dsayers

Assertion, generality, and false. To me, violence is the initiation of the use of force. Force in the context of interpersonal behaviors is to bind somebody without their consent. @junglecat: You see things as fuzzy because you need them to be emotionally. Which is why you accuse people of being aggressive and/or accusing you of being aggressive.

Not even one sentence's worth of integrity? Very well... You haven't defined free speech or shown how it's being infringed. You're leapfrogging over the fact that in order to have "free speech," you have to have property rights. You ARE using your property to exercise this speech after all. You've created a specious problem. My local Taco Bell is privately owned and they open their doors to the public. Once inside, they don't make special efforts to control what people say because most people don't behave in a way that's disruptive. The idea that everything being privately owned means everybody's walled off and censored is absurd.

This is moving the goalposts. If Trump is elected, you will be violate more than you are right now because that's how the State works. Meaning all this time you've deluded yourself into believing there's such a thing as defensive voting becomes the opportunity cost of not applying those efforts and resources where they might actually make a difference.

When somebody asks who will build the roads, they are telling you that they believe what they believe because they want to believe it. There are SO many ways in which the question is WRONG that no amount of logic, reason, or evidence will change their mind. It is an act of attrition and engaging them any further is only wasting one's resources that could be better spent on somebody who is interested in finding the TRUTH.

If you want to tell people that 4 + purple = unicorn, there's nothing I can do to help. Pointing our the irrationality IS helpful. Just not to those who wish to propagate irrationality. I have no interest in being party to confusing my brothers and sisters.

First of all, thank you for your courage and sensitivity on this subject. It's not easy to break the cycle of violence! Such damage can cause ripples that would resonate destruction throughout their lives. I hope you're able to counteract this. Could you elaborate on what this looked like? Do you now instead negotiate with them and treat them as equals, rationalizing with them to encourage them to do what you think is best for them?

Yes. I indicated that I believed you meant no harm. It is a shame that you didn't find my feedback to be useful. Meaning you might later speak in such a way that might again send the opposite signal of what you intended

If you will not address accusing me of calling something aggressive that wasn't, I won't dignify your attempt to deflect from every other legitimate challenge I've presented you with.

I'll respond to this first since a couple of the others I need to respond to don't seem open at all. The ways in which voting accepts being ruled is twofold. First, there is the direct claim that the vote itself makes: I choose YOU to rule over me. If a random person demands $10 from you and isn't menacing or threatening, to give him anything is to participate in his fantasy and validating his claim of ownership over you. As I live my life as if these people aren't claiming ownership at all, not joining in their reindeer games, and encouraging others not to, I am chipping away at the mass hysteria that government is valid. Those who vote add to the myth. If you haven't already, check out Larken Rose vs Mark Skousen Debate in Anarchapulco. He destrIf you haven't already, check out Larken Rose vs Mark Skousen Debate in Anarchapulco. He destroys the concept of minarchy. That's the false dichotomy. You don't have to choose either. You can choose neither. This is how you know that the decision to not vote is valid and sustainable. No it can't. Taxes are levied under threat of violence. Nobody in the US is saying that if you don't vote, you will be violated. If you haven't already, check out Larken Rose vs Mark Skousen Debate in Anarchapulco. He destroys the concept of minarchy.t is not consistent with the NAP does not mean it is immoral NAP does not mean it is immoral Just as it is not immoral doesn't mean it doesn't substantiate the problem. There is also technically nothing inconsistent in reality about the term vegitarian, and the act of working at a slaughterhouse, because as far as I understand a vegetarian simply does not eat meat. Keep going. They don't eat meat because of values they hold that working in a slaughterhouse would be in opposition to. People who respect property rights and vote are not living their values. You cannot say voting legitimizes an idea in someones head Yes you can and you would be right. Statism is not a rational conclusion. It flourishes out of sheer momentum. Momentum that voting adds to. If those who believe in State power only because their friends and family do suddenly realized the majority of these people saw voting as adding to the enslavement of mankind, they would be more open-minded to the truth. It is not an argument to point out any single (or insignificant group of) vote as meaningless If the case being made is that to vote is to manage one's anxiety, then it is a valid argument. "Choosing evil" is not a moral argument, because the context of choice changes in a statist society, because force is initiated institutionally in a geographic territory. I wish those who need for voting to be socially acceptable would quit asserting that voting is required. It's begging the question and intellectual sloth. There ARE places in the world where voting is compulsory. This thread is an exploration of the CHOICE to vote or not. No politician is obligated to keep campaign promises, but a politician must dish out effective propaganda or else he faces to lose his position This is a false narrative that presupposes so much. Both options lie and their successors will lie. That they MIGHT lose their position YEARS down the road isn't enough to help humanity. Recognizing that the throne is invalid and that voting validates the throne is the way they ALL lose their position. A small state - a statist society - is the reason we now have the internet and are immeasurably closer to a free society than they were in practical terms. This is WAY false. The gestapo had nothing on modern day police in the US. This isn't freedom. That one could believe as much shows the ways in which it's actually WORSE than overt tyranny. Also, the idea that we wouldn't have the internet without violence? It might've come sooner, flourished faster, etc without State obstruction, regulation, etc. Just as it is not immoral doesn't mean it doesn't substantiate the problem. There is also technically nothing inconsistent in reality about the term vegitarian, and the act of working at a slaughterhouse, because as far as I understand a vegetarian simply does not eat meat. Keep going. They don't eat meat because of values they hold that working in a slaughterhouse would be in opposition to. People who respect property rights and vote are not living their values. You cannot say voting legitimizes an idea in someones head Yes you can and you would be right. Statism is not a rational conclusion. It flourishes out of sheer momentum. Momentum that voting adds to. If those who believe in State power only because their friends and family do suddenly realized the majority of these people saw voting as adding to the enslavement of mankind, they would be more open-minded to the truth. It is not an argument to point out any single (or insignificant group of) vote as meaningless If the case being made is that to vote is to manage one's anxiety, then it is a valid argument. "Choosing evil" is not a moral argument, because the context of choice changes in a statist society, because force is initiated institutionally in a geographic territory. I wish those who need for voting to be socially acceptable would quit asserting that voting is required. It's begging the question and intellectual sloth. There ARE places in the world where voting is compulsory. This thread is an exploration of the CHOICE to vote or not. No politician is obligated to keep campaign promises, but a politician must dish out effective propaganda or else he faces to lose his position This is a false narrative that presupposes so much. Both options lie and their successors will lie. That they MIGHT lose their position YEARS down the road isn't enough to help humanity. Recognizing that the throne is invalid and that voting validates the throne is the way they ALL lose their position. A small state - a statist society - is the reason we now have the internet and are immeasurably closer to a free society than they were in practical terms. This is WAY false. The gestapo had nothing on modern day p

