dsayers

No he doesn't. I would ask you where you got this from, but the last time I challenged you on a bald-faced lie about me, you just said people could see for themselves instead of qualifying your assertion. source Well, just because somebody says something doesn't mean I have to address it. But which part are you referring to? This part? They're not the same thing. The former has an element of certainty while the latter is with the caveat of accepting my own capacity for error (the humility Mr. Rak says I do not possess). Accusing somebody shuts down conversation by invoking defenses while commenting on the possibility opens up conversation (if shared with somebody who possesses self-knowledge and accepts their own capacity for error). I'm more interested in the manipulative language there. "Accusing" paints the accused as if they were a victim of verbal assault and therefore automatically ineligible of what they're supposedly accused of (not that that would follow anyways). More still, I'm interested in the hypocrisy. If accusations are an unfavorable standard as Mr. Rak portrays, then wouldn't his accusations in this thread be not adhering to the very standards he'd prescribe and in fact condescend somebody for not adhering to? What about the repeated accusations Mr. Beal is making in his presence, the deceptive nature of which are a matter of record in this very thread?

What do you mean by violence? To me, violence means the initiation of the use of force, which is immoral and not the same thing as defensive force. In what ways are the government going against you? Where I live, they mostly just steal from me behind my back through way of taxation, fines, and coercive regulation. As long as I don't cross any of their lines to their knowledge, they mostly leave me alone. Which leaves me free to help others understand that acts carried out in the name of the government is immoral. Also, if we help parents to understand that they can raise their children without aggression, we'll raise people that don't speak the language of aggression. In a few generations, people will look back on the State as they do now on things like slavery.

The escalation is really important to understand. The very act of a policeman turning on his light bar behind you is a DEATH THREAT. Another thing to consider that I find helpful is to remember that policemen are like gang members. Whether it's personal unresolved trauma or social pressure from within, they are rewarded for initiating the use of force against others. Like any mugger, they too prefer to get away with it rather than being "caught." That's why rather than going door to door and taking your money, they wait for you to cross arbitrary lines so that others will actually applaud them for stealing from or assaulting you. At the same time, it's important to remember that these people are victims themselves. Whether it's that they were abused directly and are seeking retribution or indirectly by not being taught to think rationally which would allow for them to see through the lie that they could exist in a different moral category. If we could help the enforcer class to process the trauma of their past and they said no to the ruling class, we'd have freedom today and without a drop of bloodshed. Dare to dream, I know.

When I joined, there were a couple questions on the application that you can find on my profile. There's more now than there was when I first joined, so it is something that they started doing at one point. Not sure if it's something that can be turned off in a person's profile though, so maybe some don't get published.

I wouldn't worry about making use of the State to attempt to save a child from abuse. I've done that also and it doesn't bother me one bit. We live in a society where if you intervened directly, it could be spun into you were the aggressor. It's a very difficult situation you've described. I want you to know that I realize this because one thing I wanted to point out might seem like I was indelicate about your circumstances. If you were to intervene directly, even just by way of speaking to the child directly as if the abusers weren't present, that demonstration of a contrast in what he's used to, could save him down the road. Like if you were to kneel down and talk to him at his level and just tell him that it's not okay for people to hit him, it could help him to not internalize or normalize the abuse.

Unreal. You're exactly describing the dilemma I faced with the gender thread. Also, in both of these threads, you were actually counting on people who weren't paying much attention to side with you instead of convincingly addressing the challenges presented to you. Do you think those paying attention wouldn't be able to see that the two of you have agreed to a narrative rather than accept reality? It's like watching Christians assure one another that God works in mysterious ways.

One critique: Ownership is in part the investment of time/labor in a meaningful way. If a person permanently lost their capacity for reason and was no longer a moral actor, they wouldn't suddenly become unowned ownable property. Ownership of them would revert back to their parents first and then perhaps other family or friends. People who invested their time/labor in that person's lives. Hell, if the person had no friends and family, you could even argue that whom they were indebted to would gain ownership if they could prove the financial prowess of selling off his organs to help satisfy his debt. So a hospital for example would still need consent to take ownership of the person's organs. Thanks for bringing this topic up. I've made similar observations but lack the courage to be the first one to speak on it.

