dsayers

I double checked and you weren't called a name once. We're done here. I've never met a person that didn't find SOMETHING funny. WHAT we find funny is subjective while "cannot process comedy" is an objective claim. It's kind of awe-inspiring to watch manipulators pick up on certain words and use them in their attempts to manipulate others. How empathetic is it to say that anybody that disagrees with you must not be empathetic? Determining what something is before partaking of it is the very definition of prejudice. I see lots of people enjoying humor on these forums. I just don't find lack of self-knowledge or rational thought as the result of having been abused as something to make light of.

I agree that hero worship is unhealthy. The ideas that Stef talks about are way more important than Stef himself, which he's stated himself many MANY times. But I also understand that victims are groomed to follow as a form of their erasure. When one begins to pursue self-knowledge, it can be challenging to not become attached to the person who delivered the message that helped free them. That's something they need to work through and I don't think taking a bat over their head and saying "umadbro?" is the way to do it. If you experienced anxiety over how much of this hero worship you feel to be present to the point of creating a thread, why not share this observation? You could share your acceptance of your own capacity for error. You could express curiosity if whether the anxiety you're experiencing is due to observing the uncanny or because you have unprocessed trauma yourself? Instead, you passive-aggressively posted a video that you claim you didn't make (artificially removing yourself from the chain of causality) and even went so far as to tell people their responses were invalid before they could even experience a response. I would say the problem isn't that others are too serious, but that you aren't serious enough about interacting with others in a win-win fashion. Another great example of what I'm talking about. In order to defend yourself, you must first be under an attack. To label somebody sharing their experience as an attack on you is incredibly manipulative. Also, I happen to be a fan of South Park. I understand that the show is from the perspective of children and that the adults are often portrayed as irrational, ineffective, and naive. You are again being passive-aggressive by proxy by generalizing anybody that has a different opinion than you as the adults on South Park gathered to ineffectively deal with a "problem" they don't understand.

For precision's sake, I wanted to point out that this is addressing the symptom and not the problem. As I see it, the only meaningful way to divide people are those willing to initiate the use of force to meet their goals and those that are not. Those who are aggressed against having a reduced capability of win-win negotiation is an effect. How do you know that they're different? There was a discussion about it here if you're interested.

Was your use of punctuation here deliberate? The first sentence is an absolute. The second sentence is a conditional without an attached response. I can only assume that you meant to say that you find that the use of force in response to the initiation of the use of force to be valid, which is superfluous. It's like creating a thread to say that if I lend you money, I expect to be repaid even though being repaid is an included component of the word lend. It would also help to define terms. Some people interpret the word violence as the initiation of the use of force. Others interpret is as physical force. Given people's ingrained response that violence is bad, I prefer the definition of initiation of the use of force since that fits. Somebody who initiates the use of force is voluntarily creating a debt. Defensive force is the settling of that debt. In other words, to point out that the initiation of the use of force is immoral is to denote that defensive force is valid. Just as the word lend denotes the debt being repaid. This is begging the question. Superfluous. Value is inherently subjective, therefore NOTHING can be objectively more/less valuable. It comes from violence. Just as non-shoe comes from shoe. To identify an object as a shoe is to identify that objects have the capacity to be not shoes. I'm confused by your confusion. Your complete lack of curiosity is noted, but I will debunk this for the benefit of others. You're conflating the capacity for reason with biological imperative. The differentiation IS the capacity for reason, making your claim of arbitrary false.

Is agoobwah derived from rational arguments or is it followed based on faith? I suspect you're not going to be able to answer that question even for yourself until you know what agoobwah is, eh? Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine (use of the acronym NAP without understanding what it is). You're talking about shorthand for a conclusion as if it doesn't come from anywhere. It's like asking what color a forest is while exhibiting no knowledge of what a tree is. In order to answer this question for yourself, unpack what NAP is. The non-aggression principle. It's shorthand for the conclusion that "the initiation of the use of force (theft, assault, rape, and murder) is immoral" How do we arrive at this conclusion (which appears to be what you were trying to ask)? These behaviors are a demonstration of a simultaneous acceptance of one's own property rights and rejection of the property rights of others. X and the opposite of X cannot be true simultaneously. This is an accurate description of the real world, not faith.