Assertion followed by deflection and obfuscation. Strawman and VERY irresponsible to accuse me of claiming aggression where there is none. You asked what is violence and aggression. I said that in order to be able to understand this, you must first understand property rights, which stems from self-ownership. Then you said such things are useless because the chain of causality might be lied about and even demonstrated that you have no idea what aggression means. It's like saying you don't need a microscope because what you're trying to see is too small for the human eye. Madness! Once you understand self-ownership and property rights, who was the first to engage in a behavior that was binding upon another without their consent is clear. Enjoy your continued obfuscation. I tried.

An answer to a question that wasn't asked. Which is why I pointed out that that wasn't the question. No kidding. I wouldn't have corrected you by pointing out that a credible threat IS an act if you had said so to begin with. You're still trying to argue what does (not) make a threat credible. Which has no bearing on the fact that if a threat is credible, it IS an act, in stark contrast to your initial claim which I refuted. We're literally talking past each other because you won't just scroll up to try and remember what's actually been said and just repeating yourself until the other person coalesces. Intellectual sloth. Called it.

For you, there is no null hypothesis. Got it.

Thank you for sharing that. It's amazing how much a single seed can alter the landscape. For what it's worth, I don't think being shaky while addressing a child abuser is a bad thing. Sure it might signal weakness to the abusive person, but it also demonstrates fear to the child. The child who might otherwise think that the behavior is normal will see that GROWN FOLKS are terrified of such behavior. What an impact that would have in helping them to explore that fear is a healthy response instead of just accepting it as if THEY are the ones who screwed up.

I wanted to share with the FDR community a poem I've been inspired to write: Ripples How do parents have children and neglect them? Allowing the world to eat them alive. Allowing their siblings and religion to abuse them. Planting the seeds of self doubt and attack. Destroying their lives with the coming ripple effect. How? How do abuse survivors have such a joy for life? Their journey quite long and disastrous at first. Picking themselves up time and again. Courageous enough to fight for their very lives. Working hard to achieve true happiness. How? How do people doing so well think so small? Made small by their abusive parents. Made small by people who claim to care. Made small by the prison created by those seeds. Not willing to celebrate themselves. How? How do abused, small people find each other? Being honest, finding happiness, followed by love. Reverberating and building each other up. Stopping at nothing to have it all for themselves. Saving the world by not abusing their child. How? How do people who have the answers still get it wrong? Taking their happiness for granted. Mistreating those whom they love. Sabotaging the rest of their lives. Escalating from misplaced resentment. How? How do we make up for the damage we've caused? The ripples that have flowed from within us. We face what we have done, no matter the obstacles. We share with the ones with whom we've found love. We recognize that even big mistakes aren't permanent. Let the last thing we destroy be the cycle of abuse itself. That's how.

