dsayers

There are a number of variables other than just using porn. Sex drive is strongest when it's first possible. Time passing will fade this regardless of sexual activity or how. Also, the more we're used to anything, the less interested we are in it. I think AccuTron put it best when he pointed out that the shame was from external sources. Thinking something that is harmful is harmless is bad. Thinking something that is harmless is harmful is almost as bad. Also, you can pick anything in the world and abusing it is bad. This doesn't mean "it" is inherently bad.

Sadly, this isn't a matter of fortune. If a parent doesn't spend enough time with their child, talk to them, have conversations with them, and negotiate with them, the child will not have social skills.

In your title and post, you said "I am a rightist" and "I am pro legalization of all drugs." Opinions can be interesting, but they have no bearing on the legitimate problem you put forth: People pumping out children to receive goodies for having them. This is problematic precisely because the goodies they receive were taken from other people, which is a performative contradiction (objective; not an opinion). If I said "I like chocolate ice cream," would I be contributing at all to the problem of people's belief in the State furthering the myth that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories? No. Because I can like theft or I can hate theft, but neither would have any bearing on the fact that theft is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. I'm explaining this to you because human subjugation is a highly refined craft while rational thought and going against the narrative has largely been selected out of our evolution. If you were to engage a statist in conversation, they would be able to use the fact that you put forth opinions in an objective discussion (as if they were meaningful) against you. It also makes your aim less effective. For example, when addressing what seems to be the issue you wanted to talk about, you expressed ire for "Shaniqua." While her behavior might be reprehensible, it's only possible (and likely only occurs) because there is a mafia that will steal from everybody to incentivize her. Part of the way they get away with this is because some people who lack self-knowledge, but realize something's not right get angry with Shaniqua and not the aggression carried out in the name of the State. For as long as you're focusing on Shaniqua and your wishlist for how institutionalized aggression should be administered, you're of no threat to those enjoying the power of existing in a made-up, super-human moral category.

The question is invalid. It's like asking "Should X = X?" or "Should matter exert gravitational forces?"

I view this as a confession that you weren't interested in seeking the truth, but rather on making your belief fit. Otherwise known as bigotry. Which is your prerogative. However, you did the community a disservice by pretending this was a conversation for the purpose on finding the truth. It's irresponsible to reject reality and then promote violence as a way of dealing with issues in that reality.

I have to agree with Donnadogsoth. What you're talking about is a reason TO make the case for rational thought, peaceful parenting, and a respect for property rights. Not a reason to lay down and let those that make it this way have an easier time doing so.

This is just awful. The correct first response would be to sympathize with your suffering and try to help make sure you're okay, get you any help you need, and support you with however this impacts your current life (and life from then until now). Instead, her first instinct is to dodge blame. Appalling! She IS responsible. The thing sleazy parents try to avoid is the fact that their child's world is literally of their creation. If somebody had access to do this, it's because they failed to protect you. Part of this is by not being more careful with who they let near/alone with you. Part of it also addresses the "didn't know" LIE. Namely, how could she be so disconnected from the defenseless, dependent, not-there-by-choice PERSON that she wouldn't notice who you were with, that it would be inappropriate for the two of you to be alone, AND not notice that you were being traumatized. In a healthy, loving parent-child relationship, the child is EAGER to share their every experience with their parents because it's all brand new to them. So if you went X years with no secret, physical, naked interactions with people, to suddenly have that would stick out. You'd either ask your parents about it or tell them about your new experience... Unless they've led you to believe they do not care about your experiences and/or have modeled for you that they're not there for you. After all, how did this abuser know to choose you instead of somebody else's kid sister? The path of least resistance because even they could see you didn't have enough of a support system to risk interrupting their predation. I'm really sorry all of this is a reality for you. I hope you'll take some of the advice here and not allow your abusers to continue to victimize you by convincing you that it's okay because they didn't know. It was their job to know. That was the promise they made to you by bringing you into this world without your consent.

Performative contradiction or self-detonating claim. If you're looking for a French sounding word, tautology (circular reasoning) is the closest I can think of.

Could you clarify this please? As I understand it, money is stored value. Proof of prior value given, not future. Essentially, money is a technology. Before currency, trading was arduous and inefficient. If you have a doctor and a farmer, the following all need to be true simultaneously in order for them to trade: Doctor wants something the farmer has. Farmer wants something the doctor can provide. Both parties value both products/services equally. All of this doesn't even account for competition. Money not only acts as a divisible intermediary, but also helps to qualify market signals, helping all interested parties get a better understanding of what things are actually worth.

