dsayers

IF? Thank you for making my point. First of all, one has to address the fact that the human mind wants things to fit so much that it will actually add missing parts. Then there's our capacity for error. Then there's the fact that the moment you start saying you can turn things upside down or read them backwards to make them fit shows you're not talking about the subject matter. Then there's the fact humans do not possess the aparatus to "pre-cog." Or how about the fact that almost half of the "evidence" referred to similarities to another film, made 30 years later. As if a person couldn't make the present day item resemble the old one to their heart's content, or wouldn't given that the old item was their professional crowning jewel. While not exactly evidence, I would say just the fact that the presentation is rapid fire and repetitive shows it's artificially trying to suspend your disbelief. It's no different from a magician using exaggerated arm gestures in order to capture and divert your attention.

When I read the title, I thought you were going to be linking this

Let us suppose that is true. Who is McBeer sharing those words with? A total stranger. If a total stranger walked up to you and asked for your bank account number, would you feel obligated to tell him? Why not? While I feel this sufficiently demonstrates that it's not universal, morality doesn't even enter into it. For moral consideration, something has to both be a behavior and binding upon another. While communicating is certainly a behavior, it's not binding upon others unless it's a credible threat. This is saying somebody else is more responsible for your actions than you are, which cannot be universalized. If I'm behind the wheel of a car, it's MY responsibility to ensure safe passage. I don't get to ask you if it's clear the other way, pull out, cause an accident, and then say you're responsible. If they want to know if he's a socialist, then asking him when the incentive for providing a certain answer is a lucrative salary is horrible methodology. This is an appeal to emotion. It also misrepresents what I said. "Honesty isn't automatically right" is not the same as "honesty is automatically wrong."

Your honesty is like all your other property: yours to dispose of as you see fit. "Honesty is a virtue" is something that dishonest people try to spread to lower resistance against their predation. If somebody says to you "please sabotage yourself," I see no reason to oblige them.

That's a fascinating notion. I hadn't thought of that. When I first read this, my knee-jerk reaction was to respond how the poor tend to be behind technologically. This got me thinking about a story a buddy of mine told me a few years ago after he visited Peru. He described people living in abodes where the roof was just a sheet of corrugated metal laying on top of "walls"... but these people had smartphones. His interpretation was people whose priorities were out of whack. My interpretation was people who understood that access to the sum of human consciousness is about the most valuable possession one could have. Then I got to thinking about how poor people today compared to middle class of last century are virtually indistinguishable. I haven't taken the time to collect my thoughts, but what do you think of this "sublimation" of technology? By that I mean the way some technology gets outmoded so rapidly that the poor never had time to adopt it. Or spreads so rapidly, it becomes so efficient that even black market organ harvesting for example just won't have enough of a demand to be worth the risk. This just came to me, so I'd love to hear what others have to say about it.

Oh yeah. I understand all of that. It's actually a secret delight of mine that the whole thing is flying off the rails with such follow through that even the irrationally comfortable are starting to squirm. Where logic will fail to convince these people, reality is climbing into the ring. Meanwhile, thanks to the internet, the powers that be not taking it seriously enough soon enough, and the inherent inefficiency of coercion, the truth is out there, the process by which cannot be reversed. It's like Larken Rose says about State power and Stef says about the extension of personhood to children (paraphrased): You can kick, fight, scream, and threaten dissenters, but you can't stop it anymore than they were able to stop the truth about the Sun being the center of the solar system. It's like the frog in the boiling pot analogy. They think they're comfortable, but that's just because they don't yet realize they've lost sensation in their extremities. Okay, I think that's enough symbolism for one post

That was very creative! Both in the writing and the editing. It's a damn shame that it's going to be responsible for people years from now claiming such things and believing those claims.

If you say X to somebody and they hear not X, there's a breakdown in communication. In the specific examples you mentioned, they are telling you that they refuse to be convinced. So no, there isn't a better way of convincing somebody who refuses to be convinced. If anything, the "better way" would be to accept this and move on. It's triage. If you haven't already, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. It's important to understand WHY people think what they do. If it's not by way of logic, reason, or evidence, then using these things to dissuade them won't work. It's like trying to use a hammer to turn a screw.

Saying we consent is begging the question. Saying we follow commands backed by threats of violence is proof of consent is the opposite of the truth. A rape victim might choose not to fight and scream so as to not escalate their rape to a murder, but that isn't consent.

