dsayers
-
Posts
4,319 -
Joined
-
Days Won
95
Everything posted by dsayers
-
BSBS Review: Me Before You -- Legal Assisted Suicide
dsayers replied to MysterionMuffles's topic in Reviews & Recommendations
I would agree that it's a valid exercise of self-ownership. IN FACT, the only part of suicide that is a violation of property rights is NOT planning it out. Because at the very least, you force others to clean up after you and your things. Making arrangements in advance addresses this. I'm not sure what the question legally allow means. "Legal" means people will not threaten and assault in the name of the State. "Allow" suggests that it's up to us. So "legally allow" would mean it's up to us to decide if people should be threatened or assaulted in the name of the State. I don't think there's any topic that question could be asked of that the answer would be yes because the State is invalid. -
It wasn't a cultural commentary. It was a philosophical absolute. No, I see all too much of it. I'm pushing for a higher standard of human interaction by challenging what I see as the repackaging of insecurity as closeness when I think they are actually in opposition of one another. I'm happy to hear arguments for the contrary. Something better than claiming to come from a place where universals do not apply please
-
I don't see how using one forum precludes me from using others. I also don't see how this proves that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. I'm not going to put more effort into your communication than you are.
-
I don't follow. You suspect that one or two employees of Barnes and Noble deliberately refused to sell you a book, so everybody should "boycott" twitter and facebook? Wouldn't it make more sense to contact somebody higher up in Barnes and Noble to either get a copy of the book, check whether or not it had actually been sent away, or report your suspicions? I also don't see where there's censorship.
-
You said that already. And then I said "I'm not interested in how you manage to reject what was said; It was true. And was in response to something that wasn't an argument. And DID have several arguments. More honest would've been to post that my words didn't conform to your bias." I didn't reference your six paragraphs. I referenced one sentence that was irrelevant. If you accept property rights, then voting is not living your values. I don't care if you think you have reason to believe that less rape is somehow better. You don't have the right to support rape or to lead others astray by modeling as much. Look at places where people are disarmed and believe in the legitimacy of the State to see what? To see how behaving as if the State is valid will protect us? To see how poisoning the well by suggesting that rape can be reformed to something better is accurate? Why not look to history to see all the many times people have tried this exact same crisis du jour as a ploy to perpetuate and grow State power. The State isn't protecting you. It's stealing from your children and if you look around this thread, your neighbors are largely cheering them on. Your loss.
-
Pointing to a church isn't proving there's a deity.
-
-
I think you mean where his words fall short. So many people involved in the subject keep forgetting that his words are not binding an there are no consequences for not adhering to them. Also, what difference would it make how anybody agrees or disagrees with him on? The fact remains that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories. The throne itself is invalid. It matters not who sits on it. This is all a HUGE distraction from the these facts.
-
I'm not interested in how you manage to reject what was said; It was true. And was in response to something that wasn't an argument. And DID have several arguments. More honest would've been to post that my words didn't conform to your bias. This is poisoning the well. Rape cannot be "reformed" to the "better." All we can do is accept that it is a violation of property rights and not pretend like we are being noble for tolerating it in magical ways that will somehow improve the world.
-
If you're not initiating the use of force, I don't see how "right" can be answered, nor how "beat" could apply. You're changing everybody you interact with always. It might be negligible. It might not manifest today. It would be like asking if it's right to make a conscious effort to inhale through your nose and out through your mouth. You're breathing anyways, so what could be wrong in trying to make the most of it? Or developing good habits? A quote I found recently that I quite like: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." -Eleanor Roosevelt
-
SO WHAT?! Voting for the "lesser" of two villains is still voting for a villain. You don't have the right. Instead of using your understanding that government is a violation of EVERYBODY's property rights to lead others to the truth, you are telling the villains they are righteous and leading others by example. And worse here by trying to justify it.
-
How do you know what you're passionate about?
dsayers replied to Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit's topic in Self Knowledge
@Ferssitar: I don't see how anything you've said lends any credence that people have purposes in life. What is the null hypothesis? -
Free Speech Is A Government Program
dsayers replied to Will Torbald's topic in Libertarianism, Anarchism and Economics
This bullshit was already refuted. -
In what way is it not a concept? Wouldn't you agree that anything we can communicate about is a concept? If we couldn't conceptualize something, how could we process thoughts of it and then communicate those thoughts? As with the titular question, just because it describes an interaction doesn't preclude it from also being a concept. Also, I don't know if you saw my last question, but I was genuinely curious.
