dsayers

Also "Why is this important to you?"

With all due respect, I don't think this is a fair comparison in two different ways. First of all, a predator that hasn't the capacity for reason is not the same as human predation. Secondly, I think you'd have to frame it as somebody "preventing disease" while ignoring or even nurturing the disease for it to be comparable. Suppose child X is abused in a way so horrific that nobody in the world would NOT see it as child abuse. If ANY group swoops it to protect/support child X while making no acknowledgement of child X's parents' role in child X's victimization, they are not only turning a blind eye to the root cause, but actually contributing to the concealment of it. In a society that doesn't understand such things and therefore is largely doomed to perpetuate it until we ALL help in breaking the cycle, this is key. Add to that their stature and now media attention and this irresponsibility gets amplified. I did not read the full article and I do regret that I wasn't able to communicate my position as efficiently in my first attempt. I hope this has helped to clarify my position at least and reveal the potential harm in feel-good, do-something actions. Having not read the full article, I cannot say that's necessarily what we're dealing with here. However, the parts I did read were chocked full of flavor--red flag for me--and most certainly appeared to be heading in that direction.

I can understand that. In fact, I can sympathize. I too was one of the ones that kind of had the right idea but never understood it or knew how to put it into words. So once I found Stef, things became so much easier for me. Based on what I've read, we are in the minority. Most people who find this stuff, it makes their lives HARDER. Still, it DOES make our lives harder. Most of the narratives that serve to enslave us are momentum of the past. There are a LOT of people who have been exposed to the truth and reject it. Even if they understand it's true. Because they are afraid of how others with view/treat them for going against that momentum. People like us are still very courageous for taking on that burden. For this reason, I still say that you get the credit. Ever hear that old saying that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink? The horse does the drinking. YOU did the accepting of the truth. Was there anybody in your history who would've benefited from you not praising yourself, celebrating yourself, and/or taking credit for the positive things you've done for yourself?

Wait, what? This sounds like it would be something of a huge time SAVER. Have I misunderstood something here?

For what it's worth, as somebody that accepts that morality is objective, I personally would not watch a video that claims to talk about morality/ethics that belongs to somebody.

Still a strawman. Pointing out one way they are the same doesn't negate all the ways that they're different, including the one that matters here.

Well, individuals cannot engage in such mass theft. You need the perceived legitimacy of the government to pull that off. So step one would be to help reveal the gun in the room. However, most people are broken due to abusive homes, government schooling, nationalism narratives, religion, etc. This presents a two stage approach for the next step. First, in order to help the people who are here now, we need to up our communication skills. This means pursuing self-knowledge, learning to think rationally, identifying who we're communicating with and why they believe what they believe, and marshaling our time accordingly. This will help the dispelling of the superstition of authority spread that much more quickly and efficiently. Finally, the second prong of that fork and the final step: Inoculation. Using that communication skill and ability to ostracize to encourage peaceful parenting and ostracize those who won't and/or rescuing their children from them. This will lead to humans who do not speak the language of coercion and wouldn't dare stand for it.

I understand what you're saying. Did you notice though that "a professional comedian I don't see the same way" is a bias? I could go in a comedy club right now and get paid a night's wages and/or tips. That doesn't fundamentally change what words mean or how they will in turn be received. This is the same as saying that because somebody puts on a badge, they can do no wrong. Such an assumption means that you will miss when that is not the case because of your bias. The irony here is that from my perspective, you're essentially saying that because a person is a comedian, they are held to a lower standard of communication. While my preference is that they take on a higher standard of communication. In my opinion, that's the mark of a truly good comedian. Since you have Carlin in your signature, I suspect you might understand what I mean. Carlin was such a comedic genius, you never had to wonder if he was lying for effect because he wasn't so weak that he needed to stoop to such a level to cheat us out of a yuk.

I think it's a bullshit excuse that most accept as valid. "Funny people have no issue" means that they experience no difficulty. Meaning that they can be funny without having to make false statements; Leaving their audience wondering if they are being serious or "funny." It's cowardly to hide behind such a veil. People sometimes use humor to avoid processing emotions and/or gaining self-knowledge. Take the antz sign at work you mentioned. You're experiencing the tragedy of the commons. The people who are not behaving responsibly will not be convinced by a sign. If however they felt that they were being watched, that they would be ostracized, they would then behave responsibly for the sake of their own "survival." The antz sign is a cowardly way of communicating an idea and since it is NOT direct, will not be viewed as ostracism and therefore would not achieve its stated goal. Whomever put the sign up was managing their own anxiety by doing SOMETHING, but lacked the integrity to care or notice that the something didn't achieve their stated goal.

They don't have to be synonyms. You stated opinion as fact and I called you out on it. At no point since have you done anything other than deflect from taking responsibility for this. That's a lack of integrity and all I need to know about interacting with you.

