dsayers

It's not an issue of seeing yourself as a cat or lion. It's the acceptance that you are mortal. That banging your head on a brick wall might manage your anxiety in the moment, but it doesn't address the problem. Not that a problem has been identified; For all we know, the loan came from his uncle. At the risk of sounding like a fortune cookie: Man who makes conclusion without information not speak truth.

People who can't think rationally were victimized. I wouldn't take pleasure in torturing them.

Do you mean i processors? I thought Intel's K just indicated unlocked multiplier for OCing purposes. Which I don't get into at all. In fact, the first thing I'm going to do when my Strix arrives is see if I can run it at reference frequency instead of their "factory overclock" just to cool it down a bit more. I do need some form of graphics capability. My laptop has a Haswell (4th gen) i7 as its GPU. It can run Reckoning alright, but only got like 3 FPS in Dishonored. It's just that my graphics needs aren't as high as most people who would call themselves gamers since I'm not as interested in visuals. Thanks for the info, Mr. Rak. Had I seen that before, it might've steered me into the 750Ti. I think the main reason I was so amenable to the 970 is because I'm already rocking an i7-4770 with 32GB of RAM and 500 GB SSD as primary drive. Also, I do dabble in video rendering from time to time, which modern softwares can make use of your GPU to accelerate. As long as the 970 doesn't double as a skillet, I'll be set for quite some time.

The 970s are Maxwell too. When I found out that the Palit wasn't going to be acquire-able in the US (still baffles me), I thought maybe I'd wait for the proper Maxwell roll-out. Then later found that that time was nigh. I had been asking around and found somebody that says that negligible overhead aside, the stronger card will typically run cooler below capacity than weaker cards doing the same thing. The funny part is that this led to me deciding to get the 970 only to find that everyplace I could order it from (newegg, amazaon, microcenter) were out of stock. Amazon even had a back in stock date on their site a couple days ago that isn't there anymore. And I kid you not that newegg went from being out of stock when I first checked to in stock when I went to see if I could determine a restock date. So that order has been placed! I'll report back with my findings. I don't think it's going to be a problem though since my 7750 was good enough and the 970 is going to be at least 3 times stronger.

The first two words in this thread are "I refuse." That the agreed upon time frames have yet to pass isn't relevant. If you read the posts of the thread's author, he's not curious or exploring. He's made up his mind and worse, he's categorized his decision to steal as noble, pre-empting reasoning. Why are you making an excuse for him?

Thanks for the responses. I am aware that TDP alone isn't enough. It's just one of the two factors that gave me pause with the 970. One that I later thought to myself actually might mean cooler card at same usage. I too don't think that either card would be problematic. It's just I've never spent that much on a video card and never chased after top of the line since I'm not big into action gaming and prefer gameplay over eye candy. That said, the 970 is technically stunning and being newly released would last a whole lot longer technologically speaking.

Of course. What a person does with their property is nobody's business unless it's used to initiate the use of force. Lending is about risk assessment. They would likely use a signal such as can't keep a job to deny somebody as well. That's not discrimination, that's anticipating future behavior based on past behavior. While I don't think skin color is the best predictor of future behavior, it should be noticed that stereotypes are not just outward in. Some people conform to stereotypes believing that they don't have a choice in the matter. It's a consequence of the State stealing from people to the point of them being motivated to work more, leaving the children in the care of strangers where their survival is predicated on peer bonding. Here, we see people defaulting to the lowest common denominator for the sake of acceptance. If a person feels being a certain way is how to gain "street cred," then this is what they'll do. They haven't been taught how to look at such things objectively and decide that's not for them, rising above stereotypes. I used to deliver pizzas when I learned that black people tend not to tip. It wasn't until later that I learned that this is actually an established stereotype. At the same time, one of the most polite customer we had was this black family that some might unfortunately refer to as uncle toms. They ordered big, regularly, tipped well, and were always a pleasure to interact with. Clearly they didn't fit most stereotypes. Those people were working hard to model for their children things like value and personal responsibility. Meanwhile, I've seen whites that are on welfare, can't afford their rent, choosing to have children anyways, smoking while pregnant, yelling at each other in the baby's presence, etc. I digress. Point being that while stereotypes may be based on truth, they're certainly not universal. A store owner in a free society could deny access to whomever he chose for whatever reason he chose. If he had a no hispanics policy for example, he'd be cutting down his customer base directly by only catering to a smaller percentage of potential customers and indirectly by the business he would lose to people who refuse to do business with somebody that would not service hispanics. In a free market of competition and consequence, he'd be pressured to either revise his policy or be less successful up to and possibly including going out of business. But it wouldn't be unethical as it doesn't prescribe the initiation of the use of force.

