dsayers

Culture is so ridiculous. People are being murdered and stolen from all over the world every day, but hey, pork EEK! And a lot of that killing and stealing is because of these kinds of arbitrary standards. It seems the family is okay with inflicting conclusions rather than sound methodology. This is harmful to the child. Thinking somebody is a bad person means his potential future support net is now what, like 60-70% smaller? How is that protecting, nurturing, or preparing the child for life without his parents? I think I might've asked how he knows. Either as the first question or as a follow up question. It sounds like the way he blurted it out and followed up without hesitation that he has no expectation that this position would be controversial. I think asking questions that would help him to find that his conclusion is unprincipled, if only to plant the seed of doubt in his mind to make him more skeptical in the future. Though at 11, it's probably too late I think at this point, I might ask to speak to the parents and share these concerns. Then again, I don't know the culture where you are. If your family would become outcasts for questioning the validity of cooking with bacon makes somebody a bad man, then I wouldn't do that.

You're leaving out the most prominent feature of that opening post: Do you think that the accusation of saying people should be drug out into the street and shot is a light one? Do you think that somebody who could make such a demonstrably false accusation, and later try to minimize and cover it up is somebody who should be taken seriously, let alone coddled? Your thread is about methodology of communication and you've deliberately left out the part of the story that makes your claim of it asking "an honest question" go from true to false. I'm sort of curious what you have to gain by misrepresenting that thread. I'm also curious how, if methodology of communication is your interest, why you'd be talking to those who responded to him instead of to him. If you see somebody committing a rape, you should restrain them first. You can worry about communication methodology afterwards. I for one will not let lies and manipulation (damaging behaviors) go unchecked. If he wants to have an honest conversation, I would say he's welcome. Until that time, it's not my job to babysit him. We've had the internet for a while now. Anybody who was curious about these topics could find the answers they seek. That person was not curious. He was hostile, accusatory, manipulative, and dishonest. Shame on you for trying to conceal this.

Before I had self-knowledge, I was a relatively destructive suitor. As I grew "closer" to a significant other, I became increasingly resentful at the way they didn't care for me unconditionally. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was trying to get from them something I never got from my own mother. Or perhaps more accurately, something I DID get from my own mother up until the point where my parents divorced, she had a lot less time for us due to having to enter the work force, and we were old enough to ask questions, dramatically reducing our cuteness value. One of the greatest gifts self-knowledge has given me in the realm of inter-personal relationships is the understanding that the parent-child relationship is the only time in a person's life when somebody else is fully committed to your needs at the expense of everything else. While I don't think this is exactly what you're referring to, I wonder if it doesn't help to reveal the folly and pitfall of trying to romanticize or cling to the past. The other thing to keep in mind is the way the brain works in terms of memories. We're not like gigapixel cameras. We store pieces and when we try to retrieve a memory, our brain reconstructs it based on those pieces. Like a vinyl record, the more you try and play it back, the more you wear it out. It's probably better to hold onto how such times made you feel. Why did they make you feel that way? This is self-knowledge and will help you to recreate that feeling in your current life. Just as somebody who lacks self-knowledge will recreate trauma of their past because that provides a sense of normalcy for them. Does this help at all?

When I first learned of the backfire effect, I was surprised. However, I think it logically follows. If somebody tries to change your mind and fail, then you feel as if your conclusion isn't just something your daddy told you, but also something that could survive scrutiny, therefore it must be correct. Standing up to be tested further affirming something's truth value is quite rational. The problem is that the reason why somebody might feel their position was unassailed was for irrational reasons. Some people reject taxation is theft not because it's actually voluntary, but because that would mean they're a victim of induced mass hysteria and everybody around them doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. They NEED for taxation to not be theft to be comfortable around other people, which is fundamental to survival. This is why I waited a good six months chewing on such anti-narrative ideas before I began speaking on them. I didn't want to misrepresent them and effect the opposite of progress. It's also why it's so important to understand WHY somebody believes something they do before trying to dismantle it. Something I fail at myself more often than not For more on this, I think the Bomb in the Brain series does a good job of explaining the science behind this biological process.

Define your terms. To me, anarcho means an acceptance that humans do not exist is different, opposing moral categories and capitalist means somebody who owns themselves, which is everybody. So the title looks to me like "rational people need a specific person" which is irrational.

