abcqwerty123

Does anyone else find it extremely difficult to be yourself? Every morning, I wake up and wonder whether I should just be myself at take the abuse or to hide myself and be like everyone else. If I choose to be myself, then I am attacked on everything I do. I have so little, if anything at all, in common with people around me and I have been locked in a cage for so long that now that I am old enough to go out and leave this area behind, I can't figure out how to even start. -I say I am an atheist, I am told I'm a fucking idiot, by atheists who refuses to tell other people they too are atheists. -I say I am an anarchist, I can't even finish my sentence with "because I believe that everyone should be free." before I am being called childish scum who just wants chaos. -I say I love tennis, I am called a pussy and told to watch real sports like football and hockey. -I attempt to get a job, I am told if I am not home to do what is asked of me at the time it is asked, then I will be kicked out. The list goes on... So again, does anyone else find it extremely difficult to be yourself?

Does anyone else find it extremely difficult to be yourself? Every morning, I wake up and wonder whether I should just be myself at take the abuse or to hide myself and be like everyone else. If I choose to be myself, then I am attacked on everything I do. I have so little, if anything at all, in common with people around me and I have been locked in a cage for so long that now that I am old enough to go out and leave this area behind, I can't figure out how to even start. -I say I am an atheist, I am told I'm a fucking idiot, by atheists who refuses to tell other people they too are atheists. -I say I am an anarchist, I can't even finish my sentence with "because I believe that everyone should be free." before I am being called childish scum who just wants chaos. -I say I love tennis, I am called a pussy and told to watch real sports like football and hockey. -I attempt to get a job, I am told if I am not home to do what is asked of me at the time it is asked, then I will be kicked out. The list goes on... So again, does anyone else find it extremely difficult to be yourself?

Umm, I have not painted you out to be anything. You already claimed you were atheist, and I never said you weren't. I never said you were untruthful. I never had to say you were illogical, you accomplished that on your own. You posted a topic asking why your posts get down voted. I answered it as kindly as possible, giving you example from your own words, and instead of accepting the answer and your faults, and changing them so you can converse better in the forums, you choose to deny and blame everyone else. I am sorry, but if I had to guess, you only posted this topic to get the few people on these forums that are like yourself, to post as well so you can all agree on how everyone else is just mean to you guys or something. I apologize for not understanding this sooner, but good luck with finding those people.

"My goodness he is absolutely blowing you all out of the water" - That is an attack. Just because something said might be true doesn't mean it isn't an attack. If I say that you are wrong and stupid, and it is true, do you feel I am attacking you? I sure would. (And I am not saying you are stupid, just making a point) You can be shocked that nobody has argued his topic, but do so in a way that doesn't attack anyone else. And again, people may have not argued the topic because of many reasons and to assume that it is because they are stumped is a bit silly. "The ones who stay to defend are simply nitpicking small things about Christianity." - I am bringing up religion because you brought it up and with the small amount of information given, I made the best guess possible at would you were talking about in the post. Just because you say you are not a christian doesn't mean you aren't defending religion. My dad is an atheist but if I say anything back against religion, he flips the lid and unleashes the beast. "I won't disagree with you on that many Christians do flip flop on issues but I feel it is due to the people in charge of their doctrine who manipulate the bible to their benefit." - You are making excuses for christians who aren't in charge, therefore defending them. I didn't say that what you wrote about the papacy wasn't historically verifiable. But defending christianity is the same as defending lies as well as evil. "Also by how many times you say logic & truth I feel you don't embody those you simply claim them as your own, what is your endgame with posting here?" - Again, this is attacking, and I don't mind it because you can say what you want while I can let it go in one ear and out the other, but I wanted to point it out. As for the question part, my endgame on the forums is to learn as much as I can while sharing knowledge I learn. My endgame on posting on this article is to help show you the reason for getting down votes.

The problem is, when you go to a place that has a specific mindset and you say/do things against that mindset, you will have people who will not like you. If you go to a meet up for "Learning How to Spank Properly" and you start talking about how spanking is bad, you will probably mostly get hate for it. FDR is for finding the most logic/truth out of all topics. So, your first quoted post, you just are attacking people who haven't posted a reply yet (so it seems). There can be many reasons for not posting but you are assuming that they have no answer. Also, keep in mind, sometimes when you explain something so many times, you get tired of doing so. I don't know the actual posts your quote came from but for the most part, I haven't personally heard anything new from people supporting religion and every time I hear something new, it is supporting a completely made up religion that has nothing to do with christianity or any religion they say they are in support of, and it is always very illogical. As for your second quoted post, again, I don't know what the other posts on that topic are so it is hard to talk about. However, you are defending religion which is completely illogical and untruthful on a forum that supports logic/truth. In the last sentence, you said that christians flip flop on issues because of the people in charge using them for their own benefit. Don't you think that if you are going to follow such a belief that makes not a single logical argument, that you should at least read the single horribly written book that ALL the information is provided in? If you read the book and follow the religion wholeheartedly, then nobody should be able to control you because all answers are in the book, but when you follow the people in charge, you must believe them over the book they say they follow and that makes them equally as bad and responsible. Anyways, that is why. If you don't want down votes, then don't attack the people/truth because this forum isn't about that. If you want up votes, then provide reasonable questions/answers with proof and/or logic. That is the best answer I can give.

