dsayers

I've made a couple points that this quote seems to completely ignore. The first being that what you just said is how it already is. Suppose ghosts exist. Either they will impress upon our senses or they will not. If they do not, then for them to exist or not would functionally be no different. If they're in by default, then defining what they're in or not is functionally identical, no? Secondly, I had pointed out that there are people out there that will tell you without any cognitive dissonance that they accept that human interactions "should" be voluntary. Meanwhile, they support taxation, foreign wars, domestic "wars," assaulting and mutilating children, etc. If you disagree with these points or find flaw in them, please address this. I don't consider such people in MY tribe whereas I DO consider those who accept that humans both cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories and have the capacity for error in my tribe. My second point addressed this difference and you've responded as if my challenge wasn't present without addressing why it should be discarded.

I'm not sure I understand the question though. In your opening post, you even asked why should you have preferences. It's autonomic that you have preferences, so I'm not sure where "should" enters into it. How do you know? You seem conflicted and it would seem that in this topic, you're seeking answers to numerous questions. These are not traits of somebody who is calm on the meta level. So why not give yourself that permission? Since you're used to living for other people (as was I), try this out: Try living for future you. Would future you benefit from you sitting around, being calm and contented, possibly rejecting reason? I think not. I had something of a breakthrough a couple days ago I'd like to share with you. I recently started working out to improve my health, my mind-body connection, my self-care and self-love, and so many other ways I had been failing future me. When my buddy who helped get me into it was going through the basics, he said to me that you want to break a personal record every workout. My immediate emotional reaction was to push back. I wasn't looking to become Sylvester Stallone, just up my health some. Right away, I saw results that suggested I might be a hyper-responder. I'm not used to having genetic gifts (quite the opposite usually), so I wanted to explore that more and decided to push myself a little bit. This mostly manifested by way of increasing reps per set instead of increasing weight and/or swapping out for more challenging exercises in a particular category (such as push, pull, etc). I've been conversing with him the whole time, and even asking about how to know when to step up weight instead of stepping up reps for example. Two workouts ago (four days ago), I swapped out one hinge exercise for another as I felt I wasn't getting enough from it. Sure enough, the next day my hamstrings were sorer in a good way. BUT by time I had gotten to the intervals section of the workout (tail end), I felt I had more in me. I even pushed myself pretty hard during intervals and when all was said and done, I still felt I had more in me. In other words, I felt like I hadn't gotten everything out of the workout that I could have. So the last time I worked out (two days ago), I decided based on my success in swapping out an exercise, that I was going to re-examine my workout. I decided to swap out a couple exercises. I decided I was going to start stepping up and/or adding weight rather than reps. THEN I decided instead of just going to a target rep, I was going to keep going until I got the muscle fatigue you want to shoot for. This was a three stage approach to my limits. Keep in mind the program I'm using is about proper form and steady gains, so I wasn't going "all out" or really risking injury or anything like that. That workout KICKED MY ASS in the best possible way. But the point is in what it did for me mentally and in turn emotionally. This was me exploring my limits instead of deliberately holding back for comfort's sake. It felt so damn good! Like you, I had spent my life living for others. So even once I felt "free," I still kept myself small out of habit. I was exploring my limits or fully applying myself. As a result, the me of today is worse off than I could've been. So now, I'm doing what I can to make sure future me (even the me of tomorrow) has the best possible set up. It's a way to help make sure my abusers no longer harm me in the present. On a side note, yesterday, I felt great. It didn't feel like I had destroyed myself or anything. I got all of the benefits and no unsavory side effects. So today, I will continue this new "trend" and continue to work as hard as I can to give future me all that I can because I love him and he deserves better. How about you?