I understood that. That was the point I was trying to make. I don't think that parents endangering their children, regardless of how much can be chalked up to negligence, should be taken so lightly. Which isn't binding upon you, but processing emotions regarding abuse is a huge claim. I would hate for anybody to be walking around thinking they're all caught up when there's still unprocessed trauma. If that last sentence is true, then I am truly happy for you and the efforts your parents have made. However, some of the language that you use suggests that you haven't ENTIRELY dealt with it. For example, error of knowledge? One of my favorite cliches is "never gamble that which you cannot afford to lose." Why wouldn't a thorough investigation of how your safety would be provided for be a deal breaker for leaving you in daycare? Why were you being left with strangers instead of in the care that had the ultimate invested interest in your survival and care? Is being "weak and easily swayed" an excuse for being so cavalier with a human life? How different history might've been if Hitler had been abused to such an extent. You say school said you needed Ritalin, but who put you in that school? Who exposed you to personality-altering drugs in lieu of listening to you and valuing your experience? Didn't you just make a very profound (and rightly so) defense of your experience to me? Why not to them? My sincerest apology. For whatever reason, I thought I had read that your baby sitter had beaten you and that your sister had used a switch on you. Looking back, I see that's not at all what you said. How embarrassing! Okay, but why? Are you saying that your personality doesn't at all accrue to the parents that brought you into this world a virtually blank slate? Again, I accept that I don't know all the details of what you and your parents did to work it all out. I may be covering things you've long since dealt with. All I can say for sure is that your language suggests you haven't and we talk how we think. All that said, I must say that I DO believe you've made fantastic strides in self-knowledge. The assertive (not aggressive) manner in which you've interacted with me tells me so. Thank you very much as it is always a pleasure to interact with somebody who possesses self-knowledge

In that thread, I had expressed feeling helpless, I had expressed confusion, pride, and feeling ostracized. I didn't respond to Mr. Rak's 8 June post because I hadn't seen it in a timely fashion. That thread motivated me to take my leave of this place. My post history shows a gap from 6 June to 15 September (during which I hadn't even lurked). Looking at my PMs, I didn't again come across the topic until 3 November when I was explaining to somebody why I don't allow myself to be vulnerable here often anymore. It was at that time that I saw Mr. Rak's post and felt it would not be productive or timely to respond to since his claim was demonstrably false. For what it's worth, I did initially give him the benefit of the doubt, knowing that I'm not very good at expressing feelings in ways that are easily identifiable as the sharing of feelings. However, after a quick skim of the thread, it is clear to me that the claim that I had not shared any feelings was not accurate. Because I accept that since I have a preference, that doesn't mean others must have the same preference? Most would call that humility (the healthy kind). I was giving you the benefit of the doubt since your presence here and the quality of your posts that led to me contacting you in the first place when I was new here gave me the impression that you were somebody that would sooner try to talk to somebody than to just mark them down for asserting themselves in a way you disagreed with. Again, that would be projection, meaning that if it's not an realistic expectation of you, that I would owe you an apology. Could it be that observing healthy, positive things and concluding that they are anti-social, negative things would indicate a bias? An expectation for such things?

I don't know that man's work specifically, but I wanted to point out that this is a common pitfall. A lot of people avoid self-knowledge because they view people who can identify their own victim status as "wallowing." I understand that I was victimized. I only ever reference it when explaining WHY I do/experience certain things. I've had people react to me as if I was throwing a pity party (which is pretty horrible when you think about it). Are you sure that what you're seeing isn't just the wisdom of calling things by their proper names? I ask because your post history in general comes across as macho and averse to emotions. That is my bias, so I read a quote like this and associate it with the experiences I've just shared.

Thanks for posting this. I definitely see myself in that. I've gotten really good at cutting through the narrative and performative contradictions, so I try to encourage others to not waste their efforts on "more frivolous" things. I'm constantly striving to do so in a way that won't be interpreted as the opposite (a discouragement). It does no good to disenfranchise people who are in fact assets.