-
Yep. Trying to keep the junkie comfortable just prolongs the suffering and delays the potential for restoration. Sometimes you have to just let them crash so that they can start to rebuild. Look at Obama's term. Freedoms are at an all time low, approval is at an all time low, massacre in the name of the State is at an all time high, especially domestically... More people are awake than ever and have a voice than ever. To vote when you know better is to undermine all of that. It's to choose comforting your own anxiety's in the moment at the expense of your children's freedom. Shame on all who know better and do it anyways.
-
Such poisoning of the well. It's like saying anti-Santa Clausist. People who reject the validity of the State do so because they rightly are "anti" aggression. "Anti-statist" makes it sound like an opinion AND as if statism was the origin.
-
Pardon my off-topicness, but what are the other two?
-
Strawman.
-
@jpahmad: You can claim self-defense all you like. It's not accurate. I've twice pointed out how you claim the behavior is to avoid X, yet that behavior will still lead to X. There's nothing defensive about it. I've pointed out how Trump isn't bound by anything he says. I've pointed out that the idea that one person can even make such changes by themselves is mythical. You believe what you believe because you want to believe it. It's okay to have opinions and preferences. Just don't state it like it's backed by rigor, especially when it will potentially lead others to remain enslaved and condone humanity's enslavement. Saying "platitude" is just a way to marginalize what's being said. If it's so inaccurate, show how. As opposed to moving the goalposts, making assertions, and deflecting from challenges. You have no reason to suspect this, so it must be to poison the well. I've already accepted that you're not free in your own mind. I point out that you are living in contrast to your stated values because I wish to invoke cognitive dissonance. If not in you, then in the people you are leading astray hopefully. The bevvy of downvotes with no rigorous refutation lends credence to my claim that this is an emotionally arrived at conclusion.
-
Backpedaling and personalizing. If you have challenges to offer, then offer them. This passive-aggressive behavior isn't productive. An unconscious person cannot consent. However, it is reasonable to assume that if they could, they would. This is implied consent and is valid. Of course babies are in a separate moral category.
-
See, a curious person would look into how they're moving the goalposts. If they were unable to find it, but are committed to integrity, would then ask how. Rather than just claiming they're not. You said here in this thread that voting is like paying taxes. When I demonstrated how they're not, you moved the goalpost to claiming that "letting" Clinton get in would lead to more of a violation. When I demonstrated that your action plan to avoid that outcome would achieve that outcome, you moved the goalpost to voting doesn't take long. In other words, there's no null hypothesis for you and therefore this isn't a conversation about the truth, but rather your prejudices. There are people that think "paying one's fair share" is a valid principle. This doesn't mean they get to steal from everybody. Also, "principle" is not the ace of spades that wins a discussion. You've been shown the ways in which your "principle" (I think you mean value) is flawed. Yet you cling to it, revealing it's not a principled conclusion at all.
-
No, sir. I apologize if my feedback was at all ambiguous. I'll try to elaborate here. Imagine there is a person here on FDR who grew up in an abusive, traumatic home. They've found FDR, they're exploring self-knowledge, they accept the evils of child abuse, but think themselves too small to make a difference or too timid or unpracticed or whatever seeds of doubt and attack their abusers have left in them that they might use as an excuse to not get involved. Now imagine they read a post saying that confronting child abuse in public places isn't for everybody. From their perspective, you've validated their defeatist approach. I would wager this wasn't at all your intention. So my feedback was to encourage you to be more careful with how you express such things. Then I went on to try and counteract it by showing it's not only for everybody, but it's low risk and will potentially have substantial yield even in their own lives. I hope that's cleared up my push back. If not, please let me know if/where/how I can elaborate further. I do appreciate you taking the time to try and understand feedback you're being offered.
- 37 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- Child Abuse
- Confrontation
- (and 3 more)
-
Moving the goalposts.
-
More moving of the goalposts. Have it your way... To do list of every entity: 1) Survive 2) Thrive You're asking how an entity with mass hysterically held superpowers thrives when people are lining up to tell them how legitimate they are? It sounds like asking me how I know that B comes after A in the alphabet. That trip down the street comes after all the time you've spent telling the world that defensive voting is tits. After making videos telling people how they ought to vote. After taking the time to learn about throne sitter du jour and what impending disaster is in vogue... The list goes on. I don't care how effortless it is to remain a slave in your own head. YOU have the tools to not be a slave in your own head and I want this for you. I'm currently in the process of making up for many years of bad health choices. Like you, I would love to believe that there's a pill I could take or a girdle I could slap on. It would make me feel as if I'm doing SOMETHING, but it would do little more. So instead, I'm eating right and exercising and the results are coming along nicely. I know that you accept property rights. All's I'm saying is you should live those values. It's even easier than the trip down the street.
-
Congratulations on your engagement. I am VERY happy for you both!