Even if it were true, it would be a false dichotomy. Not to mention that people aren't going to know where his vote went unless he tells them. I for one am never comfortable with the "its humor" excuse. Funny people have no issue being funny without saying things that are the opposite of the truth or untrue.

I can appreciate that you've been subjected to sophisticated abusers. I have also. That's why it's easy for me to see that you're using the first thing you think you can as a scapegoat to justify not trying harder. Hell, my fiancee pulled that one on me. Do you see the irony in responding to a claim of presumption by revealing how much you were presuming? If you say what you mean and mean what you say, then you don't have to worry or depend upon what people do or do not know. But if you presume and somebody doesn't "get you," then you get to blame then, berate them, and fancy yourself superior to them. My dad pulls that shit all the time. You should save bullshit for people who can't see through it. That's EXACTLY what you signed up for when you came here

How dare you! Stef has done a lot to help a lot of people. But if you're willing to shirk the narrative and accept the truth, I would argue that that is 100% YOU-induced. What do you think?

lol. Thank you for making my point If you don't think these things can be empirically measured, then you are admitting that "greatest, most original and productive thinkers" cannot be measured. Therefore, to put it forth as if it is an objective claim above reproach is disingenuous. Kind of like claiming that nobody knows what they're talking about, but making no effort to clarify. Not an argument!

There are so many things wrong here. False dichotomy, projection, presumption, etc. Total lack of curiosity. And integrity since if that's your basis, then yes, it was indeed an assertion. I'd dissect it further, but I don't suppose at this time that it would accomplish anything for you.

I realize all I have is anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but this very much so seems like an assertion.

Topic title should have a question mark. The only "secret" to finding a romantic relationship has nothing to do with romantic relationships: self-knowledge. Up your self-knowledge and you up your immunity to bullshit and trivialities. After that, the way you approach all relationships will shape who is in your life. A quality mate will be the person with whom you are best friends. With whom your feelings mount involuntarily in response to the other person's virtues. Be honest about how you feel and don't listen to your inner-abusers; Seize the moment and understand that it's okay to be happy. Don't throw it away in an attempt to re-create the trauma of your past for familiarity's sake just because things aren't "perfect." Especially if the person was kind enough to not turn their back on you when you behaved in not perfect ways.

I'm familiar with the quote and my butchering was deliberate to imitate what you had done. Let us suppose that you read my post accurately. Did you notice how you instantly went to it being proof of something? And that you were so driven to that conclusion that you saw something in my post that made it easier to refute in your mind? The reason I ask is because you did it again. Asking what people experience when they think about death has no bearing on the (in)validity of a deity.

Saying utopia is not an argument. With the exception of the State claiming to own me, 100% of my interactions with other people take place without the initiation of the use of force. Same as your life. Joke's on you. I'm actually a private investigator with ten years of private protection experience. Thank you for pointing to love-making and calling it rape. It would appear other people understand you're full of shit also and now, they won't have to see your posts if they don't want to

FDR has covered the way giving women the vote blows up the welfare state. Recently, during the 2nd call of this show--worth listening to in its own right--Stef took the "shit test" one step further by talking about the ways that women want to fail at dominating their man because it's a sign the man has what it takes to compete and gather resources. You didn't really specify which point you wanted to refute. The main flaw I see in video is that he completely glosses over the gun in the room. The State itself. I don't put up with feminist bullshit. But because of the State, I'm forced to let in terrorists, fund women using the State to grind up men (myself included!), etc. The State responds to terrorist attacks by declaring war against its own people. And so on.

Wouldn't this make aspergers a POSSIBLE explanation, but skin color definitely NOT one? Before what? Isn't getting to know the person step one anyways?

You need to get high that much? Nobody can address the topic from a sober perspective? One of the more creative trollings. Thanks for that.

The implication being that government is A solution. Not that it matters. You don't have the right to consent to me and/or the unborn being stolen from, so your opinion isn't relevant. Also, burning your house down to preempt the possibility that you'll sustain a kitchen fire is ludicrous. Thank you for adding fear-mongering to your list of lack of integrity and awful traits.

The problem is in the definitions. Take abortion for example. EVERYBODY is pro-choice AND pro-life. The issue they squabble about is abortion, not choice or life. Same thing here. EVERYBODY is against child abuse. But what do they define as child abuse? Do they talk to the parents of abuse victims to talk about peaceful parenting so that their children are not groomed or abandoned to would-be abusers? Are they promoting peaceful parenting materials in their local communities? Are they holding parents accountable? Imagine their name was Bikers Against Botched Surgeries. If they don't know what a successful surgery is, or the myriad of complications that can arise during a surgery, how effective would they be beyond their name's sake?