This is intellectual sloth. "2+2=5." "Actually, 2+2=4." "Well people can see for themselves." When you make an objective claim, you're demonstrating that you accept that there is such a thing as truth and truth is preferable to falsehood. It is false to claim that I've ever said that you, James, or Mike are terrible people. You made this claim without any frame of reference, which comes across as using your esteem to shame me. When I provided a link to what YOU were referring to, this is letting people decide for themselves. I did this while I was talking to you about it. As opposed to just saying "people can decide for themselves," which is refusing to discuss it even though you were the one that made the claim. It is not true that I've ever said that you, James, or Mike are terrible people. In fact, when I share that I feel the occurrences you were referring to were uncharacteristic, I'm explicitly saying that I think you're NOT terrible people. I mean, aren't you twice now sharing that such praise makes you uncomfortable? Do you experience any dissonance when you manage your anxiety in receiving praise regarding your reputation by claiming your reputation is being tarnished? They cannot be true simultaneously. And if reputation is as important as you're behaving as if it is (which I agree it is also), then you cannot be so irresponsible as to claim that somebody has said you're a terrible person, then when challenged as to the accuracy of that claim, back out, stating that people can see for themselves. This may be the guardedness/lack of vulnerability I was referencing before. How do you feel knowing that FDR--a site about studying philosophy, pursuing self-knowledge, getting in touch with your emotions--is a place I do not feel I can be open and honest about myself at because 3 of the 4 people whom I felt would never attack me while I was vulnerable would rather attack me than face the discomfort they experience when somebody has the audacity to observe that "gender" encompasses male and female? If I never said that you were a terrible person and you claim that I've said you're a terrible person, you have a responsibility to either produce evidence to support that or revise your claim to more accurately describe the real world. You've spoken with me in private before about a concern you had with things I've written. I know what doing it publicly instead is meant for. The problem here is that your claim was challenged, with evidence provided that your claim is not accurate. You can choose not to respond, but I won't be letting you making a response that ducks that responsibility go unidentified as such. Please do the right thing for your sake, for my sake, for the sake of those reading who'd rather see great minds working together. My understanding of being a dick is intentionally being unnecessarily mean to somebody. I don't think this accurately describes the act of holding somebody accountable for trying to be understood. Just as I don't think "you didn't even take the time to understand" accurately describes taking the time to understand. That's not passive-aggressive and I think you classifying it as "wide-eyed" reveals the bias from which you would make such a claim. Furthermore, I reject the premise that you regard passive-aggressive as an unfavorable standard. "stop the posturing (when I wasn't)," "stop being a dick (when I wasn't)," and "I'm used to [your] crap (when it's not)" may not be passive-aggressive--may not even be aggressive--but it is provocative language meant to incite. Not the behaviors of somebody who holds passive-aggressiveness as unfavorable and lives their values. Since you asked, no, I suppose I do not think that you find Kevin to be infallible. However, this is the second time you've defended the indefensible and added in a downvote to "teach me a lesson to dare cross Mr. Beal (my interpretation)." This rings of a "proximity=virtue" mentality. One of the pitfalls of regarding people in terms of "my team/their team" is that you risk missing out on the bad things in your team or the good things in the other team. As I recall our private exchanges from the past, we were "on the same team." This changed as a direct result of my disagreeing with Mr. Beal, while you had made no effort to reconcile with me the concerns you have with me despite being our favorable foundation. This doesn't seem like the behavior of somebody seeking the truth, but rather the behavior of somebody trying to stay on the good side of who they anticipate will be the "victor." I accept that characterizing that as regarding somebody as infallible wasn't accurate. For that, I apologize. It's not self-pity. If anything, it's pity for the people that do such things. If somebody uses the downvote system as an ideological weapon, I know that it's not a reflection of me. It's a reflection of the person's inability or unwillingness to work together for mutual benefit. It's indicative of managing one's anxiety in a way that won't actually address what's causing them that anxiety. It's right there in the name: ideological weapon. "Somebody doesn't agree with me, which bothers me, and since I cannot convince them, I'm going to hurt them." I much prefer this; This discussing things. This attempt at working together. THIS is how people who enjoy philosophy and self-knowledge should be able to interact. My apologies if my projecting this expectation onto you also is irrational or unrealistic. No, the purpose of revealing the activity is a form of ostracism; social pressure to reform. You can do it all you like, but I want you to know that I know that it's happening and why. And for others to know, both for the sake of being able to call things by their proper name and to understand that the results are noticed and undesired. A way of personifying the recipient of that action; To demonstrate that this post is not being made by an avatar, but by an actual person of reason who could be talked to. By all means check out my reputation history in my profile. You will see times that I get marked off for taking up a controversial position, which is understandable. There are other times when I get them seemingly out of the blue. It IS something that I keep track of, so I could even point out for you who issued them and why. So while yes, it can sometimes be a useful tool for feedback (though inferior to the feedback of speech, which can articulate the exact nature of discomfort/disagreement and why), it can also be used as an ideological weapon. I've seen it many times and indulged in it myself I'm embarrassed to say.

From a PR standpoint, I most certainly understand their position. Google is poised very well and this would be a minor way to keep that going. In a way, I'm kind of glad because this means less fuel for their parents to take out on their children. Though I'm sure most of them did so anyways. As much as I'd like to see responsibility accrue to the responsible, it's not like they'd learn to take responsibility from it. They'd just take it out on their kids more.

Your capacity for error has caused you to get a couple of ideas thoroughly mixed up here. The words "theft, assault, rape, and murder" all denote a lack of consent. Defensive force is consensual because the assailant voluntarily creates a debt with their aggression. Speak for yourself. 100% of the time an assailant FORCED me to draw a firearm against them, I wasn't once forced to pull any trigger. It protected me every single time. I accept the potential for the eventuality of having to pull the trigger, but I don't want to have to destroy anybody. And you can rest assured that if that ever happens, it wasn't my choice. Your differentiation of State and government is being obtuse. Yes, I understand that a voltage regulator governs the voltage. In this place, people use the term "government" in the context of the State and you know it.

