dsayers

Is there an argument in here? I can't tell if you're condoning the initiation of the use of force against people for lack of expertise and/or expertise as a requisite for ownership (self-detonating position). I can't tell if you're suggesting we make everybody sitting ducks because having the ability to survive might somehow make things worse. Which would leapfrog right over the moral consideration.

Or a fork, or a pencil, or a shovel, etc. If somebody wishes to harm others, they're going to. Which is why demonizing objects (and uninformly at that) fails. However, a 5 foot tall sickly woman wouldn't be able to use a fork, or a pencil, or a shovel to take down a 300 lb, 7 ft tall body builder necessarily. One nice thing about a handgun is that just about any power disparity is normalized. And at range, which is helpful since a knife-wielder can easily cover 21 feet in the time it would take a person to recognize attack, draw, and fire.

OP spoke of "takes from the collective." You cannot take from the collective because "collective" cannot own anything as it is a concept. You CAN take from people though. Every form of government I've ever heard of has put the benefit of "the collective" above that of the individual, despite the fact that you cannot determine what is beneficial to "the collective" without looking at what is beneficial to every individual within that "collective." Which cannot be identified as it is impossible for the sum of all individuals in a collective to have identical preferences. If you'd like to make the case for how people fundamentally change based on their proximity to other people, you are welcome to do so. I'm not sure what molecules and atoms have to do with anything since that's not what the topic is about. I've not thought much about whether molecules exist or is a concept. I do know that if it were a concept, it doesn't refer to an aggregate, but rather specific bonds. The trees in a forest are not cohesive, which is how we know that trees exist (and are made of cells, which are made of molecules), but forest is a concept. Again, I'm not sure how useful this paragraph is to the thread.

The problem as I see it is directionality. CO2 and warmth are naturally correlated. To find a rise in both doesn't indicate whether the increase in temperature cause more CO2 to evaporate out of bodies of water or if more CO2 caused the temperature to rise. Of all the topics I get exposed to by way of FDR, I have to confess that climate change is the one that interests me the least. Well, except when Stef chats with Alex Epstein. The government doesn't go on a crusade to force everybody to believe that 2+2=4. In fact, you could even make the case that they try to accomplish the opposite While not proof, this massive extent of politicalization and power-grabbing tells me just about all I need to know in terms of how much of my time and attention I'm willing to invest in it. I recycle as I'm able and reduce my consumption without negatively impacting my survival. I do what I can in these regards because they're good choices regardless. The same governments that are doing all this power grabbing with this as an excuse aren't doing things like trimming the debt or ceasing senseless warfare, the two biggest polluters.

Which ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. People who buy/rent places larger than they need end up filling it with stuff. Larger area means more stuff, which is more excess consumption. So it's not only problematic, but it precipitates more problematic behaviors.

Are you saying that disagreeing with somebody is a reason to initiate the use of force against you? Do you talk to statists and to them that their "they aren't one of us, so forget about them" attitude towards anarchists is in comprehensible? If you're a doctor on a battlefield, where you have a number of patients damaged to varying degrees and you spend time on the ones that are done for, you are a bad doctor. Once you understand WHY people think what they do (check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series for more on this), you learn that beating your head against a brick wall doesn't effect the wall at all. It just wastes your time and erodes your resolve. This war of attrition is effective (look at US efforts vs al'queda). The way I look at it, it takes all different types. I do things others aren't willing to and they do things I'm not willing to. We're all working towards the same goal. If you want to take the time to try and convince somebody who has already told you they cannot be convinced, go for it. I tend to a little bit myself in public avenues since you don't know who all you're going to help by doing so. But I'd rather spend my time making the case to people who, though resistant, are open to the possibility. Something EVERYBODY should possess if they seek the truth. If somebody rejects that 2+2=4 just because somebody shouted it at them, well then they weren't actually interested in math, were they?

