dsayers

And? We know that there is nothing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence except violence itself. Therefore, all of those examples that qualify would look exactly the same without the mafia claiming to own you. Except they'd be safer, you could make more of them, etc.

He's droned a bunch of people. Murder with complete lack of empathy. Forging a document? It's like saying a serial rapist stole a candy bar. It does NOT matter. Federal offense? In the ruler-ruled relationship, the rules serve at the ruler's pleasure and is not meant to apply to them. When was the last time a former US president faced charges for anything? Hell, Hillary didn't get elected and she won't be held accountable, and that's with losing to somebody who ran on the platform of imprisoning her. Wake up, my brother!

According to this quote, on 19 Dec 2016, at 12:49 PM EST, an FDR user named rosencrantz, without seeking anybody's permission (apart from use of FDR's private property), addressed somebody who occupied the exact same moral category as he does, while expressing an idea. That was anarchy in practice. I would wager that in the moments since then, you've achieved your goals by not initiating the use of force. Probably for that last week/month/year too. 99.9% of your life has been much of the same. Claiming you've never seen it is just willful ignorance.

Children are going to emulate their role models. If they see their parents caring, they're going to care. I think the titular dilemma is only such for those that exploit their ability to program another human being.

You didn't read it, did you? NotDarkYet is pretending to not understand what's being communicated, even after it was explained (see provided link). Dogmatic rejection of definitions, responding to "not understanding" with hostility rather than curiosity is a sign of emotional necessity. What I did was point this out. Since I can see this, what do you think it reveals to me the way you responded to something that wasn't talking to/about you (until now)?

That you can turn it off/not watch it and save a lot of resources in the process. "Anarchist utopia" is an oxymoron. I'll define terms since appeals to emotion rely on obfuscation. anarchy - No rulers. Everybody exists in the same moral category. This is an observation of reality. utopia - An IDEAL place or state. Any VISIONARY system of political or social PERFECTION. This is by definition a fantasy. Reality and fantasy are antonyms. Therefore Anarchist utopia is an oxymoron. Thinking you can arrange society is utopian.

What difference does it make though? How many people has he authorized to be spied on, detained, denied due process, droned... Birth certificates only matter in a dreamworld where there's a ring of power to magically puts the wearer into a different, opposing moral category. Of all the crimes he's committed against humanity, this has to be the smallest. Yes, I realize it facilitated all the others, but see ring of power above.

It's okay to say, "I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion. Tell me more." Nobody said anything about voter turnout. If somebody came up to you and tried to take your wallet, bystanders might trip the robber, obstruct their path, tackle them, etc. If that same somebody had on a badge or arrived in a car that had stickers on it, they would be glad that your wallet was getting taken. These scenarios are mechanically identical. The only real variable is perceived legitimacy. If they see you telling the person with the badge, "I choose you to take my wallet," they would have absolutely no reason to question the validity of what they saw, because you were behaving as if it was legitimate, when it wasn't legitimate, which could be accurately described as legitimizing it, even though it's not actually making it legitimate, which was already explained to you.

Does anybody know (somebody who knows) anything about finding a good editor, strategy regarding format and style, time frame, cost etc? Looking for somebody I could talk to in order to get an idea of what to expect when writing a book and how to go about doing it effectively and efficiently. Thanks.

Asking what society should look like is to suggest that anybody could know such a thing. I don't think that they could without taking away the ability for others to decide for themselves. What will it look like? Depends. If people accept that humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories, it will flourish as much as it could given the environment. If not, then it will be Earth 2.0, only much harsher. I don't even know if such a thing is possible. Humans have evolved over many, many years to adapt to Earth's gravity, temperatures, etc. My understanding is that just trying to live on the moon, your bones would lose density in such short order that you wouldn't be able to return to Earth if you wanted to. Many people would have to die for a few to survive to propagate Mars. I could be wrong about that of course. I especially don't think it can happen while the people Earth still worship statism. Because when the free market outcompetes the State in a way that allow people to avoid the State, the State steps in to either make it illegal or seize it for themselves.

