your null hypothesis was that it doesn't legitimize anything. Since I have explained how it does, now it's that only I have said so. This isn't even considering my input or the possibility that you could be mistaken. You have yet to put forth a single argument or answer a single challenge. Why is this?
-
How do you know? All statists are minarchists because they only want people to be forced to do what THEY think should be done. Who are any of us to decided that X (what the press that nobody takes seriously anyways MIGHT say) is worth supporting the enslavement of everybody else?! Poisoning the well. Nobody is hiring anything. The system isn't rigged; It's working exactly how telling a human being they exist is a different, opposing moral category would work. shirgall, I've tried to be polite because I know you're an intelligent and rational person. However, you haven't provided a single argument, so I must be blunt with you also: You don't own me. When you step into that voting booth, YOU are pretending you have powers that YOU do not have, telling other people they have powers that they can't have and you can't give. It's a sham. It doesn't do anything. It wastes time. It suggests you are not free in your own mind. And it tells other people that the system, that the process, and that human subjugation is valid. You have no reason to suspect that your action will have any outcome other than increased State power, which you would have participated in and therefore contributed to. Shame on you for knowing better and pretending differently for the sake of your comfort in the moment. Look at all these wasted resources that could instead be spent making an actual step towards freedom in the world :*( Appeal to authority. You're running out of ways to deflect :/
-
This is avoiding the challenge. Science would in this scenario be understanding His creation. This would only be problematic if His creation were sinister. Why would God be threatened by power he could wish away? If corruption were possible, it would be by His design. If this is problematic, why include it in the system? Why make a tree of knowledge if nobody should have it? It goes right back to neeeel's challenge all over again. You need to define technology. Picking up a rock and using it to inflict more damage than you can with your body in order to have more to eat is a form of technology. Many inferior lifeforms utilize technology to enhance their survival. You cannot accurately claim that there are tribes of humans with no technology, nor that our ability to destroy ourselves is dependent on technology.
-
Just in case you weren't persuaded already
dsayers replied to csekavec's topic in Science & Technology
I've been meaning to make a topic on what I've been up to with regards to fitness. It's not hard to do. The more you do, the better off you'll be. The more focused you do it, the better off you'll get at it. A buddy of mine shared with me The New Rules of Lifting Supercharged. Just telling me the basics and us doing a few exercises in his home gym on 5 Jun, my body showed gains. The way I moved even as I sat down, got in and out of my car, etc was SAFER in terms of avoiding back injury. I've been putting that book's program to work and the gains have been exponential. Because I've been burning fat (becoming lighter) and developing muscle (able to move easier). The journey has been amazing and indeed, life changing. And it's really simple to do. Soon, I will make a thread detailing my experience to help encourage others. Anyways, thanks for posting this. -
So your proof is that a 3rd party wrote down that a 4th party had once been provided proof? THAT is faith! You have no proof, but believe it to be proof. One of the definitions on dictionary.com is verbatim: belief that is not based on proof.
-
Wait, isn't God all knowing AND all powerful? Mutual exclusivity aside, that means (as neeeel pointed out) that God mad man to fall. God broke man. God created Satan. I forget where it was, but I remember Stef going on this awesome diatrabe about how if the story of the Christian God were true, HE would be the evil one. Things like don't eat from the tree of knowledge. Why, so we don't learn you're psychotic? Do what I say or I'll burn you for eternity? Yeah, that's rational.
-
To what end? You know, the irony here is that you would vote for a psychopath who believes somebody could rule over 300,000 people, but you would downvote somebody who accepts property rights and is saying, "Hey, you're contradicting yourself." You're getting behind a hood ornament while trying to find any reason you can to be divided from what should be an ally. Yeah, not at all a waste of time :*(