This guy makes me angry at my parents. How much closer would I be to seeing and communicating as clearly as he seems to if I hadn't been abused knowing how much I've been able to accomplish such thing in spite of that abuse? Thanks for sharing.

Intrinsic - adjective, 1. belonging to a thing by its very nature source That which is intrinsic is objective as it exists independent of individual consciousness. In order for "intrinsic value" to be plausible, you'd have to make the case that value is objective. If value is objective, then what is its scientific unit of measurement? What instrument do we use to measure it with? In what way would we observe it? You mentioned oil. Oil used to be viewed as a blight upon the land on which it was found. Present day, people are willing to kill millions of human beings in the name of the State to have more oil. Its value doesn't sound objective or constant to me.

Trying to categorize something that isn't "intrinsic" nor "value" is a way of deflecting from the fact that you put forth "intrinsic value" as if it's a valid assertion when in fact is it internally inconsistent. That IS obvious to me and that is why I'm letting you know that you're not going to get away with it.

Pardon my ambiguity. No argument FOR the State as righteous holds. Saying the State owns all the land is not an argument because concepts owning anything isn't an accurate description of the real world. It's the injection of fantasy into an examination of what is true. Does Obama own the US for example? If so, how did he come to acquire it? Can he own the land I live on, as well as Ohio, and the county, and the city simultaneously? What about the fact that most of these rules were in place before he was even born? Or that people magically consent just by being born? The interesting part is that by making this claim, the person is basically conceding that consent IS a requisite. Then they try to redefine ownership to imply your consent is a given. Which makes the extra mistake of saying consent isn't implicit and intentional.

See how I don't have to put words in your mouth? Point of contention was that value is subjective. Talking about math avoids the point altogether.

I agree, but do you see the contradiction? Schools are only in place and continue to exist because what the child wants never enters into it. If we say what happens to the child is their choice, the question evaporates.

The question doesn't address the fact that I've challenged your use of "intrinsic value" before. You put it forth as if no challenge was made, as is your custom, which is a confession that it is not the truth that you seek. What makes the claim I put forth accurate is that value does not exist outside of individual consciousness, the definition of subjective. What is a Corvette worth? Ask 100 people, get 100 answers. Nothing intrinsic here.

Holler as you think of them. I haven't found one that withstands rigorous analysis.

I've explained to you before: That which is intrinsic is objective while value is subjective. Therefore "intrinsic value" is impossible. @topic: Obviously social contract is an invalid concept and a deceptive one to boot. When a person initiates the use of force, they are asserting that property rights are invalid. They are voluntarily creating a debt (contract).

"The State" is a concept and concepts can't own property.

I half jumped out of my seat with joy when I read this. If she's pursuing soccer, that's going to be so useful that you currently play! I hope she gets a lot out of it Just keep in mind that in terms of things like self-esteem and social skills, these usually come from the parent child relationship before peer relationships. That sounds good in theory. Just keep in mind that even if propaganda isn't slipping in, the part where she's forced into sit down and shutup mode far exceeds what a developing, exploring mind wants and benefits from. If you could take a bullet and strike the primer in open air, there's a bang, but the damage is pretty limited. If you instead wrap a barrel around that bullet, preventing the gases from expanding sideways, now you have a projectile that can do some serious damage. This sit down and shut up might be the suppression that leads to her having a harder time focusing during times when her mind is actually free to roam. You know how it goes. If something's your hobby, as soon as you feel as if you HAVE to do it, it's not as appealing. This kind of goes back to the first point I had made. Structure from within is a form of self-motivation. Structure from without risks things like evasion and worst of all, conditioning somebody to do something not because it's sensible or productive, but to avoid consequences. Can you give an example of something difficult? The reason I ask is because I'm not sure I agree that "fun" and "difficult" are mutually exclusive. I got the walking and talking idea from Stef, but that's why I brought it up. Things like walking, talking, and even writing are difficult. The payoff is amazing though. Those things come with lots of failure. But if we embrace failure, we can use it as motivation to persist and best challenges. I hope that's helpful for your daughter.