Why do you ask? Not saying you shouldn't. I'm curious as to what leads to somebody thinking about such a thing and investing effort to understand it better. I too have a problem with "random." It's the consistency of matter and energy that allows for us to develop logic and reason. When I first saw the title, I thought about the way that gravity is an emergent property of matter. After reading the post, I think this would fall under your definition of fixed. Is that correct?

And you think telling them "I choose you" will accomplish this? XD 1) You said "your argument is based on a false premise and faulty logic... while ignoring valid counter arguments." And then I said that these are assertions; Not true just because you claim them. 2) Thank you for appreciating my consistency, but it's not the character flaw your appeal to insecurity presumes it to be. 3) It in fact was not on purpose, but look how much you've derived from it. And I'm supposed to pretend there's no bias at play? 4) Projection of emotional investment to an objective debate. Are you coming into this cold, pretending that you are coming into it warm? Saying "Yes, 2+2 DOES equal 4" is even easier than snapping fingers. And my efforts have been aimed not to convert people, but to remind them of the very values they so recently espoused themselves. Which makes the 2nd half of your post making terrible excuses for them.

Imagine humans in their default state. They would have no evolutionary reason or gain to imagine divine/supernatural guidance. People only even talk about this today because the idea was already brought up. Put in their head. I realize this doesn't detract from the excellent point you were making. I still wanted to bring it up because its one of those mental traps I see people abiding.

Why do people keep using the word attack? Why are you calling it principles or mine? As an objective claim, "political voting is immoral" is either true or false. Faulty premise. People who are free in their own mind do not seek out a savior. As such, they do not waste their time familiarizing themselves with would be tyrants. "Appeal to emotion" describes the process of trying to convince somebody of something not by providing an argument. As you tell the story, the friend would not be trying to convince me I should vote or that it was okay that they voted, but rather explaining WHY they did despite knowing it was immoral. What you're describing is not an appeal to emotion. I don't know why you ask. 1) I've already stated in this thread "The ruler was probably coming either way, so if somebody said, 'Yeah, it's immoral, but I thought maybe I could... [insert all the perceived benefits you've put forth]' I would at least respect their status as capable of rational thought." By the by, "capable of rational thought" being a requisite for anybody I'd call friend even at the FB level. 2) I've already demonstrated what I would do. When FDR'ers first indicated that they they accepted property rights and that the State is predicated on violations thereof, but they were going to use the State to beg for continued State, I felt betrayed. These were people that had previously demonstrated that they could think rationally, maintain challenging positions, and uphold integrity. When I saw them acting not in accordance with their stated goals, what did I do? I tried to help them to manage their anxieties. I tried to help them see the truth. I tried to help them understand what a colossal waste of time and resources they were engaging in. I tried to help them grasp how much they were holding human progress back by perpetuating something they knew could not be sustained and shouldn't. With the exception of those truly willing to draw lines in the sand over being challenged, I haven't stopped caring or investing myself. Because I understand that I cannot be free--my future child cannot be free--until we are all free. And somebody who was presented a choice as to which make of car will run them over that actually participates in the false dichotomy is not free, even in their own mind. That's what I would do for my tribe. Even when they gang up to make me a pariah for accepting truth as true, that is what I'll do for my tribe. Also, don't let the gallery get it twisted. The three highest quality relationships I've ever had in my life all came from FDR. They were attracted to me BECAUSE of my commitment to integrity. They've offered me complimentary feedback of the highest order. Whether to vote or not was never even a topic of discussion, or contention. Because the more self-knowledge you have, the more self-knowledge you attract. Not that it takes a high level of self-love to stop seeking external authorities. My point being that just because there are a vocal few here does not mean that all "anarchists/philosophers/empiricists" have fallen for this circus. They're as in disblief as I am that FDR('ers) can't see the truth despite being able to just one year ago.