I think one of us wasn't. You cannot point to the exception to the rule to substantiate your extremely generalized claim. Especially when you consider that respect for property rights is a requisite to having no State, meaning that such organizations would have even less room to breathe in. Again, one of us is being absurd. Strawman arguments as if I said something has to be outside the universe to be inside it, talking about aliens... That's some damn fine weaseling! You were doing mental gymnastics to make your conclusion fit. You know full well the thread is talking about the State. Still.

This wasn't the question. Also, you can challenge what constitutes a credible threat all you like. The fact remains that a credible threat is an act, not a "thought crime."

I must push back on this. Telling people what they cannot do--language that only serves to make those who partake smaller--is what an abuser would do. I believe you meant no harm, but this is very important to understand. Not only is this something that everybody can do, but I would argue it potentially has the greatest effort:yield of anything else we could do to combat child abuse and save the world. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that the beauty of it is that they're total strangers. Even if somebody should botch it because they're unpracticed at it, it's not like they could cause direct harm to the child. By trying, and consulting with one another as you have, we can all get better at it.

Not even close. That's the nice thing about rationality: I don't care how elaborate a presentation you have, the moment you start talking about a square triangle, I know you're wrong. Read: Understanding isn't possible. I was trying to help you clear up your position. You have yet to even define your terms despite being challenged to do so and shown that what you offered wasn't one.

You don't see how "you are the best master" is saying "you are my master"?! False dichotomy. You've just revealed that this isn't a conversation because you're coming from a place of presupposing that rulers are valid. How many of the decision that you face in your daily life require Trump or Hillary? THIS is how voting is confirming they are your master: you're not even free in your own mind.

This isn't an argument. It doesn't even pass for an appeal to emotion. If the mother can take matters into her own hands, then why assert that it takes 2? This is like saying that it takes more than 1 person to smoke; The smoker and whomever sold, transported, made, and grew the ingredients. Absurd. As I type this on my keyboard, I scarcely see how I could empathize with it, my property. Assertion and false. Even if it were true, it wouldn't have any bearing on the (lack of) moral component of abortion. "Advocates for abortion" is poisoning the well. Also, it doesn't matter WHY I dispense with my property the way I do or if you agree with me. If it's my property, I can dispose of it however I see fit. You guys are approaching this as if the answer is subjective, which is of no use to others in an objective analysis.

People who say "I love you man" are the ones really saying "I love you man." People saying "I'm your good friend and I want to remind you of it" are the ones saying "I'm your good friend and I want to remind you of it." Saying something you don't mean is not a sign of closeness. Grabbing somebody's ass is demonstrating that your body is your property and their body is your property.

A license is proof that you've paid your protection money and that the mafia shouldn't attack you for that particular reason.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I seriously still do not know what you're trying to say while I continue to find logical flaws. Assuming it fits your unprovided definition, this would be an example of an instinct, not the definition. Isn't expression inherently external while mental activity and cogitation are inherently internal? I'm glad you've made this error because it might be indicative of the fundamental flaw I challenged in my last post. According to Google, instinct means: an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli. Stimuli comes from without, whereas a biological imperative comes from within. So my challenge was NOT a distinction without a difference.

The titular question wan't about ending the State or whether such a thing is possible. The question was is it inevitable. They're completely different because if the State was inevitable, it wouldn't matter if we could end the State since we'd just end back up with one as it is inevitable. For it to be inevitable, it would have to be deterministic, autonomic, or necessary. Since you accept that violence is the only thing that cannot be achieved without violence, this means all things are achievable without violence. If all things are achievable without violence, then violence is certainly not inevitable. By the by, the fact that only violence cannot be achieved without violence, this also answers the question of whether ending Santa Claus is possible. Phrased as such to reveal the ways in which "ending the State" erroneously presupposes its validity. Don't let them enslave you with their terminology

Sorry I didn't see this sooner. Why do you ask? Is the implication that if somebody cannot answer those questions, we've proven that people have pre-ordained purposes?