The strawman was you said I said something I didn't say to avoid addressing what I did say. Here's another example: I've never said that parents shouldn't abuse their children because it would reduce violence in the world. That would be a utilitarian (subjective) argument and I focus on the moral (objective) argument. This doesn't preclude me from observing that if you don't expose somebody to the German language, they will not start speaking German. By misrepresenting what I've actually said (strawman), you let yourself off the hook for addressing what's actually being said. I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt because you've shown yourself in the past to be exceedingly meticulous regarding the use of language (which is a good thing). You initially rejected the car analogy because 1) many people use them and 2) cars are coercively regulated. To which I pointed out that guns are coercively regulated and the fact that many people use cars and they're not considered for banning is what makes the analogy an effective one. Because it demonstrates that what gun grabbers use as their excuse for wanting to ban guns (can hurt people) is not a criteria for banning they're willing to apply when it comes to objects that are more dangerous, but they themselves make use of. The bottom line is that the banning of guns is an unprincipled conclusion and therefore would never be taken seriously in rational conversations. Not to put words in Mr. Chapman's mouth.

I've watched a lot of Destin's work. He seems like a really nice guy and his presentation is always worth my time. It's a shame he's religious. He also needlessly poisons the well by referencing 3rd world children having to do school work. I say needlessly because the implications of this product is self-evident. Just found it odd that the video is an example of the potential for people to learn voluntarily and without being forced to take tests.

You cannot have a monopoly without a State. So if consumers want something, then manufacturers will respond or lose market share to competitors that will. Even if it were true that something beneficial came to be because of State mandate, this doesn't prove that violence is the only way to accomplish that goal. As I see it, the only thing you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence is violence.

Only because you reject Gopnik's work after asking for it. Broken is broken whether its an inanimate object or a person. This state of a person is only less clear because people like you try to obfuscate it and/or protect abusers. What is a free market if not the aggregate of individuals trading voluntarily? You'll have to be more specific. Competition and consequences could be described as market forces, but that's a very good thing. Do you mean the initiation of the use of force? Because defensive force is not only justified, but the answer to your question. It's like asking how do I stop a mugger from taking my wallet? If that's not what you mean, then you'll need to clarify. Of course we already know the requisite, which the elimination of would act as prevention. In my last post, I conceded that we cannot know the SPECIFICS. For you to repeat this... did you not read what I wrote? Or are you saying it is known that nothing can be known? Repetition does nothing to clarify. It's as if you're saying that we don't know what a cancer survivor's life will look like, so we should just let the cancer run its course. Also, I keep inviting you to apply logic. You can't know that Socrates was mortal, but if all men are mortal and Socrates was a man, you should be able to figure it out. Strawman. No where in here did I say you said child abuse was good or the initiation of the use of force acceptable. You revealed your bias when you referred to peaceful parenting as an "ideal world" and I pointed out that perfection isn't a requisite for not stealing, assaulting, raping, and murder. Besides, you don't have to say child abuse is good to inadvertently promote it or protect those who engage in it. However, once you've been presented with the idea, such promotion and protection can no longer be described as inadvertent. In other words, I'm going to listen to your behaviors over your words because you don't possess the self-knowledge to spoof those behaviors as well as you're spoofing the words.

Where was your dad in all of this? Doesn't he want for his son to survive to the point of assisting him with picking out a place, asking the right questions, etc? I wouldn't take full responsibility for making a decision you shouldn't have been allowed to make without some guidance/protection in place.

That makes perfect sense. When we don't process trauma by internalizing it, we end up seeking to re-create that trauma for its sense of normalcy. They try to erase you, so you conform to their preferences by erasing yourself for their benefit. This still doesn't answer how you came to be friends with somebody who is that self-destructive. It does raise a new question though: What about your parents? They've forced you into government school, have modeled harmful social behaviors to the point where you'd become friends with somebody who could destroy themselves, I'm assuming since you haven't mentioned it that you don't feel you could talk to them about it or that they wouldn't listen or take you seriously, and don't seem to care that you would erase yourself for the preferences of others, which is the opposite of the obligation they created to you. I'm really sorry to hear about the individuality program at school. It almost seems like an invitation for those who aren't totally dominated by their will-breaking techniques to stand up so they can focus fire and finish the job. It's surgical to the point of being diabolical. I cannot believe stuff like this happens and there's still people out there that think schools are for education and teachers are saints.