I don't think it's an attack and I'm impervious to attacks that lack logic, reason, and evidence. What I addressed that it was singling me out. If your intentions were to draw attention to X, Y, Z, it seems rational to me to address them where they are, and where they're in far greater numbers. You're right that I did not ask you how you feel. It is my bias that irrational behavior is the result of managing one's anxiety NOT by way of processing it. If this presumption is erroneous, I would love to see a separate topic started on the subject as I have recently learned the ways in which I was conditioned to use judgement to isolate myself and wish to remedy that. Analogy is not analogous for the same reason your last one wasn't. And is still a deflection from your claim that joining in a rape in progress isn't rape. Ad hominem! Your position must have tremendous merit. If you'd appreciate it so much, why would you speak as if it's not there while carrying it along with you?

How is that different from my challenge? One I thought to consider because of some things Stef had said before?

Humans are born poor. If this is unjust, and you believe there is a god, why aren't you asking God why there's no justice WITH Christianity.

As a teen, I preferred tapes to radio. As a young adult, VHS to television. I cannot recall the last time I listened to the radio or watched commercial television. Even before self-knowledge and rational thought, I was able to see through marketing and it was repulsive to me. It seems to be for you to. So I wonder: Why subject yourself to that? Because I'm not into commercial television, I never looked into Tivo, but doesn't it allow you to just watch the programs or something?

Analogy is not analogous for the same reason your last one wasn't. And is still a deflection from your claim that joining in a rape in progress isn't rape. Which addresses" Meanwhile, both ...reveal a bias. For FDR has made FAR many more efforts to claim that Trump/voting is beneficial, FAR many more efforts to reveal that political action is ineffective, voting immoral, and the State immoral than I have. Combined, I would say dissenters to my current position on political voting weight in about 5:1... Yet you address me. So it's not frequency that makes you anxious, but rather your inability to answer for the ways in which it challenges your irrationally held position. Gravitor, saying something is (not) an argument doesn't make that true. This post alone has revealed the ways in which some things are NOT arguments. Look at NotDarkYet. Every post I've seen him make on the topic is "If you believe... you're a Democrat" as if he's auditioning for the Blue Collar Tour or something. Never addressing any correction made or flaw in his claims pointed out. It's a very rigid demonstration to say the least. As is the fact that I've put forth null hypotheses that nobody has tackled, while those who support Trump/voting have offered not one null hypothesis, even when challenged to do so. THAT is all you really need to know about a discussion of any topic. Thank you for your illustration. This is a great example of the mental prison statism leads to. You spoke like a true tyrant. To hell with property rights, it's for the greater good! When you're dreaming, playing D&D, or watching a movie, there's no ROAD back to reality. You wake up, you decided your gaming sessions is over, or the movie ends. People do not exist in different, opposing moral categories is a true statement. To not pretend that they do is simply accepting reality. It's as effortless as making a decision in your head. There's no road. "Step in the right direction" is how they fool you into negotiating with them, letting them keep 80% of their theft/threats while you tell yourself at least it's not 90%. Thank you for being the first person to say that you don't care if it's immoral or not. Probably the first example of at least feigning honesty.

