dsayers

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? What saying? I've never heard anybody say that force is a necessary evil. I know that the phrase necessary evil is both begging the question and mutually exclusive. I reject you claims that there's a time and place to discuss your experiences, that stifling the speech of others is necessary or "got to be done." You don't think yourself capable of error, do you?

A blind man cannot wish to see. Somebody without self-knowledge cannot wish to be happy. Unprocessed trauma is a container that binds and limits. What you're talking about is repression. And oppression given your willingness to inflict it upon others.

If we both sign a something saying you can fly, would you be able to? Mutual consent cannot override the real world. In the real world, two people cannot dispose of a resource in differing manners simultaneously.

Is this hyperbole deliberate? I'm not trying to dictate how people spend their time. I'm pointing out that somebody thinking that they've achieved a "marginally improved outcome" isn't just not accurate, it's the opposite of accurate. Like religion isn't just a lack of rationality, it's ANTI-rational. It displaces rationality. There's tons of people who aren't addressing the problem. I'm talking about the ones that think they are when they don't even understand the problem. Once somebody is convinced they have the answer, they stop looking for the right answer. Meaning that the people who accomplished the items you mentioned believe they are making the difference, so they are powerless to make an actual difference because they already think they are. How many people accomplish the items you mentioned, sit back and take stock, realize that the State has grown AND WHY, and reject their previous conclusion that activism and reform address the problem? There's no ivory towers here; I've made the same mistake in the past myself. Thankfully, I was exposed to the hard truth that such things only served to manage my anxiety, not actually diminish the problem at all.

What do you mean by wrong? I didn't read the whole thing, but I feel I read enough to identify that the person writing it is being forthcoming. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, I kind of enjoyed reading the parts that I did. At first a red flag went up when it said, "is one of the fastest-growing religious institutions in the world." Then another went up when I read, "As far as religion goes, it’s not the worst you can do." But then I found myself disarmed by, "my scruples with superstition," followed by talk of having his own criticisms with the church and wanting to suspend all of it for a greater cause. Was he doing that for manipulation's sake, to reach a larger audience? I don't know, but at that point, I wouldn't be averse to hearing what he had to say.

Yes, "FSP" is a concept, not a person. Ideas regarding FSP can only be expressed in a collectivizing manner since the mantle of "FSP" is itself collectivizing. I do appreciate the feedback though as I try to be careful with my word selection, particularly by way of text. I will try to keep this in mind moving forward since I've looked back, and I could've been less ambiguous. Allow me to clarify... For the sake of accuracy, it was you who said: That was the origin of collectivizing in our exchange. What I was trying to say is that these actions, which presumably were put forth for the sake of shining a positive light on "FSP" do not make steps towards identifying or addressing the problem. In fact, they detract from it since the time spent doing those things could instead be spent identifying the problem and helping others to also. So those actions do not shine a positive light on "FSP" in my opinion.

^ (since it was missed the first time)

I would ask how you know, but you didn't answer that the first time. I think you are projecting. If somebody talks about something you are not comfortable with, you can distance yourself from that person. You don't get to tell them what they can and cannot talk about. That's simultaneously asserting your needs while erasing their needs. Also, I think your contempt and prejudice are disproportionate to what you ascribe them to.

Shhh! I was just told by a statist yesterday that because I understand actions carried out in the name of the State are immoral, I need to stop using the internet because they invented it. I don't want tomorrow's statists telling me I should praise violence because of the innovations in AI.

I like Oblio better

I had asked you punish how? The answer to your initial question depends on this request for clarification.

Got it. For me, they would be one and the same unless for some reason I didn't have the opportunity to apologize. I see now how the statements are not in opposition. Well I think just indicating from the onset that there are likely other factors and that their findings were not definitive would've been more honest. I checked again. The article said the subjects were polled AFTER being exposed to narrative. Without polling them before as well, the findings cannot treat that exposure as a variable, nor does it account for prior disposition. They have no way of determining that the correlation they observed had anything to do with their efforts. Any correlation would be incidental.