I'm sorry I didn't see this post sooner. Hell yeah I'm aware of Gopnik's work! I plug it every time it's relevant. There's a common misconception out there that humans are naturally aggressive and her work shows this to not be the case. Then, as you pointed out, her other big contribution is revealing the extent to which the baby hasn't developed any filters yet and is literally on sensory overload. That's actually what I was referring to when I mentioned the baby's mind potentially being more aware than we might think. I think it's totally fair for you to be apprehensive of somebody wanting to quiet the baby just for the sake of quieting the baby. I'd play devil's advocate and consider that sometimes the baby could be crying because of a desire for contact. However, this is not only not the only way to make contact, but I would think that making contact in a way that puts your face to face with them would be far more valuable to establishing a bond. If that's the case, then best case scenario, his maneuver might have clinical value, but might not be the best advice to give parents. Facial modeling is a great way to help nurture a baby's empathy and responding to it crying when it simply needs attention and contact, this will also model empathy for them at a time when they might not be aware of the specifics, but they are definitely recording whether their environment is nurturing or dangerous.

In terms of specifics, this is true of just about any assessment of the future. What we do know is that people adapt. Cars became widespread, heavy and fast, so collisions flung people about, injuring/killing them. So car manufacturers started including seat belts. Then air bags. Then new frame designs. This all happened amid a State. Imagine how much they could've accomplished and how much more efficiently without the State. Everybody adapts. Saying criminals adapt pretends that non-criminals don't adapt also. It's about network strength. As long as there are more people that want no theft in their home/community than there are people that would take that risk, their adaptation will not surmount the adaptation of those who would resist and expose them. If you wanted to make the case for criminals being scary, you should focus on the fact that action is typically faster than reaction. But again, if literally everybody can stop you and not just people with stickers on their cars and a badge on their lapel, the risk becomes so great that most criminals will begrudgingly adapt by way of trying to co-exist. It's like welfare. If you stopped welfare today, how many more people would be looking for jobs that currently aren't? It's great that you can admit you were wrong. But have you made any effort to address HOW you came to be wrong? What would no gun ever stopping a mass shooting prove? Most of these mass shootings take place in "gun free zones." Does this pattern not mean anything? Also, there's no reason to be surprised that the media doesn't report it anymore that you have reason to be surprised that your lawnmower doesn't also wash your dishes. That's not its purpose.

How do they know? Doesn't sound very successful to me. They can test the validity of their theory. If you tie somebody you're romantically interested in to a chair at the table of a candlelit dinner, are you endearing them? If you hold somebody's child hostage and threaten to harm them if the person doesn't employ you, are you developing job security? Even if the claim were true, pointing to what is does nothing to address what could be. The only thing you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence is violent. Just because those families were violent doesn't mean that violence was the only way to do it. That would be superstitious. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. If you don't mind me asking, a lot of your thread has to do with other people. What about you? Have you examined how it's come to pass that the people you call friends are self-destructive to the point of wanting to kill themselves and advocating the brutalization of children? This is part of the problem with labels like "libertarian." When I read that word, I don't read "person who is infallible and/or in my tribe" like you wanted me to. This is a good explanation of why.

How do you know when vacuum cleaner isn't working? When it stops sucking, right? How do you know your lawn isn't getting the nutrients it needs? When the grass becomes dry and yellow, right? How do you know when an empathetic creature is damaged? When it begins to engage in anti-empathetic behavior, right? If you open up a carton of eggs and one is damaged, this isn't necessarily your fault. There were any number of people and handlings that took place before you had your hands on them. This is not the case with children. A child is conceived in a woman's body. Its parents have full control over that embryo/fetus/baby's entire environment. Was the baby attacked by the family dog? Who allowed that dog access to the baby? I'll say it again: All you have to do is apply a little logic. I'm curious as to why here you would claim that voluntary trade is better than being force when just one post earlier, your position was that "you have to provide causal link that validates the claim." I don't see that you've provided a causal link to validate that claim. This is evidence that you are rejecting something for unprincipled reasons. I hope you will revise your approach now that you are aware of this discrepancy. I don't understand what your point is in saying there won't be violators. There's violators now. A coercive market guarantees that everybody will be violated. How is the possibility it might happen justification for rejecting that the guarantee of it happening, and on a much larger scale is worse? This is our world. All of ours. If we allow child abuse to go down, make excuses for violent parents, call things by improper names to conceal the abuse, then those who would abuse children have no incentive not to. Meaning the possibility is only as present as our resolve. You poison the well with your use of "ideal world." When I stop for gas, I don't rape any of the dozens of people that are there. It's not because I'm living in an ideal world. "Don't assault children" isn't ideal. It's actually quite basic. You don't have to strive for perfection to manage to not steal from, assault, rape, or murder other people. I've seen you ask a lot of great questions. It really saddens me to see you resort to this level of dishonesty