In light of the things you said here, I reject your earlier claim that you "have found Aikido wonderfully instructive as a means of aqcuiring knowledge of my emotions and working through my emotions regarding childhood bullying and abuse." First of all, that's not a typical childhood at all. Even if it were, to call it typical rather than being upset about it isn't working through your emotions at all. Secondly, why are parents spanking you significantly lesser? That's the origin! Baby sitters couldn't beat you if your parents hadn't primed you for abuse. Or if those same parents hadn't exposed you to people that would beat you. Parents that abused your sister into thinking that assaulting you was okay. Parents that didn't notice that your own sibling was assaulting you (or didn't care). Parents that didn't protect you from knife fights at 12 years old!? I took Tae Kwon Do for a while and I've engaged in physical exercise. Hell, I've even gotten tattoos. I understand that endorphines feel good. I think you're deceiving yourself if you tell yourself that this good feeling is working through the emotions regarding your bullying and abuse.

@Nero: I see a lot of ownership of what you're experiencing. As infants, we are all born with the inability to make good decisions. By conceiving us, our parents created a very large obligation to prepare us for survival by the merits of our own faculties. Yet as I said, I see no mention of them or your childhood. Just you owning something that I am relatively certain was the responsibility of other people. We can never solve a problem we are unable to identify. I hope this post will bring you closer to identifying the problem so that you can begin to heal from and work past it.

Bullying and abuse by whom if that's not a rude question?

I can appreciate this approach. I remember a time in my life where I too was in absorb and process mode and not yet ready to effectively withstand sophistry and logical fallacies. That said, I wanted to point out that while you're arguing minutia with somebody more interested in "winning" than determining the truth, you're not absorbing or processing anything useful. Don't let those without self-knowledge mire you down in a war of attrition.

If a child throws a tantrum, its parents should take a good long look at what they've done to the child that the child needs to go to such lengths to meet their needs AND thinks it's a valid way of accomplishing such.

I get what you're saying about the community aspect of it and agree that that can be a very big deal. However, this quote here just sounds like, "They pruned a few leaves of the weeds" or "They killed a few of the cancer cells." I argue in this thread that "step in the right direction" is a myth. First of all, if they're not accomplishing these things by helping people to understand that theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral (and therefore all government is), then they're just managing the symptoms and not the problem. Secondly, statists are being churned out of government schools at a rate far greater than the FSP is enticing people to be responsible for their own actions. From these, we understand that the symptoms they're trying to manage are coming to fruition much faster than they're experiencing these isolated "victories." So I'm sorry, but this quote is a strike against them in my book, not selling points. In fact, I'd even go so far as to suggest that GENERALLY speaking, they're worse than statists because they understand that there's a beast to be slain and are making no effort to identify the problem before pretending to address it. At least most statists don't understand that they're initiating and encouraging the initiation of the use of force.

Well, my poorly made point was that a corpse is not a moral actor. Nothing you could do to a corpse could be described as moral or immoral as I understand it.

To that end, I wanted to point out that "free citizen" is also a contradiction of terms. The word citizen refers to somebody based solely on the claim of ownership an external source has placed on that individual. Sorry if that seems nitpicky. A lot of slaves are enslaved first in their own mind by the way so many words have been bastardized and co-opted.

I've never understood this belief. Technology displaces labor, it doesn't replace it. Somebody's labor designed that technology. Somebody's labor manufactures it, distributes it, services it, etc.

I'm purposefully trying to use a vocabulary that is accurate. "What color is this apple?" "Four." Hey, people are used to four, right? Using a word that's involuntary to describe something that is voluntary and vice versa, how accustomed to specific language somebody is isn't relevant. I pick and choose the restaurants, stores, services, etc that do what I want them to do. We wouldn't call Wal Mart a government just because it can satisfy your grocery AND vision AND automotive, etc. Because Wal Mart isn't inflicted upon anybody. Nobody has to formally declare Wal Mart. People who patronize Wal Mart can patronize its competitors also. None of this describes a government, which doesn't do anything that cannot be done without violence except for the violence part. You think governments should build roads? Too bad. You don't even get that today. They hire private contractors that would build the roads even if they were privately owned. I know. What you're putting forth is an unethical model. While calling it the opposite of what it is. I'm not sure what the point of this is. If I build a chair, I can give it away if I choose because it's my chair to give away. How could giving it away be considered contradictory to the act of creating it, that one would need to point out that it's not contradictory? I don't get to say that because I would have given a chair away if I made it that other people that make chairs are not free to not give them away.

Do you experience any cognitive dissonance accepting the capacity for error of another person while rejecting your own capacity for error? Nothing about (source) indicates that you are referring to 12 years ago. I point this out since instead of just saying no, she doesn't live with you, you've indicated that the chain of causality was important to outline.