This is doubling down when I don't succumb to the manipulation attempt. The rest of my post demonstrates that I didn't ignore the basis of your post. Is my saying this twisting the events into some kind of horrible thing that you're doing? That is exactly the lack of integrity I've been talking about. The last half of your post wasn't there when I responded to it. That's something you could've learned if you hadn't ignored the basis of my post after just reading "on what basis," while condemning me for what you interpreted as ignoring the basis of your post. You've already owned one time where you said something was said that wasn't. There have been more (increasingly so). Meanwhile, I'm responding to what's actually written. I'm listening to you. I'm just also rejecting the dishonest and manipulative parts, in an outward fashion so you can correct me where I err. Which you are unable to do because you're not listening to me beyond your prejudice that I've said you're a horrible person (despite showing aversion to being praised, but that was a while back now). So I ask again: What do you intend to do with this information? Your subsequent post suggests that it won't be anything of interest to me. I'm only interested in the truth. Making good with others is secondary, and not possible while they're putting this much effort into avoiding the truth. I was trying to make good with you even when you were behaving with what I felt was an uncharacteristic lack of integrity at my expense. You told me that it was setting you up for a combo attack. What can I do in the face of somebody who calls something the opposite of what it is while refusing to accept the possibility that they were wrong.

I think you've taken this further off topic. There's a grade. If somebody steals a pencil from you, you COULD chase them down and hold them accountable for value equal to the pencil and the amount of effort you were forced to put into settling the debt. Most people wouldn't. If you know somebody has committed a murder for example, you could detain them right now even if you're not a policeman. Perhaps I don't understand what you're asking. As I already pointed out, police typically are not only detaining people who steal, assault, rape, and murder and will in fact commit as much if you don't comply. It's this risk that leads you to believe that 99% of police encounters don't lead to people getting hurt. Like taxes. People file taxes not because they consent to their money being taken, but to avoid the alternative consequences. I was recently en route to a triple burglar alarm (read: not a false alarm), so I had backup on the way. He needed me to be there for his protection also. A cop pulled me over for driving safely. This one light bulb said otherwise, but it was provably wrong (no other motorist within a mile except the deputy who was approaching from BEHIND). Even though I COMPLETELY disagreed with the decision of pulling over instead of backing up my partner in a potentially life or death scenario, I pulled over anyways because of what would've happened if I hadn't. The only reason nobody got hurt there is because I complied with the demands of my aggressor. My behavior there is not evidence of a lack of aggression as you suggest.

Is it me or do these statements contradict one another? I think their methodology is flawed (beyond the obvious self-reporting component). All they've done is note a correlation. Unless one's willingness to accept responsibility came exclusively from their belief that personalities can change, then to isolate that one factor might not be as meaningful as it's portrayed. For example, I am willing to accept responsibility for a number of reasons. One is that I accept my capacity for error. Another is that I understand that it is okay to make mistakes. And that it's how we handle making mistakes that matters. Also, I don't want to be the source of harm towards others, so I would try to make amends since I view that to be a just way to proceed from having done so. These tests didn't account for any of these, nor other motivators.

Punish how? Since the publishing of information isn't the initiation of the use of force, it really wouldn't make a difference what others thought of it.

This is like saying that people erect churches because they believe God exists, therefore God exists.