Makes sense. If you can't see where you're going, you will die. I vote for making clouds illegal. More State power is the answer. After all, what better way to get people to be more wasteful than institutionalized wastefulness?

Why would I need to sign a contract? As long as I'm not stealing, assaulting, raping, or murdering, why do you want a hand in whatever I choose to do? Why do you only want this for Americans? Why would you want to recreate defective technology (think Chernobyl) instead of upgrading to superior technology? How does this deflection of yours bring you closer the irreconcilability of consent and not consent?

You're being deliberately deceptive. If I say to you "I reject X," this is a meaningless statement. If I say "I reject X because of Y and Z," then this is an adherence to rationality in so far as Y and Z are rational. You've left out the Y and Z to project that rejection of claims is based on preference because that's how you arrived at your competing conclusion (by way of preference). Consciousness exists without matter or energy (CEw/oME) is not a rational observation. To reject it on this basis is rational. Only one CEw/oME is an impossible claim (nothing exists in uniquity). To reject it on this basis is rational. The one CEw/oME happens to be the one YOU were taught about is an improbable conlcusion. To reject it on this basis is rational. This one CEw/oME must intervene is the coup de grace. Either you have evidence, in which case it's no longer a belief but a fact, or you are forced to reveal that your conclusion is without merit. To reject it based on this lack of evidence is rational.

Such manipulative language! I didn't read past this point. Thank you for front-loading your further lack of integrity. "Long-winded debate" is not only an assertion, but falsely representing what is basic communication skills. You said something that isn't clear, and I asked for clarification. You claimed up is down, and I challenged the validity of your claim. When you call these things a "long-winded debate," you are confessing that you're going to believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it. This is bigotry and is incompatible with the truth. Referencing flaming wars means you're not having a conversation with me, but rather you are bringing unprocessed trauma to the table while pretending to have a conversation with me. Telling a person how they're going to behave before they have an opportunity for that behavior is erasing them. I won't let you do that.

What evidence do you have that somebody won't spontaneously start speaking German having never been exposed to it? If you're a rational thinker, you don't need evidence of this because it logically follows. What you claim to be hypothetical isn't hypothetical at all. The Bomb in the Brain, The Origins of War in Child Abuse, and The Philosophical Baby have the data you seek and have been promoted ad infinitum around these parts, which you're no stranger to. Ask yourself a question like how could somebody be convinced that taxation is not theft? It's not hard to trace this to child abuse anymore than it's hard to find that you're hundreds of miles off course just by being a few degrees off from your point of origin. Better compared to what? Again, you need to look at the origin and/or apply rational thought. Since I exist, you exist, and theft is a self-detonating proposition, the onus is upon you to provide data on how a coercive market is better, not the other way around. Again, this is something that logically follows. I can either choose to buy a burrito or somebody can force me to buy one. Which costs more? One has the overhead of formulating edicts and enforcing them. Which again, given that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories, you'd have to bypass the moral argument to even arrive at the utilitarian one. Which is an unprincipled approach. The very thing you're trying to use to reject easily established truths.

This does not answer the question. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What you're saying here is that you have no standard, which means nobody will take you seriously.