If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care what your answers are. It seems like you are focusing on symptoms rather than the problem. I'd be more interested in WHY somebody having more kids leads to more handouts. It's because there are people who will steal from everybody and incentivize others to reproduce mindlessly. Since this theft or promise of theft came first, I think we've come closer to the root. I think you're doing yourself a large disservice when you say something like "I am for legalization of all drugs." First of all, saying legalization means you're legitimizing the claim that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. Secondly, you're legitimizing the superstition that individual opinion alters reality. It doesn't matter if you are for or against people threatening other people with credible violence for this reason or that. Objectively speaking, the initiation of the use of force is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. Saying how you think certain self-contradictions are acceptable doesn't change the fact that they're internally inconsistent (and therefore wrong).

Actually, 11 is too old. The formative years of personality are between 3-5. This would've been the time to talk with her about everything and model win-win negotiation and rational thought. As for how hard to push, I think that's a "bad question." When somebody chooses to bring a new life into the world, they are making a positive obligation to that person to protect and nurture that person until such a time as they're able to do so for themselves. Pushing the child to do something the parent wants is a failure on the part of the parent. It contradicts their voluntary obligation to the child by not only not negotiating with the child, but modeling for them that those who are larger and/or have more power are justified by default.

How do you know? There is no such thing as a communal asset. As I tried to explain before, you're contemplating HOW people should use their imaginary status of existing in a separate moral category rather than contemplating IF people can exist in a different, opposing moral category. Define "animal instincts" in the context of humans. It seems to me that our animal instincts are to adapt to survive and reproduce. Because we as a species have the capacity for rational thought, we have the capability of understanding that achieving our goals without initiating the use of force against others is actually more efficient. Allow me to elaborate. Say I want a car. A large expense. On the surface, it might seem easier to just take one than it does to work hard for a prolonged period of time to earn one. However, if you take one, does it have a tracking device? Did somebody see you? When the phone rings or there's a knock at the door, is it somebody come for justice? You wouldn't be able to get a decent's night rest out of the need to constantly look over your shoulder. And this will never go away until justice is served.

I love this guy! Nice, concise answers. One of my favorite things about becoming a rational thinker is the ability to spot a contradiction just like this. And if somebody didn't reach a conclusion by way of logic, reason, and evidence, then they won't be convinced otherwise by logic, reason, and evidence. I've talked with people you could see they understood the truth. They were so mindful of what their friends and family might think, they dared not to admit it. This is the momentum of the past. There will come a point, after a very long intellectual battler where 51% of people will accept that self-ownership is universal. At this point, most of the rest will agree just because that will be the point where supporting institutionalized violence will become unfashionable. Until that time, all we can do is plant the seeds. One thing I like about debating online is that it's public. You may not convince the person actively resisting you, but you never know whose reading it or how far down the road their mind will no longer be able to deny the truth. Just like when people believed Earth was at the center of the solar system: They will kick and scream and do whatever they can to make you agree with them. But you cannot hide the truth forever.

Actually, you've demonstrated here how they've arrived at that conclusion by using the word government. "Government" is a concept and therefore cannot be placed in a moral category. What you need to talk about is the PEOPLE making decisions, edicts, and engaging in behaviors in the name of the State. PEOPLE are moral actors and therefore their behaviors can be designated as moral, immoral, or amoral (lacking a moral component). At this point, we're now looking at a behavior of a person and not a "government." This is just one of many examples where language is used to conceal immoral behavior. That's why they say taxation instead of theft, arrest instead of assault, incarcerate instead of rape, and war instead of murder. Or my personal favorite: When they say law instead of command backed by credible threat of violence. The laws of physics cannot be changed, which is precisely why they're called laws. So when we refer to arbitrary edicts as "laws," this programs people subconsciously to accept and not question it. When they say "government," we think of something that cannot be controlled or stopped.