I'm quoting this to emphasize the "lawfully shooting OR DETERRING A CRIMINAL." I've been forced to pull a gun on another human being four times. Never once did I even have to put my finger in the trigger guard because the presentation of the gun was enough to diffuse the situation. A lot of people forget this. Or the fact that just allowing for private gun carry can be correlated with reduced crime. Which logically follows. Your common criminals are like any other animal; They seek the path of least resistance. It's a lot easier to commit a crime if you can tell by the labeling on a car or the uniform on a person that they're able to stop you. When that capability is extended to everybody, suddenly it's not so easy. With all due respect, I think you missed the point. First of all, it's not gun control. Gun control is treating every firearm as if it's loaded, never pointing it at anything you don't intend to destroy, never putting your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot, knowing your target and what is beyond, using two hands and the sights, etc. What's actually being talked about when people say gun control is PEOPLE control. A LEO is a human being. They are not fundamentally different from any other human. So unless people are talking about blanket disarmament, they're not talking about guns anymore. And if they are, they have yet to account for criminals who would just get them illegally, same as they do where there aren't bans and where there are. We haven't yet perfected the technology allowing us to close our eyes and wish something out of existence. Until that time, "guns exist" is a fact. Banning a gun (or anything that isn't theft, assault, rape, or murder) is just another way of saying "we're allowed to initiate the use of force against you for unprincipled reasons simply because we say so." A number of years ago, there was an incident where a legally armed man who was additionally licensed as a firearm bearing security guard/private investigator was messed with by a cop (who had a gun) because he had a gun. This cop (among other things) illegally cut his driver's license in half on the scene, in front of his young daughter who was with him at the time. A local guns rights group arranged for an open carry walk (which is legal where I live). Over 70 people assembled, most of them dual-wielding, and we marched on the local police station, took pictures, and then marched to a local restaurant for brunch (the police were notified in advance and permission was secured from the restaurant). Anecdotal evidence: I've never felt safer in my life than walking among those 70 strangers, with well over 100 guns between them (compared to my one on that day). Compare this to the behaviors of the one, armed cop that precipitated this. Just as that article I linked before said "it's a cop, so that's okay." This is not a rational conclusion and the failure to account for this perception means that so-called gun control advocates are not being honest.

I don't know what the purpose of your thread is, but this is an assertion, and it is false. Humans exist, but crowds do not. Crowd is a concept that describes an aggregate of people. If you haven't already, check out Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy series. It will help you to reason starting from first principles. In it, he has one exercise where he takes bananas and demonstrates that their properties are not altered when you take 2 (or 200, 2,000, etc) and put them together. Thus, a human being cannot morph between an individual and "part of a collective."

I too have struggled with communicating ideas in ways that aren't provocative or accusatory. It sounds like you've thought it through and believe you have reason to continue to participate. I hope you're right. One thing I'm curious about though: Have they seen a pattern at all? I mean in terms of not accepting your experience right away and then realizing your experience was valid. Or when they realize there's more than one thing you're thinking about, do they express curiosity? Have they asked what else you might want to talk to them about? If I do damage, I want to know how much damage I've done so that I can make restitution. In the parent-child relationship, I think there's nothing wrong with making up for it "too much." But it sounds like they're resisting every step. Be careful.

How do you know? This is begging the question. Human aggression is rooted in childhood trauma and undamaged children are naturally empathetic. There's nothing utopian about it. Also, you're conflating the initiation of the use of force with the use of force. I've never heard Stef argue that defensive force is not allowed. In fact, when you look at aggression in terms of property rights, you understand that the aggressor is consenting to defensive force with their very actions. This is the problem when you talk about NAP instead of what that is actually short-hand for. Finally, every video FDR puts out gets its own thread. You could add to the conversation taking place here. The only thing I was disappointed in the video is the way the caller was met with rational refutations and kept on going as if his bigotry remained unassailed.

And by we, you mean everybody else. That's not all you did. By telling yourself this, you get to marginalize the feedback you've received as feedback from irrational lunatics who, in response to the asking of one innocent little question, reacted as if you had just accused them of being murderers. Define your terms. The healthy, constructive form of apologizing is accepting responsibility for a mistake that was made, acknowledging the damage it did to others, and correcting for it. Words like "perhaps" and "somewhat" are not the language of somebody who is apologetic. Neither is trying to cover up accusations by claiming you just asked a question. I do feel sorry for you. I too was raised with the anti-rationality of Christianity inflicted upon me by those who were obligated to nurture and protect me. It is very clear that you aren't even aware of how much you communicate beyond what you want for others to receive from you. The second most valuable aspect of self-knowledge is the ability to spot manipulators and their contradictions and lies. You speak as if you're either very accomplished at fooling those you speak with or very resistant to the fact that you don't actually pull it off. "my voice is not welcome" is taking the incompatibility of rationality and anti-rationality and personalizing it for the purpose of portraying yourself as a victim. In other words, even more manipulation. How would you react if in the middle of a sermon, somebody barged in, yelled "Hail, Satan"? You were challenged in your faith. How do you know? What value does a belief have in the process of determining the truth? You were so busy trying to manipulate everybody that you've failed to address it. If you truly wanted to fit in with rational thinkers, you'll probably have to demonstrate some rationality. Healthy people don't tolerate toxic people. The extent to which you're willing to manipulate among rational thinkers--many of whom are manipulation survivors--lie, inflict conclusions, and scoff at methodology makes you a VERY toxic person. I emphasize very because you have done very little to address the feedback you've been offered, other than to demonstrate the extent to which you've rejected it out of hand. Also, in what way is the belief in a deity "intellectualism, critical thought, challenging the status quo, or societal evolution"? It seems to be the exact opposite. Finally, people who cannot differentiate between fact and fiction are very dangerous indeed.

