dsayers

No it isn't. It's indicative that there are different levels of the brain. In your automatic transmission automobile, you can choose when and how much to press the accelerator, you cannot explicitly choose when it will shift gears. This doesn't indicate that a person has no choice, but that there are different levels of control in concert with one another.

*mind blown* You're just repeating yourself. Which isn't addressing anything I've said. You are not stopping a disaster if you vote (so how you can make your final claim here and experience no cognitive dissonance is mind blowing). You are adding to disaster when you vote. X != -X. Choosing to not get involved is by definition a PASSIVE choice. Passive is the OPPOSITE of active. Except where it violates a contract, inaction can never denote responsibility. Still. Maybe you should start assigning blame to the responsible. When you point to NOT them, you conceal their aggression and allow for it to flourish.

When you consider the pre-cursors for a free society, you realize that things such as abortion, drug addiction, etc will not only be far less prevalent, but society at large will understand that these people are victims and need care, not violence.

Indeed. When I came to accept my own capacity for error, it humbled me tremendously internally. Externally, it allowed me to focus on ideas rather than people. I ENJOY being corrected, especially when they're correct and I adore the people who have the courage to offer those challenges in a PC world. It, and a willingness to accept such challenges are actually requisites I hold for the people in my life. In fact, the only time I address people is when they're engaging in logical fallacies, deflection, and other sub-integrity maneuvers. It's meant as an integrity check. If they respond with emotion, doubling down, ad hominem, etc then I know that the disconnect came from a lack of curiosity and/or willingness to yield to the real world. Sometimes, the respond with That's when the real magic begins!

No. You have to ACTIVELY contribute to a disaster in order to be responsible for it. You're arguing X = -X and this is in violation of first principles. You are wrong. The irony is that telling people they have to legitimize slavery makes you more culpable than you claim those who do nothing are. Of all the things you could be doing right now, you're not doing all of them minus one. Does this mean you're responsible for infinite disasters each passing moment? Surely you jest.

As always, inaction does not equal action. Also, there is a false premise here that votes matter. Finally, you have deflected and not addressed anything I've said. A little integrity please. You know I won't be distracted by anything less.

I disagree with your first point. I know I used to operate in that exact fashion. However, one of the first things Stef's Introduction to Philosophy series did for me was to help me understand my own capacity for error. This allowed me to identify my biases and rise above my initial programming that failure is not an option. As such, I've been able to embrace the ways in which I can flat out SEE SOMETHING and it not actually be there--think a stick in a glass of water being "severed" at the surface. I think it's fair to say that in this dysfunctional world, what you've said is true in most instances. But it is not absolute as you have penned it. On to your second point. I agree with this to a point. Some people will demonstrate right away that they are closed-minded and/or not curious at all. In these cases, compassion will not accomplish anything except waste your time. In fact, one of the benefits of accepting that so many people hold the conclusions they do for reasons other than logic, reason, and evidence is that it helps you to identify when you should stop since there is no potential for forward progress because they simply refuse it. In fact, I think this is a great test before starting a debate anyways. Is the debate going to be to hash out the truth? Or just take turns slamming a summary down each others' throats to practice it for ourselves. In fact, that is the danger in debating somebody who is not interested in the truth, curious, accepting of their own capacity for error, etc: That you will accidentally galvanize their resolve instead of challenge it. Stef's Bomb in the Brain series does a great job of explaining how/why this is. I also agree that public discourse is different from one on one. It allows you to plant seeds not just in the person you're speaking with hopefully, but also those who can read it. In fact, I rather enjoy that form of discourse because you can also critique the methodology in addition to the conclusions. It can help others who ARE curious to identify those patterns in themselves and people who are abusing them that they didn't realize. It's very powerful stuff.

Why do you believe this? Skewing the line between fantasy and reality in the mind of one's child is a violation of their voluntarily created obligation to protect and nurture that child, which is immoral. The damage I've suffered in my own life due to religiosity stunting my development as a mature, sexual creature might very well have effects that last my entire life. Also, saying that you can whip somebody into not murdering (for example) does nothing to acknowledge that you can also teach somebody to not murder without whipping them. shirgall wasn't pretending to speak for anybody. He was demonstrating a grasp of punctuation and basic comprehension skills. EVERYBODY who read that (and wasn't clouded with pre-conceived notions and bias) understood that this was what was being communicated because the punctuation and words explicated it.

