ZetaMan

Say what you want about the myriad faulty social and political movements out there - this right here is creepsville. What an odd reaction to a hostile social change. It's like a mix of cloaked paedophilia and the natural inherent desire to protect one's daughters/gene pool from destruction.

I'm casting my vote to also have Polytheism over Judaic religion AND Atheism - whether it's "true" or not. We don't ask a poet for scientific proof that the words he uses were correct to some objective criteria, but it moves us all the same. Thread so far is tl:dr for me. Sorry to everyone who posted beforehand. Normally I avoid threads I don't fully read, but I couldn't stop myself. P.S. An interesting political theorist/essayist/author who is selling this idea (specifically the return to indigenous local Pagan wisdom) is Tom Sunic. I think his ideas are well-worth digesting.

Clay provides conclusive proof that Anarcho-Capitalists and Anarcho-Communists cannot share the same planet in the absence of a State that doesn't give a shit about either ideology. "Property is theft", and as the twisted genius Adolf Hitler said: (paraphrased) "You can't commit treason against the treasonous"... or.. you can't steal from a thief. I personally don't know what camp I'll fall into if it became a matter of the two polar ideologies fighting over a region. It'd rest entirely on my own situation at the time. Screw morals.

See, this is what I'm getting at here. Fundamentals. Everything starts with a fundamental - even the NAP starts with a fundamental. You can't justify a fundamental, it's merely the basis for the rest of the logic. There's nothing in The Communist Manifesto that makes an argument for why Humans need equality - it's a given.

Hey guys. I covered "Keep on Rockin in the Free World" and made a video for it, and I thought you guys would appreciate the message behind it. The cover itself is a parody. Not serious at all. I just clipped my nose with my fingers and sang

Cab21: As a former Marxist I can confirm that "Each according to his need, each according to his ability" is nothing more than a slogan. The fundamental grounds of Marxism is that, as you quoted, the full value of the labour isn't rewarded to the worker (Alienation from the Effect of Labour). The full reward for the labour is unrestricted equal access to the product of labour. Technically, that doesn't make sense as a factory of 10 workers producing 100 widgets a day aught to bring home 10 widgets a day - yet they need more than one type of product, and then it just becomes absurd. A word to the wise here: You can't argue fundamental arguments (axioms) for social systems. You'll be arguing 'til your gray and old, and it would probably be the cause for you graying much sooner. What you want to do is argue Marxism in the area of what happens to people after about 3 years into the experiment.

You wouldn't, however, sit idly by while a bunch of loons ransack your property in the name of "liberating" your property - I safely assume. And as for the Middle East - Western molestation didn't help, but you also have indigenous rivalries. There are States that overlook (and, to a great degree, suppress) the rampant warfare, but those are a recycling of "kings of the hill". The U.S. and other empires try to install their allied factions in that position, but not always with success.

I find "Left Libertarians" are more capable of making arguments from actual Human concerns. And I'm getting suspicious of peoples' inability to disgest and refute arguments contrary to their beliefs around here. Given this to'ing and fro'ing, I find myself drifting towards authoritarianism again. At least within that framework you wont have open warfare between Anarcho-Capitalists and Communists, and all their myriad branches, like in some godforsaken Middle Eastern hell hole.

Want to hold your horses there, soldier? Maybe you read my post (which happened to be part of a conversation with someone who isn't you) ass-backwards. Maybe I was saying that my halting the use of tobacco and weed were due to accessibility and my own happiness (which, by the way, renders your determinism rubbish faulty). But of course you wouldn't necessarily understand what was being said because you barged into a blindin' (Irish colloquialism - expletive) conversation betwixed two other people. What the sh*t is your major malfunction? Joe Rogan would agree with me that the use of language on that level can be owned by he who first coined it or he who recently mastered it through the strength of his character. There's two people as a prime example, and 1,000s more who agree. We have a commons. Where this idea comes from is the highly esteemed society of stand up comedy, and I was speaking from that position. But that's yet another subtlety of language I've observed fly right over your head. What kinda autistic bullsh*t is this?

FYI, I only mentioned the man because he said it first and to repeat without giving due credit is just plagiarism. Does anything make anyone addicted to anything? I smoked pot as a teenager, and a year into my experiments I started smoking cigarettes. Gave up pot when I was 20, and at 24 I gave up smoking cigarettes for 15 months. Started smoking cigarettes again. 2 years later started smoking pot again. All of that came down to two factors: availability and having things in my life that sufficiently took my attention away from those things. The times I really felt the pangs of withdrawal from cigarettes was when I wasn't in the best emotional space. So I seriously question whether anything less than heroin or crank is physically addictive.