"If you don't ask good questions, you aren't going to get good answers." "You gotta try just a little harder." "Perhaps you can forgive me for not feeling terribly motivated." "I don't know why I should care." Kind of a double standard you're engaging in here. I'm not sure what your point is that you didn't ask something. I can provide input that wasn't solicited. Especially when it preempts the question. Which WAS what you asked. You keep moving the goal posts; Leveling one lie, it doesn't stick, trying another, it's refuted, saying you can admit when you're wrong, suggesting I can't, pretending that if I can't provide an example, it means I'm automatically wrong. So how would answering that question bring you closer to anything? Your willingness to not account for your own words indicates that the truth isn't what you're interested in. Of course I can provide it. There are several examples in this very thread. In keeping with the standard put forth earlier, you can look it up. I realize that standard wasn't put forth by you, but since you continue to speak of being obtuse, I'll give you the chance to reverse doing so. Don't know how many times you have to tell me in order to accomplish what? That I will believe it? Repetition is antithetical to "giving up." If you were to make the claim multiple times, it would become a performative contradiction. See, you ARE trying in that you're making an effort as opposed to not. It's just that your efforts at this point aren't as sophisticated if how easy it is to cut through is any indication. On what basis? I continue to address what's actually there instead of what I THOUGHT I read. This is manipulative. I understand that the departure from accuracy with regards to me isn't about me. The question is what will you do with that information? You took back one false accusation, at least by way of words. What about the others? What about the unphilosophical nature of suggesting that admitting you're wrong means you always do? Or that if I can't, it must mean that I'm automatically wrong? Or saying "who cares" as if that's an argument / blaming me for the actions of others? I could go on.

Allison Gopnik's research has shown that we are born empathetic. They wouldn't be able to even accept the lie of different moral categories without somebody abusing them during their formative years.

Saying I'm obtuse while pretending not to know what damage I'm talking about while continuing to do the exact same making false claims using provocatively manipulative language. Saying you admit that you're wrong all the time doesn't let you off the hook for the times that you don't. I admit when I'm wrong. I reject your premise that even if I didn't, it would serve as evidence that I DID say the things you continue to claim I have when I haven't. It's like you're not even trying anymore. Or maybe I'm projecting based on how easy it is to cut through the bullshit.

People who hire us own the property they pay us to protect. They can delegate that right to whomever they choose. Besides, who's talking about theft, murder, and rape? Do you know of any legal code that says "thou shalt not steal, assault, rape, or murder" and nothing else? It seems to me that any legal code you could point to has hundreds and thousands of pages of arbitrary edicts that THEY will steal from, assault, rape, or murder YOU for crossing.

How do you know? Also, how are you able to determine when and where somebody else is allowed to feel something? What part of "This guy's an amateur. From him I get a real sense of revenge and attention seeking, like he's secretly hoping his mommy dearest is watching the videos. Creepy. I see the hurt little boy in his eyes, speech, and actions, like he's not quite over it yet" is factual or scientific? How is your approach here solving any problem? You're essentially describing one's vulnerability as an invitation for your scorn. If I had such a sharp, emotional reaction to something, I'd want to look at that and figure out why. By becoming hostile towards something that could illicit such a response in you, you're not identifying any problem, and will be powerless to solve it. Or is it that the hostility did not arrive at the proper time and place to be considered valid by you?

Okay, but WHY would you see that when it wasn't there? You could counteract months of damage if you could answer that, if only for your own benefit. It's not an isolated incident.

@powder: I think my last post was not live when you made this last post. I did want to clarify that I personally do not have a problem with somebody calling somebody a dick or even being called one. I think it's important that the conclusion is a rational one, made by sound methodology. Which doesn't include things like supposition and allowing bias to interfere with calling things by their proper names. Which I think was the case in this thread. Also, I don't know if this has any bearing on the highlighted parts above, but I wanted to point out that somebody getting offended isn't always the fault of the alleged offender. Some people get offended as the result of unprocessed trauma. Others feign offense in an attempt to manipulate others. So kind of like in the first paragraph, I don't have a problem with people offending one another or even being offended. It's when it's done for the sake of inflicting harm that I find it to be problematic. Sort of like somebody not taking the time to understand something (another standard Mr. Rak has put forth while defying it) but proceeding as if they completely understand it.

What it would look like if they didn't wouldn't be something that you'd call by the same name, so it wouldn't be what you're describing as panarchism. If you approached somebody and tried to talk to them about what if rape didn't violate property rights, I think they'd be freaked out. I realize it's different with the State since most people believe it to be benevolent. How would it help to trick them out of that conclusion by selling them another mythical model? Well I think that you posting this is a performative contradiction. Nevertheless, I accept that saying it again won't be helpful. Instead, I offer you . In particular, the part where he considers other possible models for property and how they're provably false.