If people (including Bob) were raised peacefully, why would he be capable of the things you describe? If he's capable of the things you describe, how would he be able to manage acquiring a couple acres of land, solar panels, etc? If he's ostracized by everybody else, how will he eat? Who will remove/replace his septic tank? Who will service his solar panels when they break down? What do you mean by NAP? If person X is harming people, for person Y to intervene would not be the INITIATION of the use of force, so I question if aggression means what you think it means. Are you saying that the possibility of this scenario justifies pretending people can exist in different moral categories where some get to subjugate the others? It is unclear what the purpose of your thread is. Can you share that please?

I think so. Is there any reason to suspect that coercion is present?

Maybe not, but seriousness is a requisite of HEALTHY confrontation. You must be serious and indeed invested into something if you are to confront it in a healthy fashion. When you said "don't get worked up" in the INITIAL post, what was it that you were confronting? You are correct that there's nothing inherently wrong with confrontation, but being confrontational in the absence of stimulus is unhealthy and manipulative. It speaks of a bias that you don't appear to be in touch with or if you are, you were not directly forthcoming about. In the context of this bias, your confrontations are a form of an attack, which you continue to make from behind the prejudicial shield that anybody that can recognize as such must have a stick up their ass and in fact be the problem, letting you off the hook.

The problem with rejecting free will based on biological autonomic processes is that consciousness is an emergent property. Our hearts beat because that's all those cells can do. The way our upper brain cells work is so diverse, I think it defies the determinist explanation. I don't know what you could be talking about here. How did you arrive at that conclusion? If you were able to identify that your methodology was faulty, would you discard this conclusion? Assuming you're referring to mental items, nuero-elasticity and epigentics suggests that your conclusion cannot be accurate. Given the way that you've shared that you are abusive towards your wife, I think it would be very dangerous to tell yourself that you cannot help it.

Considering this was your stance before anybody even had the chance to reply, this says more about you than it does the forums or any of its members. Seriously, you're 3 for 3 with being confrontational. Is that how you think that win-win interactions look? Or are you not interested in the other person benefiting from the interaction? The puppet and some of the mannerisms were amusing. But the whole touch your own butthole thing was Adam Sandler level not funny. It was so off-putting, I found it hard to enjoy anything beyond that.

I don't think there is a connection between charging a fee in a voluntary trade and contempt for the other party in that trade. Could you elaborate on that?

I have no doubt. And in a free society, I'm certain the likelihood that people would not work together even amid competing claims is negligible. I don't think this has any bearing on the descriptive truth that ownership is inherently exclusionary. Logic is derived from matter and energy, but not comprised of matter and energy. I'm not sure how to respond to the claim that ANY logic doesn't exist as if that refutes it. If I understand what you meant to say correctly, I think your ability to outline the logic I used contradicts your claim that it's not there. If your position is correct and mine is faulty, you won't convince me by making exaggerated claims. Can you give an example? You keep saying that if two people agree that we can fly, that is proof that we can fly. I keep asking you to provide a logical explanation. I'm not saying that just because you're cannot that you are wrong, but I think you should at least be honest with yourself that you can't. When you pay your electric bill, you are trading for a service, not something that you own/keep. Sure, you could argue that batteries are a way to store the effects of that service. However, this would mean that you own part of my cellphone if we pay the same electric bill. It continues to be self-detonating.