This is the part that I feel incompatible with though. What is meant by defines the group? I'm not one for labels for the way they DIVIDE people, even within that label. Truthist is the only label I'd self-apply. There's other people out there that accept their capacity for error and will yield when the truth supersedes their own feelings or beliefs. While I consider these people my tribe, I cannot imagine making a club or signing a petition or anything formal like that. Reality just is. It's the people who reject this that wouldn't fit in and they're the ones forming clubs to help their deflections feel more satisfying. I wouldn't want to emulate that. I'm not saying you're wrong for trying. I'm saying that I don't understand the drive to formalize. To me, it's akin to forming a league of Santa non-believers. What would that even mean or accomplish? People don't reject taxation = theft because they don't understand it. It's because there is something out there (government) which people widely believe in that allows them to pretend it's not true. To them, taxation IS voluntary. Because you choose to stay where there's a government, and you use it's "services", and you're just paying your fair share, like paying rent to your landlord. Of course these are fallacious claims; My point is that understanding isn't the issue I don't think.

What's wrong with selfish? Every breath you take, you are being selfish. Without YOU, there's nothing else you can do really. Meaning other people will benefit from the ways in which you are selfish. The only people that would try and convince you that selfish is inherently bad are those that benefit from erasing you. Those that care about you will recognize that you are 50% of the two of you. Take this post of mine right here. I'm speaking to you and trying to provide value for you. This is not a selfless act. I'm getting something out of this or else I wouldn't be doing it. That's an inalienable feature of being an organism capable of perishing. PLEASE reconsider. It is my opinion that this statement can never be true. For as long as you're alive, the clock is ticking and new experiences--new things to process--are being amassed. Besides, if self-knowledge were "fully achieved," I don't think you could be experiencing this conflict, eh?

I'm trying to figure out why people are looking to formalize this. Especially by way of emulating the State with things like "Constitutions." Even something as simple as saying all human interaction SHOULD be voluntary is making things more complicated than they need to be. Humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories. That's a fact. Once can derive from that truth that behaviors that are binding upon others without their consent is internally inconsistent; What I feel to be the more rigorous way of stating that all human interactions ought to be voluntary.

Yes, I am immune to projection.

You own yourself and the effects of your actions for the same reasons everybody else does. This does not place anybody in different moral categories. It's not comparable to "law" because the ruling class doesn't own you or your land but still threatens you. You're not even trying at this point. Poor prisoner.

I'm really sorry that you were so destroyed that you can experience this level of identity crisis and/or lack of purpose/direction. I'm 40 now it wasn't long ago that I felt like life was over. Then I found that to not be true at all and that the most wonderful things in the world were MINE and because I had worked so hard to earn them. Then I had them all stripped away from me. I had every reason to quit, give up, yield to unhealthy impulses, etc. But the fact is that there IS a tomorrow. There is more to come. This is why you don't throw it away on self-destructive behaviors. Which living inconsistently will do. I think the main problem here is that as you've identified, you've been living for others. Were this not the case, the fact that your preferences have no objective value (no such thing BTW) wouldn't bother you because you'd be living for YOU. This is why self-knowledge is so critical. It makes all of this easier to prevent, survive, and maneuver within. I would wager that the source of the damage that has led to you where you find yourself was inflicted upon you by your parents. Where self-knowledge almost always invariably begins. Have you connected with that? With how you feel about that? That the very people who were supposed to build you up crippled you to the point where building yourself up is such a challenge that forces to have to play catch up first? I'd be interested in hearing more when you have your thoughts a bit more gathered. It was hard to read between the lines as to what you're actually looking for.

That's like saying that a kid playing D&D is a murderer. You're conflating trauma + imaginary power with human nature and you couldn't be more wrong. Without the government or police, these people would never think to actually steal from you. Think of this as the agent training program in the Matrix. The people around you that you're referring to are victims too. YES they are a threat to you for as long as the Matrix exists and they are plugged into it. But unplugging them is all you need to do. In reality, this takes place by way of spreading the word about peaceful parenting so that these people can think and make principled conclusions. As it stands, they are simply people doing what all animals do: Gathering as many resources as efficiently as possible. When you want to travel 5 miles away, how often do you walk? How often do you instead grab your bike or your car because it allows you to achieve your goals more efficiently? Without the State, these people would be forced to acquire resources more directly.