How does he know? How does he know that's a bad thing? He's actually right! But this is a mark of a person's empathy, not a mark against them. Too weak for the military is a good thing. It means somebody doesn't want to hurt somebody who hasn't done anything wrong. Similarly, I've always had a problem with PTSD too. Again, not for the reasons that guy might think. I find the D to be turning something that's good/normal into something that's problematic. It's a good thing that trauma is harmful to people. I've experienced something similar after having to pull a gun on another human being. It was a scenario that they forced me into, but I still didn't want to have to do it. I wouldn't call that a disorder at all. I wanted to thank you for taking the time to try and discourage somebody from joining the military. Also wanted to point out that you were using utilitarian arguments. I understand why; People respond to incentives. As long as you understand that 1) the moral consideration is far more important and 2) there's a reason why he accepts the claim that military personnel are in a different moral category and can steal from everybody to provide a service that nobody wants. If you don't identify that reason, you're probably not going to have much luck convincing them otherwise. If you haven't already, please check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series for a better explanation of the science behind this.

He didn't ask for the money to be created. By this line of thinking EVERYBODY that does ANY transaction with fiat currency is a criminal. That is still absurd.

Wow, that's really cool! Especially the part about how after I know the trick, I continue to fall for it.

Though we have five senses, most of the information we collect about the world around us is done with our eyes. If a visual representation of a person is present when we first encounter them, it's part of our evaluation of them whether we like it or not. A person's appearance is nigh on meaningless though. Sure if a person is freshly bathed and clean-cut, you could assume that they want to land well for others. However, you cannot determine by sight alone whether or not that's being considerate of others or manipulating others to lower their defenses so they don't see what a rotten person you are. Barrack Obama for example is quite the dapper gentleman if appearance was all we had to go by.

Exposing the gun in the room is paramount. The so-called 1% only flourish the way they do because they're able to grab a hold of the giant gun called the State and point it at anybody who would compete against them. Most of the expectations of those claiming to not get what they "deserve" are misguided. It's not an employer's job to provide health insurance, a minimum wage, etc. That said, they are justified in being frustrated with their lack of worth. They spend 12 years in government schools and aren't fit to take orders at McDonald's. But again, it's important to understand that this is because of the coercion of the State. I think these are really important things to understand because a lot of the disgruntled are either doing random things as if they're addressing the problem or *gasp* actually turning to the State for help! They don't realize how ridiculous it is to report your captor to your captor, expecting them to liberate you from themselves. You can't fix a problem you can't identify as problematic.

This is manipulative language. Land lord is just another way of saying the owner of the property. You cannot claim that property rights are valid except when that property is housing owned by somebody who doesn't live there. Just as with your property, any owner of any property can choose to dispose of it how they see fit, including letting others use it in exchange for X, Y, and Z. A potential tenant can choose to negotiate, accept, or reject those stipulations. Like any voluntary transaction, "top down" doesn't apply. It is a lateral exchange between moral equals. By day, I am the agent/maintenance man for my father's rental properties. You wouldn't believe some of the things people are willing to do in violation of their contract. You wouldn't believe the turnover rate or the overhead it takes to prepare the house/unit for the next tenant after such violations/turnover. The landlord needs good tenants every bit as much as those tenants need good housing. Anyways, I've argued (though I believe I have the minority opinion) that "joint ownership" is mythical. If nothing else, it is problematic. There are an infinite number of ways you and the so-called co-owners could disagree on how to dispense with your property. In order to attempt to arrange such a co-ownership, you'd either have to provide for every possible mutation or put something in place to resolve such disputes after the fact. Assuming the latter is something like arbitration, can it really be said that you own something that a 3rd party could dispense with against your will?

YOU made the claim that the money he received had been stolen. The onus is on you. Also, you would not be glad to hear information that contradicts your prejudice. There has been no mention of who he got the loan from. Yet you're so certain that it was stolen money that you've patted him on the back, described his theft as noble, virtuous, courageous, etc. Then, when you're challenged as to the validity of your claim, you deflect and double down by adding in a personal attack. It's clear that your contributions in this thread aren't actually about this thread. Do you really think that calling me a wannabe fortune cookie will have any bearing on the truth value of the objective claim that not satisfying a voluntarily chosen obligation is theft?

You have yet to provide any evidence that whomever he received the loan from did not have a legitimate claim to that which they loaned him.

