dsayers

How old was your cousin when she had the baby? Does the baby's father also want for you to be the backup parent? They seem pretty reckless. Both in terms of exposing their child to fantasy-as-if-it-were-reality and choosing for a 16 year old to be the backup parent. No offense; It's just that the human brain doesn't finish forming until about age 25. To answer your question, I agree with Queensalis that it sounds like she's looking for a backup parent, not a "spiritual guide." Since her child isn't her property, she cannot actually specify HOW you care for her child once she's gone. A (backup) parent's obligation is to nurture and protect the child until such a time as they can survive without their (backup) parents. I would argue that religiosity actually violates this obligation. So your lack of theism only means you'd be honoring that obligation more than the child's biological parents. I think the biggest question would be how willing are you to untangle the mess that somebody else has made? I think it's especially complicated when you consider that it's sort of an open-ended deal. I mean if the child's parents perish when the child is 1, 5, 10, and 15 for example, you're talking about four VERY different commitments. I would wager that you'll likely do right by the child regardless of whether there's any deals or formal titles in place. Maybe express as much to the child's parents and leave it at that?

Animals and dead humans have brains. This is not sufficient.

Poisoning the well and begging the question in the face of challenges to the contrary. This is not at all comparable to what's being talked about and is therefore irrelevant obfuscation.

Is it possible he was engaging in shorthand, a brain fart, or a particular context or resolution? Or perhaps that you are misrepresenting what he said? The reason I ask is because in his Intro to Philosophy series, he uses the example of a rod passing through the water's surface and how the eyes receive what appears to be the vision of a bent and broken rod as proof that humans have the capacity for error. In this example, our eyes are telling us exactly what they see. It is our interpretation that is flawed because of the variance in how light travels through air vs water. Somebody who understands this (as Stef does) would not say that "the eyes give a correct interpretation." Because the eyes don't actively interpret at all.

I had JUST pointed out that it is immoral because it violates the voluntarily created obligation created to it. If you disagree, you can say that. Please don't try and talk with me if you're not also going to receive what I say. That's unjust. The oatmeal I am ingesting right now is not my cells either. However, assuming it was mine to eat when it was ingested, once in my body it is still my property because my body is my property. I had made this point already in this thread. I know the thread is long, but I would urge you to read the entire thing as this has all been covered already. Also, it's not MY definition; I'm merely observing reality and applying consistency in philosophical approach.

Sorry if what I was saying was ambiguous. I was talking about using an internal conversation to process a manipulator's attempt to manipulate you, and then sharing it with part of your support network. Somebody who is trying to manipulate you should be a separate set of people from those who are your support network.

Dude, you have to stop trying to talk for other people. It only serves as a confession that you are insecure, if only with regards to the validity of your opinion. Thank you for making the effort to define your terms. Every one of those things could describe a rapist. Stef recently began to describe what an alpha male is here: He stopped there because he was tailoring it to that particular caller. I would add to that list strength, intelligence, empathy, and integrity. I hope you will pardon my bias. This is a concept I was re-calibrated on back in January. I am very passionate about it. The world is drowning in State delusion and ideological warfare. Virtuous people need to be able to find one another. One of the ways these opportunities are crippled is when terminology referring to good and bad people get conflated. Humanity needs to understand that alpha males are NOT the jock douchebags. They're the men who will reject non-virtuous women, who will not attack their children, who will not let the most dangerous superstition of "authority" flourish, who will call out and ostracize toxic people, and will run back into the burning building of narrative time and time again to rescue every last person that wishes to be saved. THAT is who we are. Thank you for your time.

You're combining two separate points. Phrased more accurately, 1) abortion is amoral because a fetus is not a moral actor and 2) the male donor cannot force the woman to carry to term because it IS her property, like all other cells on her person.

That wasn't my point at all. My approach was prevention vs cure. Children who are peacefully raised will choose not to risk pregnancy prior to being ready for such commitments in every way. You were talking about how to deal with polio after polio has been cured. It's a non-issue. I'm not sure I understand the question. However, both parents voluntarily create a positive obligation to protect and nurture their child until such a time as it is able to do so themselves without their parents. It would be like asking how would we reconcile that McDonald's owes you the burger that you paid for. That was the deal. Could you point out how there's something that needs to be reconciled?

To add to this if I may: By visualizing arguments with irrational people, I get the benefits of protecting myself from their manipulation attempts without the nasty side effect of "wasting my time" actually talking with them directly. In my experience, it has lasting effects also. I remember when I first started thinking rationally, pursuing self-knowledge, and pushing back internally, a manipulator's attempts would weigh on me all day long. It really bothered me because it felt as if they had "succeeded" in their attempt by literally taking my day away from me. However, as I embraced these internal dialogues, the amount of time I spent on these attempts shored up really quickly. Now, the worst of times maybe gets about a half hour of my divided attention before I consider it processed. It also helps to have a support network you can share these dialogues with. To not only hone your own capabilities and build a bond with that person, but also to help not internalize it or dwell on it longer than is beneficial.

As long as you know the difference between reality and fantasy, I don't see how anything that goes on in your mind can be inherently bad. Whether your mind is exploring different outcomes or just amusing itself, it sounds like it wouldn't be a waste of your time. The human imagination is why we've come as far as we have.

You can cite the data, but I don't think you can presume the motivation. I would avoid the most attractive women pretty much for the reasons NotYetDark mentioned. I'm not closed-minded to the possibility that an attractive woman could have chosen a path of integrity. But I am mindful of the fact that it's improbable. I would push back on this also. First of all, what is your definition of an alpha male? Secondly, you're talking about online dating. There is nothing to lose in approaching whomever you choose. So I think it's presumptuous to think that approaching somebody is with the expectation of success. Some of them could be employing a shotgun approach.