So what? Four is a human concept. That doesn't mean it has the capacity to equal 4 and 5 simultaneously. As I recently argued elsewhere: Ownership is inherently exclusionary. You own yourself and therefore you cannot be owned by somebody else. In order for me to use you (exercise ownership over your body), I'd have to override your use of you. For me to use myself to deny you use of yourself would be contradictory. This contradiction I feel is adequate proof that ownership is exclusionary. This is again begging the question. Paying for electriticy is usage, not ownership. Two people signing a deed/splitting a meal is evidence of a BELIEF in joint ownership, not ownership itself. I had asked you to either make a case for joint ownership or point out how my logic is faulty. If you cannot, then you should revise your conclusion to more accurately describe the real world. Check shirgall's post for a what a case for joint ownership might look like. @shirgall: I understand what you're saying. But in order for the contract to be binding in all circumstances, all circumstances must be addressed in advance. As human desires are infinite and joint ownership would require at least two people, I have argued that this is logically impossible. The moment you are faced with unforeseen competing claims, the fallacy of joint ownership becomes apparent.

JeanPaul, in the phrase "the initiation of the use of force," the word initiation is the operative one, not force. If somebody is initiating the use of force, to use force against them is not an initiation of the use of force.

What is the point in identifying you as a trusted creature even though human beings have the capability of outright murdering her? Precision aids in our efficiency no matter what we're doing. Being able to differentiate between a parked car and one in motion helps us get to tomorrow. Victim is one of those words like anger that people have come to look upon as negative. Anger is healthy even though some people can act upon it in unhealthy manners. Identifying the truth of one's abuse is the only way one can have the power to counteract it. You can't treat a cancer you aren't aware is there. It doesn't help that some people use the identification of victimhood as an excuse to wallow and invoke pity in others. Maybe she is saying to you that she wants to be strong enough to forge her own destiny. The problem is that in order to do that, she has to be honest about her past. I didn't read the article. While sometimes it can be helpful to point to established analysis on something if its concise, it's better to make the arguments yourself. In this case, it would help her to either identify her position as needing revision or it would help her to understand WHY her position is accurate. Pointing to something somebody else authored is just a way to avoid having to think about it herself. Which is no doubt a mechanism her abusers implanted to prevent her from being able to escape them.

"People own stock therefore joint ownership is valid" has the philosophical integrity of "a church is proof that God exists". It's not, it only proves that some people believe it to be true. If people can outvote you on what you do with "your property," then either it is not your property or their claim to your property is invalid. Joint ownership suggests that these are simultaneously true despite being mutually exclusive. If my conclusion is in error, you could make a case to the contrary or reveal how the logic I employed is faulty. All you offered was a contradiction and fallacious evidence.

It's incredible how many mistakes you're able to make with so few words. Where did you ever get that I would support the initiation of the use of force? Josh wasn't saying what you SHOULD do. He was simply pointing out this in a sport where everybody takes steroids, taking steroids is the only way to play on a level playing field. However, taking steroids is not the initiation of the use of force. Is it more important to you to live with integrity or to initiate the use of force against other people just because others are doing this? Note the continued heavy pursuit of bias confirmation. Finally, morality isn't analog. A behavior is either moral, immoral, or amoral (lacking a moral component). One immoral act cannot be more/less moral than another immoral act. You brought up the utilitarian consideration of innovation. Yet you totally avoided the refutation and challenge of your claim. You are not looking for the truth. You are looking for a way to tell yourself that the initiation of the use of force is okay. You don't need me for that.