Fair enough. What then does "improving morality" even mean? I would think it would mean helping people to have a better understanding of what it means. We don't do this by perpetuating and participating in a system that is immoral. If "improving morality" was your goal, then political voting would be inconsistent with that stated goal, which was my position from the very beginning. shirgall, have you partaken of any of my arguments? In Null Hypotheses and Political Voting, I enumerated that your vote has no effect on the outcome, you don't know what they will do*, and that one person doesn't have the power to effect the changes you hope they will. Even if all that were not true, *what we do know is that they will steal from and threaten innocent people. Up until Stef said Trump, he was pointing out that the only way to win at politics is to not participate. That you cannot change the system from within the system. Something I know resonates with you as you had once pointed out that if it could be effective in the way you imagine, it would be illegal. It's the circus. It's distraction. It's illusion. And so many who knew better fell for it mostly BECAUSE (return to start of paragraph). Will you say softer rape? Because you say this with the nonchalance as if "less cancer" is what a cancer patient is interested in. It takes less effort to say in your own head that humans cannot exist in a different, opposing moral category than it does to "tick a box". At the risk of picking nits, I haven't said, nor could I say that not voting is a moral choice. As inaction isn't even action, let alone binding upon another, it is ineligible for moral consideration. I have said that voting is immoral. I have said that it legitimizes the system. Not voting amid all the propaganda that you HAVE to vote is basically responding to somebody coming up to you and saying "Do you want to be owned by X or Y?" and you answer "GTFO." X and Y are only there when not enough people choose Z (themselves). I think "good life" is undefined also. Regardless, I don't think there would be only one path. Nor did I ever talk about the relationship between voting and "good life." All I said is it was immoral. The ruler was probably coming either way, so if somebody said, "Yeah, it's immoral, but I thought maybe I could... [insert all the perceived benefits you've put forth]" I would at least respect their status as capable of rational thought. All I've seen when trying to discuss the topic here is emotional clinging and lashing out in an attempt to avoid rational consideration. Even in your case where "lashing out" looks like making claims that can't be true, such as knowing what a politician will do with his imaginary ring of power. Do tell of these theories of consensual rape. If it was consensual, it wouldn't be government. For even if they passed legislation saying I'm free to patronize Taco Bell whenever I want, but also am free to decline whenever I want," I still would have had money stolen from me to pay somebody to write that down and they're still going to try and tax my visit there, my transportation to there, etc. I don't care what they're claiming. I know that he's willing to rule over 300 million people. I know he will substantiate a system that is not valid. I know that people who vote for him are willing to throw their neighbors under the bus to avoid having to interact with those same neighbors to try and come up with solutions themselves. He is a human being, same as the rest of us. Rate him wherever you like in your own life, but you do not get to inflict him upon me. I DO NOT CONSENT!

Preparations? Tell me more. The Inuit have a more meat-based diet. Presumably, this is because they live in a place that less hospitable to plants or that meats keep better or whatever. I don't think they set out to be different from others. They evolved as other humanoids were evolving elsewhere. My point being that I don't think that people spread ideas, trying to improve upon "Eastern civilization" for example. I think it's a label that was tacked on as a generality later on. Of course, being a generality means defining one's terms is that much more important! Culture is subjective, so I could never be an expert on such things. But it seems to me that the main difference between what others would describe as Western and I would describe as Northern (oops, now I regret using Inuit as an example ) is the belief that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. Western clings to the idea in terms of ideas such as slavery, gender equality of opportunity, etc. Thanks largely to the internet though, ideas such as peaceful parenting and that government is predicate on violations of property rights (Northern) have flourished. If I'm right about this, then "traveling" would merely consist of accepting reality despite the ways in which they go against the narrative, leading to the shaking of one's previously held relationships. Were the world to make such a transition, I think preparation is always useful. Going from a world where people can whine and beg to the masters/enforcers to being responsible for self and finding solutions to problems will be a challenging one. This is why I have not been able to stress enough the importance of those of us that know better to not do anything to pretend institutionalized violence is valid or acceptable. Because we'd risk the recently freed slaves begging for a new master all over again. But as Stef used to point out, life adapts. If there's no government teet, then people will seek jobs that didn't before. When people cannot mistreat others and still survive, they'll find ways to co-operate and be kind. The self-correction of the free market is what makes it so beautiful I think. The State obstructs the free market's two most important components for self-correction: consequence and competition. Those are my thoughts. I'd be interested in hearing what you had in mind.