And as Joe Rogan (stand-up comic, Fear Factor presenter, famous podcaster) once skillfully said: "If weed ruined your life it's because weed got there first".

Ah! I figured it out now. You have to regularly donate to FDR to cast a vote.

Pretty much what Dylan laid out. Given a choice, lifting prohibition would be a good idea on multiple fronts including economies. My only issue has ever been the fact that all economic activity around weed that wont get you thrown in jail is inextricably tied to an artificially limited currency. Now why in god's name did you have to vote down my last post? Was it really worth your energy? Did it hurt your feelings or something?

huh?

Yup! It's in no way a proven or universally accepted scientific notion, but there are definitely more than one or two ways the Human can gain mastery over his environment.

When it comes to individual countries not wanting the EU to go poking around in their narcotics laws, I don't see that being an issue as the member states in the EU are completely ineffectual and have no voice in any matter of law. The only reason for prohibition, as far as I can tell, is the United States - and the United States is becoming rapidly inconsequential. The EU may want to redefine itself in distinction to the US.

Oh. I'm so sorry to hear you're limited to a dial-up connection.

Oh, you're a cracker, you are (Irish colloquialism). Projecting hostility, much? In respect to what? I was having a conversation with someone else at the time. You're going to have to put your own context into that quote. yay! Someone said something related to the subject of the thread, and what's more, they made sense! I see now what you mean. The garden variety stoner who'll repeat the soundbyte that legalization will improve the economy wouldn't be able to see that far, but I guess they'd be right. Thanks Dylan!

Everyone on this thread: I'm well aware that the lowest common denominator of self-knowledge and critical thinking in our society is absolutely in no way a standard we should be happy to live with and emulate. However, I feel there's something fundamentally missing from your lives as you've overshot in your attempts of intellectual rebellion. Perhaps it's my own lack of.... whatever... but something strikes me as not quite right. I feel like I'm locked inside a room with paranoid law students who don't want to be thrown in the dungeon based on some vague misstep in their language. Even lawyers speak with greater ease because they know that a Court will never lock them up for liberal use of Common English. There are 12 forms of intelligence that the Human animal is capable of developing. Why do I see glaring evidence of only 2 or 3 being regarded as a part of reality? This is, after all, a philosophy forum. In the same manner that you don't have to prove the non-existence of Jesus, Krishna, or the giant teacup orbiting Earth, I do not need to prove that the Human brain isn't all-knowing and capable of understanding everything. How could I possibly prove the non-existence of something to you? I'd like to add an addendum to all my posts Re: my "religious" beliefs. I added in my brief self-description that I held a belief that most, if not all, FDR users will not hold themselves. Simply because I wanted this out of the way in a hurry. I don't see any reason to continue talking about it if I do not harm others. I don't preach my beliefs, I don't suggest harm comes to those who don't believe, nor do I claim any tax breaks because I believe as I do. I would suggest that everyone takes that cake and f*cking eats it, because it's the best cake you'll get. Atheists comprise the overwhelming minority on this planet, and the religious and spiritual people of this world allow their beliefs to poison their philosophy and give themselves excuse to bring harm to and coerce others. Considering the density of religious and spiritual populations, you will not see an Atheist world in your lifetimes (unless you coerce the world into becoming Atheist). So I would suggest that you not alienate yourselves from the rest of the world by zeroing in on someone's spirituality above the other aspects of their being and be happy with the fact that you have spiritual and religious Libertarians with otherwise-correct philosophy.

Hey, look, I could say some shitty things here, but I'll limit it to this: there is gross misunderstanding on both our parts and I don't consider this interaction to be worth the time. Either you're over-intellectualizing a very simple thing or the fluids streaming out of my head due to an infection is making my thinking sluggish... or maybe both! Re: Vague appeal to authority No. Appeals to Authority can only really exist when there's an argument. And what's the most chilling about that not-so-serious accusation is that the offending sentence was backed up by facts understood by multiple schools of psychology. If you can't handle someone referencing another Human Being for wisdom received, then I would suggest you're intellectually feeble. You could only really apply that fallacy to a level of aversion/diversion like this: "My Daddy said X is true and Y is a lie, and that's that". Authority is a genetic impulse that has it's problems and it's benefits, you can't reasonably suggest abolishing it. Yup. I proposed a conflict resolutions officer that I know. She didn't show any interest and never considered outside help either. I'd say that speaks to her desire for the relationship. Thanks for the solid advice. Thing is, I was swamped with love and genuine attention over the past week. I couldn't tell my ass from my elbow, so I took yesterday out and suddenly got ill. One thing I've learned in the past week is that Humanity certainly is Kind.