If you're looking for the truth, try and keep things simple. For a behavior to be eligible for moral consideration, it must be binding upon another person. For it to be immoral, it must also violate property rights. Inaction is not a behavior, so there is no moral consideration. In order to solve a problem, you must first understand the problem. For example, if you're hungry, buying pants won't address the problem. It seems I can't do anything without having to hear about ISIS. I know NOTHING about what that is BY CHOICE because I understand it's a distraction. The people who are telling you that ISIS is what you need to focus on don't want you to focus on what's actually important or what you actually have the ability to do with your own resources. I mention this since "having the ability" was a recurring theme in your post. A lack of rational thought, empathy, and acceptance of one's own capacity for error and the self-ownership of others is the foundation of EVERY man-made woe in this world. Childhood trauma is the foundation of all of that. Hiring a private army for action half way around the world is incredibly inefficient compared to not hitting your children which you can do right now for free. If you did hire a private army, you'd be using violence to try and solve violence, which is only practical IN THE MOMENT out of necessity. If your private army accomplished your goal, others would retaliate and it would only perpetuate the very problem you espoused to correct. Even if you don't have children, you can still help others to grasp rational thought, accept that they don't have the right to rule over others, etc. It may not have results as grandiose as mass murder, but the changes you make will be lasting and will lead to (and is a necessary component of) effecting the change you're talking about.

The premise here is that the consumers of a product own the time of the producers of that product, which is false. It's also self-contradictory for the author to use their own property to try and use the property of others in a way they didn't consent to. It's a big pet peeve of mine how much people focus on people instead of ideas. Celebrity worship is another way of avoiding self-knowledge while perpetuating the myth that people exist in different moral categories. Anyways, if somebody thinks that X money for Y product/service is not for them, they can abstain. If the market agrees with them, Y will have to go for a lower price or not be consumed. People can charge for whatever they want as long as nobody is forced to oblige them.

You're not listening. People can download movies now for free, yet still pay for tickets, physical copies, merchandise, etc. Why would I need/want to convince somebody to do what they're already doing? The opposite is true. Would you be able to be more productive if you were limited to a paper clip and a piece of string or if you could use any item without fear of being attacked for doing so? If rubber belts were copyrighted, we wouldn't have VCRs or cars. Even if your claim were true, it would not suddenly make the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights suddenly logically valid. Why would you anticipate such a claim? Is you working/not working the initiation of the use of force? How then could it be described as immoral? Hasn't the crux of my position been that you can't tell others what to do? Also, you're still operating under the premise that you will make less money if you can't steal it from people. While this may be true, this would only be limited by your own ability to meet human desire. Which means working less or less efficiently would only exacerbate what you view to be a problem rather than address/correct it.

Bankruptcy is the State forcibly altering 3rd party contracts. There would be no such thing in a FREE market. Similarly, city/state/province/county/country are currently ways of denoting specific tax/legislation farms. I think these terms will have benefit in a Stateless society for geographical reference's sake. It won't be an entity that has the power to steal from people to fund things those people don't want in a FREE market. Finally, I don't see a problem. If people want X, they will pay for X. If X doesn't make money, it doesn't serve human desire well enough. We NEED flawed business models to fail to free up resources for those who can better serve our desires.

You know, I usually avoid anecdotal evidence and minutia talk, but I just had to share something that some might find interesting if they're reading this thread. The same pursuit of philosophy that helped me to understand that intellectual property is a mismatch of terms also helped me to understand that exchanging value for value is justice. So while some might use scare tactics to suggest that understanding the reality of IP would lead to people paying less money overall, for me, it's actually led to an increased willingness to pay. Take Hearthstone for example. That's a game that is free to play and there is nothing you get from paying that you couldn't get from playing. I went ahead and tossed them some cash anyways. I was receiving such value from the game that I felt the right thing to do was give value back. Consumers understand that buying things acts as a market signal. If you don't buy media X, then maybe they won't make a media X sequel for example. In fact, one of the reasons why I believe in pre-ordering things you're certain you will buy anyways is because that market signal may very well lead to increased production value in the interim. And let's not forget that if you want people to spend more money on things they don't need, don't support the State that has stolen from you by (among other things) debasing your currency just in the time you've read this post!