Assuming by "democratic," you were referring to the context of politics, this is a self-detonating claim. Simply put (again, in the context of politics) "informed voter" is a contradiction in terms. An informed person accepts that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories and therefore rejects the proposition that they can forcibly choose how others should live their lives. So an informed person would not vote and a voter is not an informed person. Outside the context of politics, the question "who cares?" comes to mind. If I choose to vote Taco Bell today instead of McDonald's, you are free to agree, disagree, or vote a 3rd party. These choices are not binding upon others, so how we vote or why is irrelevant as long as we're not using our property to vote that others not be able to use their property as they see fit, since we would then be contradicting ourselves. I'm not sure what you mean by a functioning anarchy. Two people walking in opposite directions down a grocery store aisle silently negotiate simultaneous passage without force. Everybody you know and everybody they know achieve their goals every day without initiating the use of force. Anarchy is here even if there's people initiating the use of force in the name of the State, trying to cast a shadow that blocks it from our vision. IF your claim that "we" are far from ready for a functioning anarchy were accurate, it would be because people aren't taught to think rationally. To look at their bodies as property and respect others own themselves also, and therefore it's not up to them how others achieve X, Y, and Z. To say we are not ready for anarchy is to say that we are not ready for life without violence. I'm afraid you are mistaken. For there is only one thing you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence: violence. Here, my definition of violence is the initiation of the use of force. That is, to engage in behaviors that are binding upon others without their consent.

Grief, being an emotion, isn't something that can be inflicted upon others. People who are close to somebody capable of killing themselves are responsible for allowing themselves to get close to somebody who is self-destructive. I realize this is usually the result of child abuse, leading to suppressed rational thought and self-knowledge, which leads to a lack of knowing what to look for in others you let near you. So you could argue the responsibility accrues to their abusers (parents). That said, suicide IS the initiation of the use of force. It is true that a person owns their own body and life. However, imagine they jump in front of the bus. They're going to damage the bus and traumatize the bus drive, its passengers, and anybody that witnesses it. Even if it's by way of hanging, the person is leaving a mess that somebody else is forced to clean up. I think assisted suicide, where the assistants consent to cleaning up after the dead and are compensated for doing so in advance would be the only way to choose to end one's own life without initiating the use of force.

Hello, everybody. I've donated to FDR again and I was hoping to take a moment of your time to explain why. Because there's a facet of value provided by FDR that I think might be lost on some. Or at least it was lost on me until very recently. Even before I began to study philosophy and pursue self-knowledge, I avoided the media, including the news. As a kid, I noticed that it was always either negative or manipulative. As a rational thinker, I notice that it's all a diversion to keep us from asking important questions like "Who owns you?" "Can humans exist in different, opposing moral categories?" and "How do you know?" For this reason, I was a bit ambivalent when consuming FDR media that dealt with current affairs. I've recently come to realize how necessary and beneficial it is. I'm talking on a historical level! Jeffrey Tucker gave the entire rational thinking world a "Huh!" moment when he pointed out that thanks to the internet, there are no more gate keepers in terms of WHAT information is distributed how. I've noticed how FDR's videos pertaining to current events have gotten to be responsive to the point of being AHEAD OF THE NARRATIVE. For the first time in human history, even those who NEED certain forms of human predation (violent parenting, religion, governments) to be righteous have access to rational explanations of what's happening, what they're saying is happening, why, and how this repackaging has played out in history. This is so very important because of WHY these people need to believe their masters are just. It's kind of hard to subscribe to the narrative when the curtain's being pulled back in real time, before the evil doers are able to get to them first. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope it inspires you to exchange value for value, even if it's "just" in the form of sharing a few key videos. I found the recent How to Destroy the World to be particularly potent. Not just because it's concise, but also because it's so hard for some people to understand how certain evils manifest in ways we take for granted because the effects are so removed from the cause, that it's hard to accept that violence is what failed us. On a personal level, I also got a lot of value from the recent Why You Should Love Fossil Fuels. If nothing else, the pointing out of the inefficiency/hazard of MAKING a solar panel and the explanation of the importance of on demand energy helped me to view the topic with newer eyes. And I'm just amazed at how, after all the topics FDR has covered and all the thinking I've done for myself, FDR is still able to shatter narratives I wasn't aware I hadn't revisited yet. So thank you, FDR. Stef in particular since I can credit his lengthy Intoduction to Philosophy youtube series as the most influential point in my journey towards rational thought and self-knowledge.