If saying "taxation is theft" would get you killed, then not saying it is more important in the moment. You need to get yourself to tomorrow first and foremost. Obviously this is hyperbole, but there is a continuum. Sober people don't go into a bar to preach sobriety. I don't think a government school is a place that will be receptive to rational thought. It depends on what messages you're communicating and how. If you overhear somebody saying that the rich are evil, pointing out to them that the only reason they have a cellphone in their pocket is because the rich bought them first, driving down the price of the technology isn't likely going to get you anywhere. Now if instead you were to overhear somebody say something like "I wonder why it's so fashionable to hate the rich," then you know you could have a nice conversation with somebody who is curious. But if you're in a place where you'd be a social pariah for asking such a question, then chances are even if you found somebody who identified or was curious about the truth, they might not pursue it openly for comfort's sake. If you haven't already, check out Stef's recent video: The short takeaway is that the people around you are NOT your tribe. Your tribe isn't going to be marked off based on proximity. You have to find your tribe. If you can find some tribesmen in your school, great. If not, I wouldn't waste any time or effort on them. Get yourself to tomorrow and you'll have more time to find your tribe. Does this help at all?

Document everything you can. Take pictures of the black mold, of the lack of ventilation, and record a conversation with her about waking up unable to breathe properly. I have allergies and work on rental properties for my father. One house, I was going to move into to live there as I fixed it up. For a whole week prior to moving in, I was there 6-8 hrs a day every day with no issues. The very night I moved in and wasn't moving around, I was non-stop sneezing and draining. The next day, I took a deck brush, mop bucket and some bleach and scrubbed every last inch of the walls. After that, there were no problems. Granted the basement was virtually empty, opening windows so I was breathing chlorine fumes, and knowing the walls were going to be repainted all helped. He's since had another property I had to give the same treatment to and it eliminated a bad, musty smell the place had. Not sure how helpful this might be for you, but it's a cheap and effective solution. Any contract you enter into should have stipulations concerning early termination. If yours doesn't, chalk this up to experience. I would try and give her notice if you decide to move out. I personally do what I can to remain innocent in these types of situations. Obviously if she's screwing you, you owe her nothing. However, since there could potentially be State involvement, you need to keep yourself as innocent as possible just in case. Just make sure that if you are going to move and you are going to notify, that you have backup plans at the ready. When I was a very young adult, I lived in a shithole. When I gave notice, the guy literally cut off electricity. When that didn't force me out early, he cut the gas despite it being cold out. Not trying to scare you as I'm sure this is most atypical. However, it sounds like you're dealing with somebody that might take it out on you. In the future, if you're this susceptible to airborne contaminants, I would avoid basement lodging. And don't forget to document! When you move into a place, take pictures. Make a tour video while you still have no stuff in there. If you do notify her you're leaving, document it. Reference the fact that the contract has no stipulation for early termination. Please bear in mind I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak to if/how the State would threaten you with regards to your situation or any of the advice I'm offering here.

If you haven't already, check out Stef's chat with Allison Gopnik: Most relevant to your post are two takeaways that I hope you and your mother will find enlightening. The first being that babies are born without any filters. Like you and I have shirts on, but we're actively discarding all information our brains are receiving regarding this because it can safely be disregarded. As such, we come into this world as universality machines, trying to develop more and more filters so that we can better process the data we're receiving. While this alone isn't what I would call reason, in the context you use here, it could be argued that they are MORE "reasonable" than adults, since the information they're taking in is objective and not tainted by narrative. The other takeaway is that she has tested babies to not only have the capacity of differentiating between peaceful and coercive interactions among their peers, but will actively reward the former and avoid the latter. What's most significant about these findings is how early they manifest (something like 9 months and 18 months respectively). For more on this, you can also check out her book The Philosophical Baby. This is some of the most valuable information we have available to us because it refutes the supposition many hold that humans, being animals, are naturally aggressive. Which doesn't add up evolutionarily given that we are social creatures. If nothing else, it reveals how early abuse can be interpreted by the child as harmful and therefore should never be accepted as an option. The only thing you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence is violence. If she, or anybody in the care of children cannot identify the peaceful path to resolution, this is a challenge for them to find it, not a pass for them to aggress against the children. I hope this is helpful. Thanks for sharing and good luck in the future.

I see obfuscation, double-speak, and mysticism. I've offered rational challenges, which you have deflected from or avoided altogether. Until you make use of truth and philosophy as you're persistent in claiming (show me, don't tell me), I am convinced that truth is not what you seek.