The good news is that it's so disgusting that more and more people will be unable to continue to ignore it.

Oh yeah. That was the other thought I had watching it. He had comparatively enormous hands. I watched him executing the maneuver and envisioned a 5 foot woman with dainty hands fumbling the baby just trying to pull it off. Which also raises the question for me: How aware is the baby at that stage? Would such a meticulous maneuver be received as being restrained? Or am I projecting a more aware interpretation onto a mind that lacks that capability? It's hard to say because I've learned how competent the human brain is even at that stage in life.

Sorry if this seems off-topic, but could you elaborate on what this means? My dad owns some rental properties and I do maintenance and security for them. He has one tenant who is an older woman. She's in good health, but she prefers to rent for the sake of not having to take care of maintenance beyond lawn and sidewalks (grass and snow). I used to identify with that mindset too. Of course, getting into the home improvement work made me more prepared to own. It's not as lucrative as some might think. The turnover is high enough that what little profit is made is mostly soaked up with property taxes, upkeep, and cleaning/repairing after a tenant leaves. That and having to manage X additional people, their payments, late fees, addressing rule breaking... I don't think it's worth the money. At least not in his hands. He's not very efficient with the work aspect of it (scatterbrained, doesn't formulate a plan of attack). And he's a manipulative narcissist, so he invests extra time to be friendly with them. Which can be a good thing, but he'll actually let them get away with too much because he's busy trying to be liked by them ahead of the business relationship. Once I take it over, I imagine the bottom line will look a little better as I'll be investing less time while accomplishing the same amount of work and rapport development. The other thing to keep in mind is that without a State, people will just have more wealth to begin with. Even with the State, it used to be you could get a job while living at home, then afford to either go to college or put a down payment on a house. It doesn't take long to go from poor to middle class if you're willing to work and there's not a State leeching off your productivity at every level. Of course, this could also mean that we have a more peaceful society, which would lead to kinder, lower maintenance tenants. So I guess what I'm getting at is I don't know what the distribution will look like. It probably won't be too different than it is now. If anything, I think there'd likely be more of a push to own. There's a LOT of potential tenants that are receiving tons of gov't handouts. Such that if they owned a house, they'd be less qualified. So there's a perverse incentive in place to rent rather than own.

Thank you for the feedback. It's a topic I've been arguing about for over 10 years now, mentored by somebody who has been doing it for over 40. In fact, my road to philosophy, rational thought, and self-knowledge began when I first bought a gun. I become more politically aware, which led to me being exposed to rational cases against the State, which lead to rationality and self-knowledge (Pete Eyre -> Larken Rose -> Stefan Molyneux). While I wouldn't suggest this is typical, it's why I personally find people claiming guns lead to tragedy particularly entertaining: It led to my liberation! I'm sure I'm not the first human in history that could make the claim that firearms brought them freedom

I'm curious as to why he waited until the very end to address the fact that a crying baby might actually be communicating a problem. Up until that point, he approaches it as if it's an issue of the parents' comfort, with no consideration of the baby's experience. Even once he pointed out that the baby could be communicating a problem, he didn't qualify his technique as a way of ruling out crying for the sake of contact. I also wonder if the induced waggle was exaggerated for the sake of being overt for the video's sake. It almost seems as if that could be potentially dangerous to the spinal cord. I'm no doctor though, so perhaps I'm being overly cautious. On the other hand, is there such a thing as being overly cautious with the spinal cord of the most delicate state a human exists in?