?! The problem with pointing to a piece of paper in place of an argument is that all they have to do is write down something different. You don't have the right to own a firearm because somebody once wrote that you do; Rather because humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories. Everything else is obfuscation meant to distract people from questioning the validity of the throne.

If he says his economic plans are X, Y, and Z and he doesn't do them, what then? How much can the president do on his own? Is it righteous for one person to be in control of the money everybody's forced to use?

I found the claim that it was a win for liberty to be foolish. Instead of adjectives, I provided logic, reason, or evidence. Which you have not addressed, nor responded in kind. False dichotomy. Which I've already addressed (see hood ornament above). Also false premise in your implication that there's a difference between sub-EU UK and UK; Both are devoid of liberty as evidenced by the presence of any coercion of perceived legitimacy. Personalization. That's not what we were talking about and the answer would make no difference. You said it was a win for liberty and I disagreed with you and provided very good reasons why. Instead of assuming I'm wrong because I disagree with you, why not show me how I'm foolish and adress what was said? Of course. But that's not what's being discussed. You poison the well with your claim of "doing nothing" and "paralyzing." Accepting that people cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories isn't doing nothing; It's doing the one thing that must be done to enjoy freedom in one's own life. Also, I have argued that the "step in the right direction" fallacy is beneficial to the powers that be because it gives people the illusion of progress while they remain slaves in their own mind (the antithesis of progress). link Just because people wouldn't want to throw you in a sub-EU UK cage for disagreeing with them doesn't mean that they wouldn't throw you in a UK cage. I suspect here's a reason why you guys aren't tackling this position head on.

If you held up a sign that said 2+2=? and a monkey threw a dart and hit the number 4, no, I would not consider that a win for science. Would you? If the conclusion is unprincipled and/or the methodology was flawed, having an outcome you like is no more a win than today being sunny as opposed to raining. A group of people choosing which hood ornament is on the car that runs them over instead of choosing to not be run over and not run their neighbors and unborn children over is not a win for liberty. This is true in and of itself. When compared to the avalanche of losses for liberty allowed for and chosen by those same people, how could anybody even suggest there's an appreciable difference?

You can build a fence around your property. Let's suppose any number of your neighbors does the same. Between you, the roads between are owned by you and you construct gates and hire guards for those gates, etc. Is this comparable to a nation? I don't think so. What if instead of all the extra effort and resources, you lot simply didn't trade with people who thought it was okay to abort fetuses (the proper term, BTW)? Would people live in a place where they couldn't trade with anybody for a 5 mile radius? Or just not rent/sell land to such people? How realistic is this? Imagine 64 of you chose to do what you propose in an 8x8 grid. What if one of the center squares (to use your example) was into scantily clad? And another was into getting high? There are so many things people can have preferences for that the idea that identically minded will find each other, in such numbers, with your shared conviction of actively repelling those who disagree doesn't seem realistic. People get polarized over such things today because the State has a vested interest in keeping the slaves in-fighting to prevent them all from realizing they have a common enemy. Suppose that is true. Does knowing two languages instead of one count as thinking in different ways? Are you familiar with visualization? The brain can only juggle so many pieces of information in the moment. By writing things down or otherwise providing a visual representation, you reduce the load on your brain in the moment, allowing you to solve more complex tasks with greater amounts of information. Are you familiar with the Google effect? Once cell phones came around, people stopped remember as many phone numbers because they don't have to. This frees the mind and its memory to be able to be used for other things. I can't help but think that knowing one language instead of two would have a similar effect. Don't forget that the assertion was that multiple languages are NECESSARY. It's kind of like when somebody claims "all" and you find one example of an instance where such a claim is untrue, thus the entire claim is untrue. Similarly, I think that if you can find an example of people surviving without multiple languages, the claim of necessary is revealed as an overstatement.