Knowledge is power. There's nothing in the world that knowledge won't help you to do/use better. Anyways, I don't think you can separate the two. At the very least, peaceful parenting entails modeling for a child acceptance of their own capacity for error. This is the start of self-knowledge. Not just in learning about yourself, but also because knowing that it's okay to make mistakes makes for a safe environment to explore yourself.

"Government is dangerous" isn't history. I agree, yagami, that the "doomed to repeat history" mantra is fallacious. Look how much the US empire has been making the same mistakes as Nazi Germany and even the Roman Empire. The people in power are incentivized to perpetuate the myth of power and historical precedent cannot override such incentives. As for teaching children, it's the same with most things: It should be age-appropriate. The younger they are, the more it is the responsibility of the parent to protect the child. The older they are, the more it is the responsibility of the parent to help the child protect themselves. You wouldn't want to teach 3 year old that everything in the world is dangerous. That would be traumatic.

What a demoralizing thread! The idea of a free society working is based in part on the belief that people with moral clarity will ostracize those who engage in immoral acts. I'm seeing very little of that here. In fact, I'm seeing a lot of glad-handing and acceptance How does government immorality suddenly make voluntarily chosen obligations optional? One has no bearing on the other!

This is begging the question. The nature of this thread is exploring the definition of violence. Some people understand violence to be the initiation of the use of force. Some people understand violence to mean a large physical act. Which is more useful in helping others to understand property rights? Would it better help people to understand property rights if described a rape victim shooting their assailant as the settling of a debt voluntarily created by the aggressor? Would it better help people to understand the concept of liberty if we called both rape and the act of resisting rape violence? When you describe the act of resisting rape as violence, it's very hard to make the case that taxation is violence.

You're essentially saying that every transaction everybody engages in is theft. This is absurd. Whomever he got the loan from had a legitimate claim to the currency they gave to him with the stipulation that he pay it back within X time frame at Y rate of interest, which he agreed to. The fact that the government controlling that fiat currency stole from everybody to make it and likely devalued it in the interim is irrelevant. This is not a hypothetical. You transact with others using fiat currency. You do not take things that belong to other people pretending that you're liberating items they've stolen since they acquired it with fiat currency. You demonstrate in your daily life that you do not accept the very claims you continue to pour copious amounts of effort into asserting. What isn't clear to me is why? How did you come to find this community I wonder? I ask because you don't seem the least bit interested in pursuing self-knowledge. You started the thread claiming to be a victim of people expecting you to honor your commitment, which is a reasonable expectation. Then you shifted it to being a victim of people telling you what to do, even though this wasn't happening. Now you're claiming to be a victim of "indebtedness" as if that's some freak accident like a tornado hitting your house, even though that's a situation you voluntarily chose to be in. Every step of the way, you've been certain that the problem is external. It seems to me that the anxiety you're describing is the result of the combination of 1) your expectations do not match the real world and 2) you do not understand that it is your expectations that must give way. As a result, your efforts at addressing the problem only serve to exacerbate it because you've skipped past the crucial first step of fixing ANY problem: Identifying the problem.

Emotions themselves are not rational or irrational (different hemispheres of the brain). Our interpretations of and reactions to them can be though. With things such as self-knowledge, beginning with accepting one's own capacity for error, we can approach our emotions with rationality. So I guess the answer to your question would be the line that differentiates the real world from fantasy. For example, if a neighborhood dog is barking for no reason at length, it would be irrational for me to get angry at the dog. It would be rational to understand that my issue is with the owner of the dog for refusing to control his animal. Better still would be identifying that the reason it seems to anger me more than most is because my parents were so manipulative that I never "got away with" anything.

To whomever he got the loan from. Signing a loan is not theft. Repaying a debt is not theft.

Saying that a behavior is theft is not telling you what you should do. Others have helped you to understand what would happen if you did that, which is also not telling you what to do. It's this lack of integrity that has led you down the path of justifying theft as if it's noble. @Befree: That's a lot of effort being put into resisting the truth that not honoring your voluntarily chosen obligation is theft.

He traded "their money colored toilet paper" for other people's real labor. But that's not the point. If you and I agree to trade X for Y, X or Y is given, but the other is not, theft has occurred. You're not going to combat the theft inherent in fiat currency by stealing it. You're also not going to arrive at the truth by using words like immoral and principles without anything to back those claims up.

That's the conclusion I've arrived at also, but not by that same method. As for what word to use, anything but retaliation. I hear people refer to defensive force as retaliation all the time. To me, retaliation means the initiation of the use of force. You probably just didn't notice the approval message. Much to the chagrin of people donating and/or sharing sensitive info about themselves, this place has intentionally shifted to mitigating all incoming posts. It's really quite antithetical to discussion.