I find these to be competing claims. I view the act of rejecting responsibility to be re-victimization. I think this is a beneficial FIRST step. However, it sounds as if you've already taken this step and they're not receptive. Which would mean that holding onto this desire is a rejection of reality in favor of your preference. My father continues to abuse me specifically by rejecting reality in favor of his preferences. So I would be worried that if you're willing to hold onto that desire regardless of how unrealistic it might be that it would impede your ability to heal. Since you mentioned mental bandwidth, I wanted to share my experience. It used to be that when my father tried to dig into me by inflicting a conclusion on me or talking outside of reality, my mind would be shot for the whole day, focusing on what he said, how wrong he was, how can he be so wrong and still proceed, etc. Since then, his digs have become about 99% powerless over me. What changed? I had confronted him about such things. He made it clear that he was certain aggression was necessary, that he was less interested in me rather than the effects of my labor, and has never expressed any curiosity or entertained the possibility that my experience even COULD be valid. Once I realized there was nothing else I COULD do, I absolved myself of what wasn't my responsibility in the first place. Once I accepted this reality, it no longer had the power to harm me. Yes, it would be nice if the person I've known longer than anybody else is somebody I could depend on, but that's not up to me. Hurting somebody that has hurt you wouldn't be unjust. However, I would caution against it not because it's intentional harm, but because it would be a behavior engage in for them rather than for you. If a slave did the exact opposite of what the master commanded, he's still a slave because in his mind, the master is the point of origin, not himself. Does that make sense?

This was my reaction as well. I wouldn't hold your breath though. If you check his brief post history, you will find that this level of manipulation is consistent. Just look at the title of the thread itself. It proposes a standard that he isn't willing to adhere to himself. You hold up a sign that says 2+2=? and then a monkey tosses a dart and it hits the number 4. Does the monkey know math? No. Because the methodology is more important than the conclusion. Behold: In the context of determining what is true, what we "believe" has no bearing. I've argued that a belief is only beneficial when it serves as motivation to test the theory so that it can either be upgraded to fact or discarded for not accurately describing the real world. When you experience this belief, are you motivated to test your theory? Or are you instead motivated to misrepresent people as saying you ought to be murdered?

Guns are an inanimate object incapable of behavior. So reacting to a behavior by targeting an object isn't rational. Nor is punishing people (prior restraint) for things that not them had done. You can do a lot more damage with cars. A car in a parking lot has greater ballistic energy than your average handgun shot. People aren't made to submit to background checks to purchase a gallon of gasoline and yet that same gasoline could level the very people and property it's purchased from. So it's not a principled conclusion either. When I first read your post, I went to youtube and typed in Australian police abuse. Sure enough, they were carrying guns. So clearly guns isn't the problem, but can still contribute to the harming of human being even if it's not by way of putting holes in them. People in libertarian circles aren't afraid of pointing out things like taxation is theft or that political voting is the initiation of the use of force. One of the less common ones is that when a cop knocks on your door or turns on their light bar behind you, they are issuing a death threat. Because if you don't do exactly what they want when they want, they WILL escalate. They are trained to and they are told (and accept) that they have the right to. Up to and including your murder if they think it's necessary. And adrenaline isn't conducive to rational, controlled behaviors. http://www.bobinoz.com/blog/4548/look-out-shes-got-a-gun/

Welcome. Thank you for sharing and for your sensitivity on such matters. Sadly, this is why self-knowledge BEFORE choosing a mate and choosing to have a child is so vital for the child's safety and well-being. So... two jobs and a wife going to college so can't pull daughter out of government school. Pardon me for the crudity of my approach, but from the outside, that looks like 2 people, a child, and internet access. What else is there? I ask for the purpose of challenging you on your conclusion that it can't be done. While your daughter's formative years are mostly done, you still could save her from a LOT of abuse. Just being exposed to this silly buddy bench concept could bewilder her as to how grown folks could behave with such a rejection of reality, yet such a desire to carve up and control little children.