Nice try slipping in "rules aka law" as if the words are interchangeable. There's a reason you cannot address the subject matter head on. If I choose not to sell my property to somebody for any reason, that's not a rule. That's not a law. That's me dispensing with my property as I see fit. You're a rapist. I guess we both get to make baseless, insanely wrong accusations. There is nothing chaotic about respecting property rights and accepting that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories, asshole.

I really appreciate the honesty and empathy in your post here I wouldn't say it is superficial. NOBODY is perfect. Even if she was well-steeped in self-knowledge, if she was damaged, it's entirely possible she could find herself in a situation so stressful that she would default to her initial programming. This is actually why I had asked if she was triggered. There were a couple times when my fiancee had been triggered and actually attacked me. It was nothing like her at all. For this reason, I set aside my injury in the moment, fought her inner-abusers for her, and rescued her from them. If you are committed, then I think this is a very appropriate and loving thing to do. Which is why it hurt so badly when the one time *I* was triggered (by her no less), she turned her back on me and wasn't there for me when I needed her most. I'm still having a hard time squaring this circle though. On the one hand, you say that she gets you and you find value in having somebody you can be uninhibited around. On the other hand, you say that you're only married to her because you were a Christian. The violent deconversion leaves you a different person. I get that. But what's important to you here? You're talking about the rest of your life. Did you two talk about her suicide attempt afterwards? Is she doing anything to address this in her so that it won't happen again? Would you be willing to accept staying in a relationship just to be their crutch?

I would prefer that you experience cognitive dissonance when you make self-detonating claims. I would prefer that you not validate the State by prophesying the necessity of patronizing it. Why do your preferences trump mine? You can NOT abolish the practice of people dressing as politicians and army men because you would need politicians and army men to erect/enforce such an abolition! The point was you put words into my mouth because you like to strawman and I never spoke of abolishing the bogeyman because I accept that he doesn't exist. IF what you're trying to claim was true, that would be the reason for tolerating it, not its lifeblood. But this too is a self-detonating claim. Because in your life, you interact with EVERYBODY without initiating the use of force. So your claim that there is no way to accomplish your goals without violence is false. There is nothing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence except violence itself. Your inability to imagine (or indeed observe in your own life) the ways we could do X, Y, and Z without violence is no excuse for telling the beast that you are indeed its supper, and so are all your neighbors and their unborn children.

Gravity is a law. The word you're using is describing commands backed by threats of violence, which is NOT consistent with voluntarism. When I voluntarily create an obligation to somebody, it's called a contract. "Laws" cannot be enforced in the absence of rulers. This is another example of trying to project the mechanics of statism onto a free society. You don't need people to commit to not steal, assault, rape, and murder because those actions in themselves a confession that the action is wrong/actionable. What else is there for voluntarists to agree upon that could accurately be described as a "law"?

Strawman. I said fetus. I'm sure staff has more important things to do than dealing with somebody whining that they don't want to be called out when poisoning the well. It's a philosophy forum, eh?

What does this look like? Also, I know my last post was late to the party, so I wanted to point it out since it kind of got buried under other posts that went live faster. I made some points and asked some questions and am curious as to your thoughts/answers.

I wish you could leave your cage like on a furlow or something so that you could see how ridiculous it is to use a phrase like "abolish Santa Claus." I can see it, which is why I've never said such a thing. You would be wrong. Of all the near infinite things you could be doing right now, you're inactive towards all of them but one. You'd have an easier time arguing there is no such thing as action based on sheer volume alone. Perceived legitimacy is the lifeblood of the State. Voting adds to this.

Agreed. My input only built off of your input by adding the necessary ingredient of acceptance for one's own capacity for error.

Credible threats are acts.

"I would think PETA would support the idea of people banding together to create their own communities with their own animal abuses."

That's a good point. With only 3 posts, I have to ask: Why take a path of little/no resistance? That's no way to build a muscle or arrive at the truth.

You cannot own part of another person. Also, whether a fetus is the property of the mother is not up for debate. You'd have to assail self-ownership itself.