dsayers

If you find a YouTube video that motivates you to share it with others, could you please include more information than just a link to the video itself? Information such as why you think others might be interested in it, what value you derived from it, etc. Not every video is for everybody and it would help everybody you're sharing it with be able to decide for themselves whether or not they'd be interested in--or even currently have the time for--it. This is my preference anyways and I'd be interested in what others think of this. Thanks.

"the child is enslaving their parents" and "an obligation exists between a parent and a child" look the same to you? (I arranged them vertically so you can see that character for character, they're nothing alike). "When parents have a child, they are creating a positive obligation to that child" (<- what I actually said; try copy/pasting and see for yourself) and "an obligation exists between a parent and a child" are not the same. You're deliberately leaving out the voluntary aspect so you can erect your enslavement straw man. Why?

No. You just said yourself that inaction isn't action. Think of the millions of different behaviors you COULD be engaging in right now. Notice how you're NOT engaging in ALL of them except one or two right now? According to you, not only could we derive millions of messages from this, but they would be explicit. This is logically impossible.

Could you knock it off with the straw men already? I thought you were better than this. ALL I have said is that you're not free in your own mind. That's it. The closest way you could phrase what you've said here that would accurately depict me would be to say that I reject the State's claim of ownership of me. If you'd like to argue otherwise, then do so. I've noticed your posts since I've pointed this out have lacked any argumentation or any accuracy. It would appear you are quite emotionally tied to your conclusion. I hope you will take the time to examine why that is, for your sake.

Show me where.

Well, it's not moral if it's backed by violence. So he believes that since people cannot be trusted, we should give a few people a monopoly on violence? That's antithetical.

False dichotomy. Perhaps this is the root of the closed-mindedness you are exhibiting on this topic. Also, how do you vote somebody in who will close the borders? You could vote someone in who SAYS they'll do X, Y, and Z. What's your recourse if they don't? WAIT X years to replace them with the next slave master who is not beholden to you? Meanwhile, I'm sitting back, fully in touch with reality. Yes, I am certain my approach is in greater touch with reason, and therefore more virtuous, which gets me greater happiness. Where would humanity be if parents took this attitude with their children? *looks around* Oh yeah, right where we're at. I'm reminded of my favorite Larken Rose quote. He said something like, "My job is I go around telling people you should be free and they tell me, 'No, I shouldn't.'"

I thought I had pointed out three times now the way your vote is accepting somebody else's claim of ownership over you. In what way is this compatible with a free society? Also, I've pointed out that the onus is upon you and that you put forth your claim as valid despite failing to test your theory. So why then are you putting it back on me, asking a question I've answered multiples times for you already? Will you not stand behind your own claim?

When parents have a child, they are creating a positive obligation to that child to nurture and protect them until such a time as they are able to do so without their parents. Since correctly identifying things is paramount to survival, this would be a violation of that obligation and therefore immoral.

It would be a waste of his time. Very archaic notions of unchosen obligations based on family and nations. A father sacrificing his own daughter after his wife allowed for such a decision to be made, because some harlot who's channeling Elvis said it would be a way for him to trade it for something worth nothing by comparison... I'm embarrassed to admit that I've watched it for these reasons.

First of all, I still have made no such claim. I'm not sure why you're so interested in hearing me say that that you're not hearing what I AM saying. Secondly, you have it backwards. YOU are the one making the extraordinary claim, so the onus of proof is upon you. What proof do you have? Can you cite a single example in history where an evil organization was converted to good by joining and adhering to its rules and changing it from within? If you believe this to be the case, why wouldn't you test your theory on a scale smaller than national politics? They say to you that they own you and here's the forms you can fill out to participate. You participate. I reject their claim to ownership of me and only play along as much as is necessary for the sake of survival. Which doesn't include voting. If you haven't already, check out Larken Rose's video called something like Mr. Jones's Plantation.

Only just noticed this post. Otherwise, I would've responded sooner. Feel free to shoot me a PM if it seems like I've dropped out of a conversation. You are incorrect in assuming my criticism is about negative effect on me and in claiming that I've prescribed an action. I would even go so far as to argue against what I think is a misguided notion that you can shrink the State from within. Like any entity, those operating in the name of the State hold self-preservation as paramount. So not only are you not free in your own mind by participating in their distractionary side show, you are also wasting time that you could be doing more productive things that might actually contribute to your stated goal. Which is your prerogative. However, when you use your voice to lead others astray, that's the point where I'm going to be more vocal to offer counterpoint and push back. To vote does not defend you, it does not diminish your attacker in any way, but instead actually indicates to them that their claim of ownership over you is accepted.