Why not? The whole purpose of reverse engineering is to understand how something works. What somebody does with that information is no longer the reverse engineering process. Why not? Is it uncomfortable? Why is that my responsibility? It SHOULD be uncomfortable to initiate the use of force against other people. And yes, we are talking about what you do, at your behest if you'll recall how/why/what this topic even exists for. This is bigotry because we already have nearly unlimited amounts of empirical evidence to the contrary. From people doing what you describe even in the presence of copyright, to people releasing their stuff for free and profiting anyways. Also, the "problem" you present assumes once again that because somebody worked on something, they MUST be compensated. The market will decide what movies are worth. And to some degree already have considering some people have shelled out for the exact same movie on Beta, VHS, LaserDisc, DVD, HD DVD, Blu-ray, iTunes, Ultraviolet, and other digital download DRMs. I know I bowed out for a while there, but have you once admitted that you were wrong about something in this thread? Or has it all been playing the victim card, deflection, and moving the goalpost?

For last year's CopBlock tour, I facilitated the Toledo meetup. I've shaken Pete Eyre's hand and I have a lot of respect for the guy. I cannot deny that some of the intellectual items he's posted on CB were instrumental in getting me to Larken Rose, which got me to Stef, which allowed me to fully unplug from the Matrix. That said (and again, I once fell into this category), throwing yourself onto the grenade might spread awareness, but there are ways of spreading awareness that are far less harmful to a person. How much more awareness could be spread if people like Pete Eyre, Adam Kokesh, Lauren Canario, Dave Ridley, etc were out walking the streets instead of being held captive in a cage? Here in the US, we're lucky enough to not be living under an ideological dictatorship. As long as you pay the mafia their protection money, they don't much care what awareness you spread with your words. Part of this is because most of us continue to ask the wrong questions. How do we measure steps away from slavery? Each mind that accepts property rights (including that of children) is another mind that's free. Another cortex that can spread the word and help others to become free. This is so much more easily facilitated outside of a cage. Such as? I mean, is he a rational person? Assuming my theory of provoking a monster is accurate, then his behavior is an irrational one that conflicts with self-preservation. If he's a rational person, I see this as only being attributable to a poorly constructed effort to manage anxiety. I'm no expert though, so I'm certainly open to other possibilities. As for my story, the short version is: Cops pull me over for a non-crime at rifle point. My papers are in order, but I'm mouthing off to them because hey, that's MY sandwich (sorry, I enjoy the bear/campsite analogy). As a result, they hold me for 4 hours while they make up something to charge me with, steal my guns for a year, and would've cost me a fortune if it weren't for the fact that my case was so clean that a local organization funded my defense (NRA was even on deck for the appeal process). Even still, it cost the productivity of all the kind folks who pitched in. Then after they dropped the charges a year later, that same Sargeant was harassing me until my lawyer managed to call him off. If I had kept my mouth shut, they would've seen my papers were in order, that it was a misunderstanding on the part of the person who placed the phone call (and their dispatcher), and I likely would've been released with all my property within the half hour. And if I had the wisdom to understand that psychopaths don't play by their rules and that the reality of my situation was no different from a beast/mugger (except that the public views this mafia as legitimate), I most certainly would have played along for self-preservation's sake. I could've been killed on that day and all they would have had to say was that I drew on them and NOBODY would've even questioned it.

I have no idea. Since it's the initiation of the use of force, I'm guessing no. How does using the word copyright instead of patent change anything? It's all using threats of violence to artificially cull competition. Your improvement is based off of existing tech while you're talking about forcibly preventing somebody from working with existing tech. That was the question I brought up way back when that you continue to avoid. Shifting to reverse engineering is hardly different. The sum of human knowledge is an exercise of reverse engineering. We wouldn't have doctors without reverse engineering humans for example. Not only did you shift from patent to copyright, and shift from improving to reverse engineering, you've shifted your view of reverse engineering from immoral to pitiful. Have you made ANY effort into looking into why it's so important that nobody do what you can do that you're willing to put this much effort into making it fit into reality instead of adjusting your expectation to match the reality you're in?