Yes. But in practical terms that's contingent upon certain some personal growth on her part as well as mine. Otherwise it wont work. I don't know yet - essentially. I've been with her long enough to love her nearly as much as my family members. I told her I would be there for her in sickness and in health, till death do we part in front of my family. That shit just can't be canceled for me.

Touché! She's across the ocean in New York. In some respects it makes it easier and in others it makes it harder. One disadvantage is not being able to hold a space of open communication. Skype and emails just wont cut it. I just sent her an email there. She explicitly suggested last week that we have no more contact until we can divorce, and then suggested I should go get my head examined. So... uh... if she comes back at me with anything (ideally with an update on herself) that means it's a slim possibility and if she doesn't come back, then fuck her. I can understand being hostile, but remaining hostile kinda shows you don't have any regret - right?

What do you mean 'what do I think about this'? It's pristine logic."The bigger man" isn't a slave to his emotions. I don't think you know what it is I meant by what you quoted. "Accurate" criticism? That was me pretty much saying that any such criticism wouldn't be accurate! Call it what you want, but a criticism devoid of compassion and valuing experience is hardly accurate. Irregardless of your rationalizing it through logic and pop-psychology (not suggesting you employed any pop-psychology here). Hey, look, I'm an open book. Pry away. Maybe I can find a way to repair my marriage before we apply for divorce in 4 years. I called her a b*tch and a c*nt via email for leaving me with the lease on the house and taking all the food out of the kitchen. So I'd imagine repairing the marriage would be a long-shot. In my years before getting a life I've spent many hours on communities built around forums so I have a high degree of desensitization to hostility in written form. So I haven't a clue what you're on about! I've done very little practice as a psychotherapist (since 2004) and found myself lending more time to troubled youth I would meet during my mid-20s. People in particular situations in life (e.g. disenfranchized male in a feminized/emasculated world) are lost in a thunderstorm of unfairness. Before they get the chance to make independent choices about their lives it seems they've already made the wrong decisions or are simply defective from word-go. It's very fulfilling to give people counsel. Primarily I undertook that line of study to expand my knowledge of myself... boy did I get what I paid for! You could call psychotherapy reparenting. It's an interesting name to give to it. But beyond that you're not entirely correct as there are many schools of psychotherapy that do involve a proactive interaction. For example: that list you made of how to approach another person is essentially how Cognitive Behavioral Therapists would approach you. I'm on the other side of the fence in psychological theory, but I do recognise the need for those kinds of conversations where the therapist unties all those knotted up misconceptions. On the subject of relationships: I found myself looking for "projects" too. Shit. Psychotherapy - what's that? The belief you are charged with the duty of fixing other people (regardless of how fucked up your life might be). I could never figure out whether I wanted to fix myself vicariously through fixing other people or it was a simple case of just wanting to feel useful, as you suggested yourself. The wife who just walked out on me last Wednesday (which feels like forever ago) was the first woman in my life who wasn't a "project". That took years of learning about myself and loads of psychedelic drugs to help me along the way. This woman who now hates me is still in my book the only real woman I know. As for your creepiness: I'm a psychologist and an existential philosopher before anything else. I find logic and rationality has a drop-off point and that's where Human sensitivities and private beliefs should pick up. A radio broadcaster I look up to as a God and male role model once said that the one thing you cannot question in another man is the very thoughts he has about himself. To go treading about in there uninvited will without a doubt cause hostility. If it doesn't, the victim of the trespass becomes desensitized to people criticizing him at every level... for good or for bad, is up to you, but I would say bad. So what else should I react with? I'm being infringed upon. It's like making eye contact with a lady across the room and assuming because she was transfixed in your gaze for 2 seconds she wants you to undress her. That's rape. Both of these interactions are intimate and to be shared when two people are entering that space with enthusiasm... I just showed up here in a forum. We may share our stances in philosophy, epistemology, economics, etc. but until the appropriate relationship is built between us it is improper to go about questioning the psychological basis of those beliefs the other holds. Who told you that you were allowed to do that? Isn't that a kind of Ad Hominem attack? Either a stance or a point of reference stands or it doesn't. Trust other men to learn new things and then go off privately to face reality and change their minds. No man likes to be robbed of his position on the social web by being proven fundamentally wrong as a person. Realize that my intention isn't to reprimand here. Just being completely honest.

No, not full of shit. That's actually how I learned to interact with clients in psychotherapy. It never occurred to me to apply that in personal relationships. If I had to do that for a friend I'd want €60 by the end of it. That's partly why I'm not with my wife anymore. Got sick of the guy who had to be 100% diplomatic and assuage her issues. Your kind of curiosity (and I hope I don't come across badly here) is creepy because I suspect a judgement behind it. Why should anyone welcome criticism of themselves that will inevitably leave out compassion and experience in it's objective nature?