I am confused here. You have been defending the government and now you say you aren't? And yes, defending your property is okay but having your property raided because you posted a photo on facebook of you smoking a blunt and then if you attempt to defend yourself from this kidnappers, you will be killed, that is NOT okay. Anyways, I am very sorry but I won't be replying to you anymore. I feel like you are trolling. You don't make sense with many of your posts and you keep contradicting what you say making it so hard to understand what you are even talking about or what side you are on. So, thanks for the reply and you have a great day.

When there is the threat of force, then it is always. People cant eat certain things, smoke certain things, say certain things, etc... All these restrictions brainwash society into their slaves from birth and if you attempt to break free, you end up getting examples of force. Watch Adam Kokesh for examples.How do i voluntarily agree to be apart of the us mafia? I was born here and did not sign some social contract which it sounds like you are getting too.

It means a small group of people have control over a larger group of people and the only way you can control someone else is by using force. If you don't use force or the threat of force, then you don't have control over someone because their actions are voluntary.

Slavery: The system in which a person(s) controls and makes decisions for another person(s). Government: A group of people which control and make decisions for society. I mean, there are many different definitions but when you describe either one, they are exactly the same.

True, people don't think of government as slavery, which is the problem. Especially when the definitions of slavery and government are almost identical.

True true... The link doesn't work.

My point is that if you believe in freedom, which most libertarians claim to do, then you can't use libertarian as a political party. You either are for freedom(Anarchy-No Rulers) or you are not for freedom(Government-Slavery). Yup. I mean, I am happy when someone goes from republican or democrat to what they call libertarian because they are getting closer and closer to true freedom, but it always bothers me when someone says they are for small government, therefore libertarian. I want to reply with, "So you are for small amounts of slavery, therefore you believe in freedom? Are you saying that slavery is freedom?".

First and foremost, I am an anarchist and I am not trying to bash libertarians at all, just trying to understand better. So my question is, when people are asked what political party they see themselves apart of and they answer with, "The libertarian party", doesn't this make them a hypocrite? This is also assuming that they are a libertarian because they believe in freedom. So, since you can't have freedom while enslaved to government, how can there be a political party that wants freedom and not be considered a hypocrite? It is like a slave owner saying he doesn't believe in slavery while voluntarily owning slaves. The only way I can see libertarian working is if it isn't a political party at all and is anarchy mixed with the non-aggression principle. Then, anyone who claims to be a part of the libertarian political party would therefore not believe in freedom and have a different definition to the word libertarian. Anyways, if anyone can explain how I am wrong, if I am wrong, that would be awesome. I just keep hearing people tell me they are libertarians as they continue to vote and support government.

I agree with dsayers on your situation. Hotel management should have been called to deal with the problem on their property. However, no matter how voluntary you are, we don't currently live in a society where you can always avoid calling the police. A good example is with dsayers calling to make sure he wasn't responsible for the stolen gun. When you have government shutting off other routes of actions and placing the blame on an innocent individual who attempted one of those routes, then sometimes you MUST use the government to solve issues to prevent yourself from being imprisoned more then you already are. I have never personally called the police. I have been abused, jumped, threatened and almost killed, and I feel fortunate now that I didn't call the police. The reason for not calling before was because I was young and scared of punishment, but now that I look back, I see that even if I called, everything would have turned out far worse. I have however called for ambulances when I was younger because of my fathers constant attempt at suicide, and police tagged along. Anyways, my point with this was to show that there are some situations like dsayers that require you to use government, but there are also situations where you think you must use government and when you do, you would have a worse result then if you didn't. I think that you must evaluate the situation, find all possible outcomes for each action, and only use government as a last resort, usually to defend you from government.

I have never heard of The Wire, I will have to check it out. As for Game of Thrones, I disagree. It is very slow paced, boring and very little to none on character development. I do watch it, but I watch many shows/movies so I know what is being talked about, but I couldn't place that in my top list at all. But hey, we have different opinions and that's what makes us awesome!

I thumbs up your post! It is nice to find people who watch it. To me, it is the best American show I have ever seen but I don't know almost anyone who watches it.

Someone made a topic about watching The Walking Dead, and I thought I'd make a topic about Supernatural. I am curious if anyone here watches the show and what they think about it. I posted my thoughts on the show below, but for anyone who hasn't watched it yet and is planning too, I put everything in a spoiler tag so I don't spoil it for you.

I have been studying all aspects of video production for years now, and I want to start working on videos showing philosophy, freedom and all that good stuff. So my question is, what do all of you want to see? What kind of videos have you not seen before, or seen and thought that you wished there were more like it? What do you think would be the best way to spread the word? I would love and appreciate everyone's opinions and I thank everyone who expresses their opinions!

Gotcha. Thanks guys! When I make an income, I will most likely become a donor, just can't afford it at the moment, but nice to know that is what I need for upvoting and such. Thanks again!