But politicians, police, and others who work for the State are not responsible for their actions according to the State. As a requisite of their job, they engage in behaviors that everybody else would be put through courts over.

Why do you need area and standing up? You can be free within your own mind RIGHT NOW. Those who are help those who aren't. State power is found in perceived legitimacy and slave on slave violence. Both of these exist in the mind. So it is in the mind where change can be made.

Strawman and moving the goalposts. I didn't say didn't stop any because you didn't. You indicated that it had stopped it full stop. I pointed out that didn't. You indicated this was a reason to abide institutionalized violence (a decision you don't have the right to make) and it's been shown to be a sham. If you were a person of integrity, you would have pause, and motivation to revisit your position. Instead of mocking and emotionally responding without argument. It creates WAY more than it stops. But this is an argument of utility anyways. All that matters is that the initiation of the use of force is immoral.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? I don't think it is accurate. Ironically, your post already implies that collectivism is flawed.

You don't burn your house down to avoid the possibility of a kitchen fire. Also, the State has stopped none of those things. It just puts people like you into mental prisons and tells you that they do. So participate in the sham even though you know it won't change a thing. Thank you for making my point. Not really. I stopped reading at moral to be at the top of a building. I don't like obfuscation.

Haven't you heard? Know means know! This is a performative contradiction. How do YOU know what "know" means? Or what how, do, you, what, certain, or means means?

Why would you want to preserve institutionalized violence? Or tell people to embrace those who think they're slaves? How do you know that voting Trump will get him elected? How do you know that getting him elected will "preserve Western civilization"? How do you define "Western civilization"? Sorry, but this advice seems totally devoid of rigor. You can't abolish Santa Claus. Though you can convince people that he doesn't exist. But suppose your claim was true. How does perpetuating govt. lead to its abolition? Seems counter-intuitive to me. Sometimes you just have to let the junkie crash. Prolonging his suffering isn't compassionate at all. You're essentially sacrificing future generations for the sake of your comfort in the present. I would encourage you to reconsider.

This will only lead to a deeper declaration of war against everybody by police and "authorities." It's not going to stop a single police brutality in the future and may even create more. Violence achieves the opposite of one's stated goals.

When I was in government schools, there were groups projects. Meanwhile, I work with people who only hang out after work because they work together (proximity). So I wouldn't say that schools don't mimic that. I wonder though why even look at "dominant" culture? If the dominant culture is slavery and slavery is wrong, let's raise our children to think rationally, accept that slavery is wrong, and let the dominant culture shift accordingly. Culture is momentum, but it's not ordained or immovable. I think it might be healthy to help children understand how ugly the world is/can be, but not to normalize them for it with or without school.

I'm having a hard time following this, so I apologize if this is a lacking on my part. To me, it seems to fail the five year old test, so my initial reaction is to regard it as obfuscation. As I type this, I am NOT eating a carrot. However, you cannot infer from this that I have ACTIVELY chosen to not eat a carrot or that I even considered as much before typing. As such, if political voting is a thing and some monster gets elected, you cannot say that the people who did not vote added to this outcome was my initial position. To pass the five year old test, it simply comes down to one of the first principles that X cannot equal the opposite of X. Action can never be conflated with inaction.

Would you be amenable to discussing these things further? I would be interesting in trying to identify the disconnect and fleshing out where we stand. If it's okay, I'll start with three things that I think help me to arrive at my position. First of all, the ingenuity of my fellow humans. There are so many things from agorists to Bitcoin that serve to subvert the State in terms of satisfying human desires without violence. Seems like there are more every day. Similarly, there are more and more people every day who are coming to realize that things aren't right. They might not be able to identify what it is or find the words to describe it and so they might not approach it in the purest forms, such as settling for anarchy, accepting that police brutality isn't an isolated incident even if they don't see police as general as violence incarnate, etc. Which brings us to... Secondly, Stef once said that to see the farm is to escape it. I am so thankful to have had that pointed out to me because I too was once in the camp of wanting to do SOMETHING. Not realizing that what I was being told was something either achieved the opposite effect of my stated goals or did nothing at all, while believing that helping people to see wasn't actually doing something. Yes, if everybody said TODAY that they can see the farm, this wouldn't be the end of the story. But frankly, I don't care to try and manage what Tom, Dick, and Harry do once they see the farm. I'll let them figure that out for themselves. There are plenty of resources already and I'd gladly help as much as they'd like me to as I'm able. Finally, there is the eventual certainty. Larken Rose once gave a very powerful speech comparing statism to the geocentric model of the universe. They used to kill and harass people to prevent the truth from getting out. But information--particularly the TRUTH--wants to be free. You can't stop it. You can slow it down. You can delay it. But you cannot halt it. Statism is the same way. The seeds are already sown and continue to be sown. Try as they may, they cannot stop it. I actually had tears in my eyes the first time I heard Stef give a similarly impassioned diatrabe about how the personhood of children is coming. Like blacks in America and women too, the equality of children is unavoidable. These ideas make me VERY happy for the future of humanity.

The internet has all but rendered geography obsolete. Also, if we avoid going here or there because we assume that only poor stock frequents there, we make it a self-fulfilling prophesy. Both for ourselves and that special somebody that really wanted to meet you tonight. To me, a lifetime of happiness and virtuous love are worth every effort. Do whatever you can to achieve it and once you find it, never let it go. Problems call for solutions, not the end of the story.