If you haven't yet checked out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series, I recommend doing so now. The relevance here is that you cannot use logic, reason, or evidence to convince somebody out of a conclusion they didn't arrive at by way of logic, reason, or evidence. And if you challenge his conclusion and fail to convince him, you will actually strengthen his resolve in the conclusion. The opposite of your stated goal! Until you understand WHY he's willing to support the use of violence to achieve his goals, you won't be able to influence that.

I wouldn't conflate implication, supposition, or projection with knowledge. All you can know by what somebody watches is what they're willing to spend their time doing. You cannot even derive from them watching it that they LIKE it. A few years ago, I was having a day where I wanted for total abnegation. I thought it probably couldn't get more mindless than Trailer Park Boys. That show has a lot of charm IMO. Since then, I've watched everything with that named slapped on it. Yet my saying/doing so literally tells you NOTHING about me. Nothing accurate anyways.

Choice is a VERY powerful motivator for humans. The beginning of my story looked like this. I wanted nothing more than to just be left alone. Then when I was in the human contact deprivation chamber, that loneliness was almost maddening. It was everything I had hoped for in my old life, where I had choice. Once I had no choice, it was unsettling to the core. On what basis did you arrive at the conclusion that he doesn't like you too much? Why would somebody who doesn't like you include you in their lives? Have you ever asked him what value you bring to the relationship? How do you know? What evidence do you have to support this? "I'm hungry." "We have some peanut butter and jelly." "I try not to eat that as I feel that's separating me from real food." "Um... but I thought you were hungry?" I would call this an artificial barrier. A self-fulfilling prophecy. My favorite person in the whole world is somebody I met online. My 2nd most rewarding relationship ever also started online. I have received financial and emotional support a couple times in my life from people who only knew me online. The list goes on. Yes, not being able to shake the hand of, hug, or look into the eyes of the person you're connecting with is a bummer. That doesn't mean it's a fake connection. There's an old nautical mantra: Any port in a storm. God damn right!

@utopian: I am sorry that your parents did not model for or otherwise teach you how to socialize and/or the importance of having a support network. I can sympathize because this was my reality also. I would like to challenge this. If I cross paths with somebody on the street and we engage in small talk, that person isn't trying to interact with ME, but rather be pleasant with the other human being in their midst. If I were to converse with them in kind, I wouldn't be erasing myself, but rather participating on a level that happens to be the nature of our relationship: fleeting. If we eat too much or too little, it is not good for us even though we appear to be surviving in the moment. As we are social creatures, human contact is another form of nourishment that we NEED. But you cannot expect to go full tilt with a stranger or hold out on a friend and be healthy despite appearing to survive. Does that make sense? I think this is important to understand because you put forth what I view as a false dichotomy which leads to the implied conclusion that you are helpless. I will be continuing on based on this assumption, so pardon me if I've misinterpreted your sentiment. A little over half a year ago, I was in defeatist mode, "happily" making myself very small and engaging in very little human contact. When I decided to branch out, I happened to meet somebody who fit me so perfectly, it was like the crack cocaine of human contact. I felt very alive and ready to conquer the world! Then that was taken from me under circumstances where I was suddenly in a human contact deprivation chamber of sorts. Well, going back to the food analogy, when you're starving, you'll eat a bug you find. Similarly, I scrounged for ANY human contact that I could get. I was desperate, but it got me through the hard times. And as luck would have it, I came away with some really solid contacts. Including a couple of people who will likely be lifetime friends and have been powerful allies that helped me to survive when survival didn't seem plausible. Which brings me to my question: What all have you done? You speak as if you believe yourself to either be helpless or out of options. How many FDR'ers have you tried to develop a personal relationship with? I know you've started a number of personal threads and garnered a number of responses. How many of them do you know anything about other than their membership status and input into those threads? If nothing else, why not? Lastly, I just wanted to tell you that I'm glad you were chasing money when you weren't chasing people. I wasn't doing that, so I am that much further behind as I rally to put my life back together. The money will at least provide you with a few more options should you choose to avail yourself of them.