I would challenge both uses of the word "nature" here. Sorry I don't have more to add. I wasn't clear if you were asking a question or what.

So much to reply to. I'll just include my reply in bold if that's alright.

If I had wasted 80 years, I would be so alone and experience the worst kind of dread knowing that my time was up and I had wasted so much opportunity. Yes, I would find a bit of solace in knowing that childhood abuse sent me down the wrong path to begin with. But that would quickly turn into sorrow and rage that such things could have such a devastating ripple effect. As it is, over the past almost 8 months, I continue to become increasingly angry as I see the ways in which these ripple effects are so powerful so far down the road in the lives of the people I care about. I am extremely grateful that I still have that much more time and will be using it to try and offset as much of that as possible in my life, the lives of those I care about, and indeed the world at large.

False dichotomy. Also, "initiating the use of force to organize" is a self-detonating claim. I'm not sure who you're speaking to. However, if accuracy is of no value, why have you chosen the specific words that you have? We think how we speak and DCLugi's post is a fantastic example of how subscribing to false narratives can artificially limit our thoughts. That's not good. Also, I don't know what Brexit is. I will make an effort to become familiarized. In the meantime, can you explain how it's a win for liberty? Did a large sum of people reject government as righteous? Did a world power collapse without it's former slaves begging for a new master to be propped up in its place?

You can do whatever you like. Just skip the nobility narrative and be honest that you're anxious and you'd rather pretend to do something than to be free within your own head.

In what way? The topic isn't about computers. If I started talking about how the local sports team was faring, I suppose one could say I was expanding the discussion. It just wouldn't be topical. Do I answer this question or do I not?

Even after pointing this out, you continue to do so. I'm also very familiar with your most recent tactic of speaking with ambiguity so that when it turns out people aren't psychic, you get to hold it against them that you didn't communicate clearly. I am so sorry that this level of manipulation was modeled for you and that you've normalized it. If somebody isn't a rapist, saying that they've raped is not okay. "It's a figure of speech," doesn't get you off the hook.

2% used to be the low end of incidence of psychopathy in humans. So let's imagine you're talking about rape. It's as if you said that you used to support people not being taught to aggress against one another. But that's too idealistic, so you would support rape if you thought it held off a murder culture. The things is, it's not up to you. You don't have the right to consent on behalf of others. Whether the UK is in the EU or not, they're still going to claim ownership over you. Participating in their game is acknowledgement that they do in fact own you. You are not helping on either count here. "Unborn humans" is poisoning the well. I'm not sure this even makes sense. How often is anybody presented with such a choice? Assuming we're talking about a free society, how often would bad decisions that lead to unwanted pregnancy actually come up? And is this geographical alliance comparable to a nation?

The 4th was never alive. You cannot give somebody imaginary powers AND limit those powers. All you can do is help others to realize that the powers are in fact imaginary.

Hello, SafetyDance. *fights urge to have good humor with username* Thank you for sharing your vulnerability. I'd like to try and help. My overarching impression of your post is that you editorialize a lot. This is not judgement as I have been SO guilty of this in the past and very much so present day. Allow me to critique if I may to show you how I mean. Why do you presume one's response? You are effectively pushing them out of a conversation you are purporting to start with them. This is not an attractive behavior. It also minimizes your own value. Which to me signals a lack of self-knowledge. If you are indeed smart, then to say so would just be stating a fact. There's nothing wrong with celebrating your strengths. Refusing to do so except by proxy is also a signal of a lack of self-knowledge. The signalling a lack of self-knowledge is important for two reasons. The first being that you might fail to attract quality people. The second is that you will likely attract abusers, social vampires, and other unsavory people. This is also one of those things that I continue to struggle with. Because even if you have self-knowledge and you achieved it by processing childhood trauma, you can engage in bad habits such as these. Does that make sense? How much self-knowledge do you have? How much did you have to make yourself small in order to survive as a child? Would you say that you lack self-confidence? At least with regards to communicating? When you do choose to communicate with somebody, what concerns do you have in general?