I didn't realize she was going to school, so I'd like to add more to my take if that's alright. I share your hesitance and interpretation of ADHD. In fact, when I first started hearing about it, my initial reaction (not the most rigorous) was "If that's a real thing, then how come it went from never happening, to describing everybody?" When I was in kindergarten, I was separated from others and given special testing. Apparently, they were able to see that I was smart. Needless to say, this singling me out was not helpful! My point was that throughout my youngest school years, I was constantly lambasted as having behavioral problems. The problem was that school was not engaging. In most subjects, the teacher would begin to cover something, it made sense to me, and everything after seemed like repeating themselves. I had no incentive to continue listening/participating. Is it possible that school is too much structure? I'm sure you're aware as a member of this community how damaging it is. Responsibility refers to self. Chores as I see it would be doing work for your benefit. I think the advice I offered above regarding making a mess would teach responsibility (of self). Doing housework in the context of preparing her for adult life doesn't seem age-appropriate for a 6 year old. Instead of approaching it as a chore, why not approach it as helping mommy with her chores? Bring the laundry upstairs and ask if she'll help you fold it. Her folds won't look as good as mommy's folds right out of the gate. It's a good time (like with soccer drills) to talk with her about how failure is normal and okay and that practicing is how we get better. Then you can take the time to show her how you do it and help her with that practice. Then before long, as she gets a bit older, maybe she can fold her own laundry. Imagine what would happen if she asked you why fold clothes at all. Can you explain this cultural habit to her in a logical way? I don't know if I could! And that's the point. When people use words like structure and chores, I think they're starting from the conclusion that the parent is automatically right. I'm not saying you here since your reaction to ADHD suspicion is humble (which I appreciate!). But you are using the terminology, so I thought maybe this would be a helpful way to look at it a bit differently. What do you think of this?

I'm an intelligent person and I once believed in a deity and nationalism. I'm glad people like Pete Eyre, Larken Rose, and Stefan Molyneux made the case for property rights and rational thought rather than threatening to drone my neighborhood for being dumb. I don't even get what your point is. Rape has benefits for the rapist. This doesn't mean it is a philosophically sound or consistent position.

Great feedback, guys! I love being around rational thinkers This was my other critique I forgot to include. When the suppose mother says we all (though she wasn't including women) have the capability to rape. While in the strictest sense, this is true, the reality is that I accept property right and do what I can to make the case to others. I don't have the conscious capability to rape. Certainly not on the basis that I have a penis. That's a good point too. I legally carry a firearm 100% of the time. One of my worst fears is that I'm going to be in a situation where I'm forced to use it against another human being and some hotshot prosecutor is going to try and make it look like I was looking to shoot somebody and my assailant was in fact the victim. This isn't even a hypothetical because I was once held at automatic rifle point by two cops who knew very little about firearm safety (I'm lucky to be alive) simply because I had a gun on me. I likened that experience to rape because I was being overpowered. And at least a rape victim has the recourse of calling the police. What was my recourse? In any crime the victim can become the accused. If you take a course associated with concealed carry, they always tell you that if you have to even reach for your gun, be sure to call the police; The first person to call the police is the de facto victim. That's not a hypothetical for me either! I was once on the expressway in a marked security vehicle. Some guy drove beside me, waving his arms in a threatening manner. I tried to shake him, but he wouldn't let up, so I called the police. They asked where I was and then swarmed ME, again with guns drawn. Turns out that this guy had called the police and told them I pointed a gun at him. This was a man who had a warrant out for his arrest for pulling a gun on his own sister not one week prior to this event. Meanwhile, I have a concealed handgun license, a state private investigator's license, and work as a security guard in a marked vehicle. But he called first (and I had an evil gun on me, so bad guy).

I haven't expressed a view and I'm not talking about two people getting drunk and having sex. Question in OP is does rape require consent of the rapist. The answer is yes, which makes the follow up question of whether a drunk person can consent to raping somebody else (regardless of the mental state of that person). If you're not going to read what I write, I'm not going to read what you write. Keep it honest and we can have a conversation if you'd like.

So many critiques. First, the obvious one: rape victims are all women and rapists are all men. Secondly, if consent is so essential (and it is), then why did they inflict the experience of being witness to rape, having to go from taking a squirt to having to stave off a violent assailant, and being accused of possibly being a rapist on people without their consent? Was the voice at the end really the mother of the victim? I didn't hear her talk about the ways she allowed her daughter to be raped and not feel she could talk to her about it after the fact.