Anybody who makes an effort to communicate is also communicating 1) that they care enough to communicate and 2) they desire for their communication to be received. Communicating, receiving a valid correction, and answering with "who cares" is backpedaling. It's like saying "it was just a joke" or "why so serious?" It's essentially jettisoning responsibility while simultaneously claiming the other person is the one who erred. In other words, it's emotional manipulation and evasion of self-knowledge. How do you know? How is that relevant? Are you saying that you think there are people who will be confused by the proposition that the word gender encompasses male and female? Hell, it technically includes transgendered, hermaphroties, etc. The existing title doesn't, despite using five times as many words. You say who cares and that precision is unimportant when you decide so, but look again. Nobody just disagreed. A few people experienced such an emotional reaction that they behaved in an uncharacteristically unphilosophical manner. When this was pointed out, they doubled down. People who don't care or disagree that precision is valuable just shrug their shoulders and move on. They don't actively try to shame another person for offering a valid correction.

This is like saying that a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard isn't always guessing because sometimes they'll hit a 4 in response to the question of 2+2=?. What does sane people being for something have to do with anything? If people recognize that theft, assault, rape, and murder are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights, then you don't need to point guns at people to make it so. It's unclear what your intent was with the creation of this thread. It seems to me like you're saying we should abide some aggression because some of that aggression calls other aggression bad. Am I close? Do you see the absurdity when expressed in those terms?

This seems like the simultaneous rejection and acceptance of the value of precision. Your honesty is like any property of yours: You are free to give and withhold it as you see fit. If somebody is not important enough to you to be honest with them, then what difference would it make if you withheld anything from them? If somebody is important enough to you to be honest with them, what would sharing that you once sampled feces while on your death bed accomplish? Maybe you didn't get just a yes or a no because it's not clear exactly what you are asking. Maybe it's because it's complex enough that yes or no doesn't satisfy the perceived inquiry.

What do you think writing a letter would accomplish? No dog wants his food dish taken away. Everybody knows this. Saying "Master, please whip me less" is not the same as saying "You do not own me." Asking somebody to not initiate the use of force is not itself initiating the use of force. It does validate their claim over you though, which I think you should avoid for your own mental well being.

Morality is not comprised of matter or energy. It is a concept that describes the real world.

@Zelenn: And I've only just noticed this. Sorry for my own delayed reply. To be clear, I never said to you that you should cut off your parents. I do think that living our values is the only way to effect change in the world. Until it is unfashionable to support/enact aggression, many will continue to do so out of momentum to fit in. Were we talking about lacking intelligence? I thought we were talking about negligence and recklessness. This seems like multiple contradictions to me. You'd rather walk through a mine field than be happy. People who make you feel like you're disarming a bomb are trying to have a relationship with you. People who make you feel like you're disarming a bomb are just weak and easily distracted by petty things. Weakness and being easily distracted by petty things are valid reasons to reject the truth. You can't plan every last detail of your day/life. If something goes not according to plan, you can't punish those in proximity for it. You say they've apologized for (among other things) invalidating your experiences. But if you're seeking the truth and they reject this very simple fact of life, are they not continuing to invalidate your experience? If they behave in such a way as to motivate you to edit yourself for their comfort, are they not only invalidating your experience, but erasing you inside their own minds? When you say apologize, are you just talking about words or did they display genuine remorse and drive to make it up to you? Are you sure you're not projecting here? I've given you credit for demonstrating you possess self-knowledge. I think you have a large blind spot with regards to your parents specifically. What about the pain you've experienced? If that's something you want to talk about and something they don't want to talk about, why are their preferences paramount while yours cannot be approached?

Didn't you just answer it? I said publishing isn't initiation of force, you asked if I'd maintain that if what was published was that somebody thought it was a good idea to murder, I repeated your question back to you without the specifics, you said it's not initiating force. I don't see a gap.

Thanks for that. I'd cutting back on the cost of the mic itself. Looking at a Samson C01Ucw since it would be the quality level I need and not a lot of cost. Reason being that I going to spend a lot more on the mic arm than I originally anticipated and I'm also going to be going for a high quality webcam as well. These changes alone bumped my bottom line up about $150, so I'm going to trim almost that much out of the mic itself for now. Once I'm more experienced, I might step up to a Rode Podcaster for example. Haven't pulled the trigger yet. Also, I'm not entirely sure I will want the webcam portion of it. If I don't, I might step the mic back up.