I was just wondering how to upvote posts I like. Do I have to be a donor or have a certain amount of posts? Thankyou in advance for the answer!

Welcome to the forums. You can't have limited government or taxation in a free society. You are either a society with slaves and masters or a free society, not both. There are no proper roles in government. The police catch mostly non-violent/innocent people and force them into court who sends them to a box with bars to be raped, beaten and possibly killed, while the military steals, tortures and kills from everyone else. However, I agree that we do need a military force in a world where we would be free while other lands would still have governments who would be looking to acquire our land through force, but not like a government military. We need a military force that is privately owned and defends us and does not destroy other countries for their masters. There are many ways to pay for this military without taxation. One of the ways to pay would be through donations. I am sure there would be many people who wouldn't want to donate, but there would be many people who would in order to protect themselves. There are many ways and even more ways can be thought up by people more qualified them I am through the free market. This military would be privately owned, so it would be better equipped with higher technology then lands with government since the free market will always out-engineer government. Now, how do you keep this privately owned military in line so they don't try attacking their people a new government? When this military decides to do things that the people decide are out of line, people stop funding them and they will probably change, and if they choose not too, then another company will rise up and take their employees and do an even better job. That is a problem with taxation, aside from the obvious immorality of it, is that we are forced to give them money so they don't have to listen to us because whether we like it or not, they will always be paid. What needs to be done isn't punishing people for their crimes, but preventing people from being raised into criminals all together. The idea that this can't be done is ridiculous when the people who say it can't be done are the people spanking, yelling, beating, traumatizing and so much more to their own kids. Imagine a society, of a single generation, all raising their kids with respect and teaching them through proper education and asking them what they can do better as a parent. Just imagine the kind of world those kids would grow up to create. Nothing like we have ever seen before, that is for sure.

I agree and have trouble finding the point of where acceptability and over the line meet. In a real life situation, I can determine this, but everyone would have a different line making it very hard, if not impossible, to determine a universal line.

The definition I use for Morality (Thanks to dsayers): "The conformity of voluntary behavior to the property rights of others." I am also basing my answers off of a free world. A: I want to change this situation to one where the sound maniacs are on their own property making the sounds and the neighbors are the people having issues with the sound, who are also on their own property. I believe that everyone voluntarily accepts sound and if they don't, they are being hypocrites as they make sound when doing anything. The question is, when does the sound become a problem. The first thing is, the neighbors must know where the sound is coming from, whether it be a barking dog, construction or just very loud music. Another thing to consider is the time the sounds are taking place. So let's say that the sound maniac's are playing very loud music in the middle of the night and the neighbors aren't able to sleep. The neighbors are now involuntary, but they must inform the sound maniacs of the problems because morality requires knowledge. If the sound maniacs stop or make it very quiet, they are being moral and the problem is fixed. If the sound maniacs choose to continue, then the neighbors are allowed to defend themselves from the immoral sound maniacs. However, I don't believe there is any size fits all in a situation like this. It would be different depending on factors involved. A different example could be, two people hug voluntarily, but one person hugs too hard and the other person becomes involuntary. The involuntary person tells them that they are hugging too hard and when they choose to keep squeezing, the person is allowed to defend themselves even though they were voluntary at the beginning. B: I would have to ask what you mean by molest. Also, this example isn't detailed enough to give an answer. It would depend on whether your definition of molest was physical, vocal or only looking/staring. It would also depend on who's property they are on as well as the severity of the physical contact. C: In a free world, the street would be owned, not public, and you have the choice to not use the street. If this were to happen and the radiation scanner was dangerous, many people would not use this street and would/should give bad reviews. The street owners would have to do something in order to keep their customers, but either way, I don't see a problem with morality here. D: Again, in a free world, the street would be owned, not public. So the talking person and the non-talking person are on someone else's property. This also goes back to 'A' with people being voluntary of sound. I can understand somebody being involuntary when someone else is talking to them, unfortunately, they would be hypocrites by not accepting this as they most likely also talk to other people. If the talking person is yelling at them and causing harm to the non-talking person, then you have a different situation. *I understand that the definition I provided of morality isn't perfect and that some of the scenarios you provided don't fall under the definition. I am still learning and working on a more precise definition.

I am sorry to hear that man. I can see where you are coming from though. I have also been thinking about this question for awhile and here was what I came up with. I believe that everyone voluntarily accepts sound no matter their location because by not accepting it, they are being hypocrites as they themselves make sound when they do anything. So the real question is, when does the sound become involuntary? Since morality requires knowledge, then as soon as the involuntary neighbors inform the people making the sounds that they are being harmed, the people making the sound are now able to be moral and stop the sound or immoral and keep on doing so allowing for the involuntary neighbors to defend themselves. It is like one person shooting a rifle from their own property into the property of their neighbor, except with the sound situation, the person(s) making the sound must be informed to become knowledgeable of the situation before they can take action while the person shooting the rifle would be knowledgeable from the start. Does that sound agreeable or is there a flaw?

Well good sir, thanks for the help with all of this. If you get bored and can think of an answer for the situation in my last post or stumble upon an answer you had already posted and can link me, that would be awesome. Thanks either way though.