You claimed it was a net gain in value BECAUSE it was "more moral." As you rightly point out here though, "more moral" isn't attainable. You poison the well when you say "world better." It has been a point of contention all along that perpetuating human slavery is NOT good, let alone better. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "living morally no matter what it costs." It's entirely possible for a person to vote because of reason X AND accept the fact that it is immoral. Based on the amount of deflection, ad hominem, appeals to emotion/authority/popularity/insecurity I've tasted, I think the question should be posed to those who are DEMONSTRATING that they are living not in accordance with their values. I have no emotional investment in "voting is immoral" being true. That's why all of my input on the subject has either been rational arguments, or revealing the ways in which the opposition's offerings are not. THEY are the ones telling themselves that they are living morally because they voted and will stop at nothing to preserve the cognitive dissonance that this is incompatible with voting. I have made no claims of living morally (making your implication a strawman). My position is that binding somebody without their consent is immoral. A valid conclusion and a sentiment I was lauded over to great lengths prior to FDR saying Trump was cool. The variable isn't on this side of the table, my friend.

Best of luck with your topic. When I asked people what Western civilization was and how they knew it should be preserved, I got downvotes, ad hominem, appeals to emotion, etc. In my The Fight for Western Civilization Debunked article, I put forth the idea of what I called "Northern civilization" and why I thought it was superior to the often undefined Western civilization. Because the west includes institutionalized theft, assault, rape, and murder and humans have evolved beyond the tolerance for such things.

shirgall, I respect you a great deal, but I do not share your belief that less/softer rape is "more moral." Especially when you're talking about something that is literally mass hysteria. The people who act in the name of the State are people. They do not have special powers. If enough people understood this (which I'm certain present company is entirely included), there would be NO immorality accepted in the name of the State. You don't teach people this by playing along as if their power is real though. I think I have made the case in my most recent article that voting for a slavemaster of others is always immoral. If you think I have not, then I would expect more than a claim of as much, such as a philosophically sound refutation. You don't know what the slavemaster you choose will do. This simultaneously defeats the claim of self-defense and your claim that doing so would result in a net gain. This, presuming that net gain is even attainable, which my first paragraph illustrates is not. Your analogy is not analogous. Stars and planets are not people. Meanwhile, there are people that believe (seems) that certain people have magical powers that allow them to get away with stealing from, assaulting, raping, and murdering other people. That is not an insignificant perception when you consider all the statistics for democide, people jailed, arrested, or even "just" pulled over for victimless "crimes." These things happen and nothing is done about them because so many people believe (seems) this to be righteous. And why shouldn't they? After all, the very people touting ideas like property rights, self-ownership, peaceful parenting, and anarchy are willing to toss it all out the window to pretend like the system is real, works, can help, etc. If the problem is that these people's superpowers seem to be real, the adding to it is the opposite of detracting from it. You add to the problem since the problem is perceived legitimacy itself. Oh and you still don't own me. So even if you think my case is complete bullshit, you still do not have the right to choose a slavemaster for me. I do not consent! Anything to actually avoid considering a position that runs contrary to your emotionally necessary conclusion, eh? In your haste to deflect and appeal to insecurity, you failed to notice the performative contradiction as you literally just described somebody that would vote for a political candidate! You made my case for me!

Joachim, thank you for your most recent post and taking the time to clarify a previous post. I know the process can be tedious and I appreciate your investment in doing so. That said, I do wonder what your goal is. From my perspective, it would appear that you have moved the goalposts and/or engaged in bias confirmation. The titular question was "Can experience make it reasonable to believe in 'God' (or 'superguy')?" You appear to accept the fact that humans are fallible and capable to detecting that which is not there. This satisfies the question as no, experience alone does not make it reasonable to believe in God. But here you've gone and asked other questions (moving the goalposts), as if you reject the answer to your question that you were not looking for (bias confirmation). I have tasted human perfection so perfectly matched in every facet that it is by far the most compelling experience I've ever had as proof for mysticism. Thankfully, prior to experiencing that, I accepted my own capacity for error and was able to discard that theory as unsubstantiated. If I ascribed it to a higher power, this would be what's known as the God of the gaps. In other words, I couldn't explain it, therefore it must be a higher power. This is a flawed methodology. There was a time when we were able to measure the effects of carbon monoxide/radiation poisoning, but did not know what was causing it. This was an indication of our lack of experience/sophistication. Like the sunrise, how many things in human history are we able to explain that was once ascribed to higher powers?