Not that I agree that "Stef sez" is sufficient, but Stef's take on "talent" (which I agree with) is that it's a bullshit word inflicted by abusers to diminish one's hard work. Anything we are good at, we are only as good at it as we are because of the practice we've put into it. Besides, people are good at things they are not passionate about and passionate about things they are not yet good at. None of which lends credence to the idea that people have "a purpose in life," which is my primary investment in this topic.

This doesn't surprise me. If my question was "where can I find a unicorn," no amount of wealth, self-knowledge, or advice from others would assist me.

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. The end.

Yep. I refer to this as problem -> end as opposed to problem -> solution. So many people think that the way things are are the way they have to be or always will be. NOT teaching children the language of aggression means they will recoil from those who do. Making it less safe/easy for those who do to maneuver among us. So even if the peacefully raised child does nothing actively to reduce aggression in the world, their very disposition passively will.

Not the use of force, but the initiation of the use of force. Because initiating the use of force is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. The objective world tells us that something cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously. This sounds like you're taking the conclusion of reason and trying to make it fit. If a person steals from, assaults, or rapes me, I have not lose my capability to reason. I have on the other hand been deprived of my property by somebody who was using their property to bind me without my consent. This is an assertion. Near as I can tell, in this thread, the case you've made for this is "Rand says." But this is insufficient as a standard for determining the truth.

You're skipping a lot of steps here. You said that there is an argument that people on the island that is the UK equally own it. What argument were you referring to? Still. If I stop somebody from stealing your car, I don't own your car. Defense isn't sufficient. Plus you're talking about something that would occur AFTER ownership to pose as an argument that ownership is predicated upon (circular). Finally, they both have the "right" to ownership already. Just one has invested more into land, which is why he owns so much more. If your approach was the least bit principled, you would accept this. Doubling down. Classy. You tried to conflate rape with love-making as if they aren't the polar opposite. Anybody who accepts that truth is preferable to falsehood would "make it into an argument." Nice manipulative, poisoning the well language there by the way. I imagine your deflection and projection might be because YOU are unable to prove that the two are the same. Hence why you have yet to address it, save to claim that punctuation absolves you of accuracy: Institutionalized theft is not voluntary. Putting it in any number of quotes will not change this. Also, we don't have love-making in lieu of rape. They are simply not the same despite being mechanically identical. Do you not understand this? You weren't talking about a free society. You were talking about the entirety of the UK. This can only be attacked because it is already being attacked and held from within by the State. Without such an entity, to attack that entire piece of land would be to try and hold every square foot of it. Which would mean going up against the entire population. Which non-state mob/gang is that large exactly? You need to familiarize yourself with the concept of network strength. People don't want violence. Therefore anybody interested in violence would have to go up against EVERYBODY else. This is unsustainable. People only get away with it in the name of the State due to bribing people and/or concealing the aggression. Such as by way of conflating rape and love-making (looking at you there, champ).

I lol'ed. Because when I first started studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge, I felt somewhat like a hippie too. For me, self-knowledge and self-care (being nicer to myself) effected how I treated others. I was more firm with evil people and more caring and tender towards caring people. Then when I found virtuous love and my inner-child was taught how to trust and love, I've never been more gentle. I wonder if this directly follows given that we already know that in order to assault a child, a parent must dissociate first.

You are correct that opening a similar store next door is not the initiation of the use of force. However, this is not because of anybody's capability of reason, but because your behavior isn't binding upon the other store owner. Person X can say Y, but unless it's accurate, that doesn't mean anything. The problem with seeking out values is that they're inherently subjective. This is where I think the usefulness of objective morality shines. On top of that, it's dead simple. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. Because they're the only behaviors that are binding upon others without their consent. They're internally consistent, which means the very person perpetrating the behavior is TELLING YOU that they're in the wrong for doing so.

The analogy stands because it's point wasn't the dependency, but rather the commitment. If you commit to your relationship, it violates the commitment to farm out the relationship's duties/payoffs. Having a child means making a commitment to them. I appreciate your sensitivity in this matter. However, I think you're approaching the topic from an inferior angle. I think the first question prior to consideration is: What would the child choose if they could?