Thanks for the feedback. After thinking more about it, I don't know for sure whether I've flown in dreams or not. I do know that in that particular dream, it felt VERY accomplished being able to do so. So if I have dreamt it before, it wasn't as meaningful. I was aware of the theory that dreams are the interpretation of the conscious's view of the subconscious filing data away at a rate it's not equipped to interpret. I was also familiar with the idea that everything in our dream is us, and therefore likely meaningful. One thing that occurred to me after I asked the question was that a lack of skepticism is probably very necessary. If we were not skeptical in our dreams, our dreams would be terrifying as they would serve to usurp the stability we enjoy from the consistency of the real world. We would likely become risk averse to the point of stagnating into extinction. Thanks again for the interaction. Dreams have fascinated me ever since as a very young boy, I experienced a fever so severe that I was hallucinating. That or my parents had given me acid, but I don't think that's probable. And I've always enjoyed having a very lively dream life. I usually reflect more on periods of little dreaming than I do on the dreams that I do have. There was "one" dream that I've focused on because it's the only recurring theme I've ever had in my dreams. When I first started carrying a gun (I was delivering pizzas in a bad part of town), the local gun community did that whole macho ribbing me because I went with a small caliber (I was under the misgiving that smaller guns were easier to conceal). The first time I was in a position where I needed it, I didn't reach for it. Because those same people had also given me the anxiety that in the event you need to use it, there's going to be a hotshot prosecutor who will try to punish you despite you being the victim. Well, the "gentleman" forcing my hand was literally approaching me with the communicated intent to assault over a 2 liter. In the moment, I had sort of decided I'd rather get my ass beat by somebody twice my size than have to face being accused of shooting somebody over a 2 liter (which wouldn't have been accurate, but that wouldn't have helped). As luck would have it, due to an unrelated incident, a cop just happened to pull up at that exact moment. Still, I was sick to my stomach for THREE DAYS straight. This was like 4 days before xmas that year and I was spending that time with friends and family, trying to again feel normal. Part of the trauma in the experience was being forced into a position where I had too choose whether to pull a gun on another human being. There's been a few other times since, and it never feels normal, but this was the first, so it was new to me. But the other component was that I had literally overrode my own survival instinct for the sake of what somebody MIGHT do to me later on IF I survived. After all, if he had assaulted me and came to find I had a gun on me, it could've gotten a LOT worse. As a result, I started having dreams where I needed to use my gun, drew it, shot my attacker multiple times, but with no effect. This stemmed both from the fact that my attacker that night was twice my size (and body mass does contribute to the ability to take a shot) and from being harangued for carrying a small caliber. Also because I had never witnessed first hand the effects of a bullet on soft tissue. Luckily, I was finally able to go shooting someplace that allowed reactive targets and took a bunch of melons up there. Seeing the tool I trust my life with actually do some serious damage helped to almost completely eliminate those dreams altogether. Anyways, thanks for allowing this lengthy personal sharing. Don't mean to derail the topic for others interested in the titular question.

When I first read this, I experienced a red flag. It's been my experience that people who speak to the behaviors of others before they've had the opportunity to engage in them, are being manipulative. It's poisoning the well as painting one's self as being open minded and seeking enlightenment, usually to preempt suspicion to the contrary. I bring this up because in this thread, Mr. Dombrowsky is engaging in similarly manipulative discourse. I think the thread itself will still be a productive one. Just wanted to help others by pointing out potential warning signs, or perhaps solicit criticism on how I've erred in my assessment.

Pardon me but I have established no such thing. I recognized that State coercion is why such consideration has become a political matter. I am happy to discuss it strictly in the paradigm you put forth: First of all, some heteros seek the legal document for reasons other than love or the stable raising of children, so the differentiation based on gender is meaningless. Secondly, there's a difference between disagreeing with people and initiating the use of force against them. Again within the context of government, if heteros are able to receive such things, then homos should also. In fact, to provide for this would actually help to diminish colloquial bigotry by normalizing it. Which brings us to the crux of the issue as to why politicians are generally unwilling. It serves to remediate one of the divisions of people that they benefit from. By not allowing it, they perpetuate people coming to them to ask for them to allow us this and that. It preserves and grows the perception of their fictitious existence in a different, opposing moral class as valid. I used to think of it that way also. I have a buddy of mine who is happily married with no intention of having children. I forget the specifics of our conversation, but after talking with him about it, I was willing to relax my view away from that. Obviously this wasn't a rational conclusion. So I am inclined to agree with what you've said. However, I wonder how would we verify people's intentions? Would it by actions alone, whereby being pregnant was proof of intent? This is problematic in both directions. Both in that people can get pregnant without actually intending to raise children. And to properly raise children, I think the rational thing to do is make preparations before getting married. I'm not saying I reject your claim if you cannot answer all the what-ifs (that wouldn't be productive). But I wonder if you could flesh it out a bit more for me and others who might have a hard time conceptualizing this.

Hey, Sacha. Glad to see you're back too Are the two people in the scenarios abused Sacha and healed Sacha? It was challenging for me to visit and correct my past self one I began to pursue self-knowledge.

Obviously willing slave is a contradiction in terms. One of the reasons why I liked Stef's "gun in the room approach" is because it addressed the actual problem. It's not that the slaves accept their station, it's that they don't understand that it's slavery. They think taxation is akin to paying for your order at a restaurant. They don't see the gun in the room.