DanielB

Humble? Who wants that? And whose humility am I appealing to? Why should I ask for elaboration? If he's got something to say, let him say it. Where did I say he's wrong? In three different responses of him to posts of mine he's made bald assertions. That does not mean they're wrong, just that he makes claims he does not back up with facts or arguments. So now I will appear even less humble by noting that you are reading things in my earlier post that are simply not there. It's clear this forum is not for me. I will follow Stefan on YT. Best of luck guys.

You are easily alarmed then. Don't worry, I won't confront you with these disturbing ideas again. LOL. I was kind of hoping to receive some actual feedback, but closed minds and dismissive comments make up the bulk. Good luck with that.

You mean you do. It's not true they're perpetually exhausted, not even close. It's also irrelevant. Babies cry mostly because they're tired or hungry, or have a full diaper. It's true they can suffer from 'overload' but a sensitive parent will quickly recognize it and remedy it. I have no idea what this has to do with the subject, btw, Sure, we get the hang of lots of things in life. And then there's an earthquake and your reality pulls a fast one on us. Or a bridge collapses on top of the car you drive home in. Airplanes drop out of the sky or just vanish. It's an illusion to think you know what's going on. Like I said, superficially, to a point, yeah sure. But not really. Humans have a terrible urge to know how it all works, and absent that, we'll convince ourselves that we do. History is rife with examples of heretics burned at the stake, the latest examples of which are the 'climate deniers,' who dare contest the 'science.' The debate is over, the votes are in. Never mind that 30 years ago we were meant to be in a new ice age. Reason brings happiness? Another bald assertion. There is no reason to assume that a total and complete understanding of the workings of the universe would make you any happier.

It would help if 'meditation' was properly defined. I see it as emptying the mind, stopping all thinking (as far as it's possible for me to do). And yes, you feel better after, and yes, it has lasting benign effects.

Bald assertion. Please show the contradiction.

They do if you're talking about legal terms. Like murder. What hook? If someone calls you a murderer, it is up to that person to prove the accusation. Even if (for example) no one contends the fact that there was a killing. Bald assertion. But here's an example: I am standing guard in a watchtower at the border. Suddenly shots are fired, bullets impact my cabin, I see flashes and hear yelling, directing an attack. After more bullets strike, I observe where the fire is coming and return it, killing my attacker. Am I now a murderer?

I suggest looking at being passed over as the start of your unease. You may rationally agree that appointing a more experienced developer makes sense, but ego is not so easily assuaged. I certainly would have some trouble truly accepting this on an emotional level. I think it's not a coincidence that you took on an assignment that allowed you to stay away from the new guy, but it was harmful to you in more ways than one. It allowed you to avoid dealing with him (other than the bare minimum) and it caused you to 'get out of touch' as it were, with the goings on. If the quality of your work did indeed drop (I'm not sure if you think it did) that too might be a sign of subconscious resentment. So, what to do? Another job won't truly solve this, because you're taking your less than perfect ability to deal with such occurrences with you. It's easy to say "Just accept it and work thru it" but I know that's easier said than done. Perhaps it might help to talk to a disinterested third party. Give voice to your true feelings, be as honest as you can. This will facilitate acceptance. Thank you for sharing. It shows courage. HTH,

I think the whole concept of rights is just another part of the morality debate, but let's start with natural rights. If you as a human being have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness/property, then children have these rights too. Anything we deny them (for whatever well intended reasons) forces us to say "well of course you have these rights too, we just say you're too young to exercise them right now." So we call them potential rights, but perhaps it would be more accurate to call them deferred rights? How morally questionable this is is demonstrated by the fact that we can drive at 16, 18 or even 21 years old depending on where you live. You can vote at 18 but buy a drink at 21. You get minimum wage for adults at 23 but can join the army at 17. You can be put to death at 14 (in the US) if you're unlucky. So IMHO it's all BS. We either agree we have these rights or not. To deny them depending on age is to admit they can be arbitrarily given and taken away, and therefore they're not rights at all, they're privileges.

This may be true for you but it is not true for everyone. It is perfectly possible to be completely happy and at ease with total uncertainty in life. In fact, I think that as long as there is NO theory which allows you a total and perfect grasp on reality, you face the same uncertainty, which is in fact only aggravated by the fact that you now believe that you know how life and the universe work. You will be faced with what amounts to cognitive dissonance, because your beliefs do not align with reality (again, as long as the 'valid theory describing the surrounding physical reality' is not complete, which I think will never happen).

Walker, It seems to me that you are trying to unify two different paradigms. One is the reality in which we live, the consensual reality. It is a reality of duality, of yin and yang. The other (and here it gets a bit iffy) is what is outside that. I take it that most members here are not open to the idea of a truth (let me use a capital here) a Truth outside that consensual reality. One needs to turn to Vedanta to even get an inkling of what I mean here (and I certainly have almost no grasp of this concept myself). Tat Tvam Asi points at this greater Truth. So what I am saying is, there can be no bridge between these two paradigms, because in a dualistic universe, there is good and evil, ugly and beautiful, etc, etc, but outside it (if you accept the concept) there is only One(ness), there is only Truth. Really the only thing that leads me to mentions this at all is that I do think that all good and evil is indeed subjective, and moreover so subjective that most of us have called things bad or evil, only to see later in life that it turned to a greater good. The reverse is even easier to see: something happens which we call good, only to mess up our lives later on, at which point we no longer think it's good. Suppose a meteor struck the Earth tomorrow, wiping out humanity, clearing the way for a new species. When that species found out about us and our civilization, they'd say, "well, that meteor was bad for them but good for us." And who could argue with that?

Murder is a technical judicial term.So if you want to say all soldiers are murderers the onus is on you to show that all soldiers meet the legal requirements to be called murderers. In most countries, murder includes premeditation against their victim(s) in the definition. Most soldiers don't know their 'victims,' often are not even aware of the fact that they killed a person at all. A strong case may be made that many soldiers actually use force (and kill) in self-defense, which may constitute homicide but not murder. Really though, calling soldiers murderers is just another ad hominem. It's an emotion-based slur. Sure, there are plenty of soldiers who are murderers, but they are so not because they are soldiers. They are murderers because what they did meets the legal standard. Perhaps you meant to say "all soldiers are killers," and that would be a lot closer to the mark. Most soldiers don't kill during their time in the service but at least they all knowingly and willingly take the risk of being put in circumstances where they may be called upon to call another human being. It would be fair to say that killing 'the enemy' (whoever our masters say it is this week) is the prime purpose of a soldier. But killing does not equal murder.

Seriously? Ban a word? Whatever for? Because you don't like what it means or stands for? And apart from the principle (which is really all that matters), can't you think of dozens of examples where words were banned or deemed not-PC, simply to be replaced by other words that mean exactly the same thing? The N-word (so awful we can't say it without severe repercussions), negro, black, African-American... Has it improved or changed anything? It's about the thing, not the word that points to that thing. What was wrong with 'homosexual?' Why appropriate another word (gay) that used to have a perfectly good neutral meaning to apply to a group of people who fit that word about as often as people who are not homosexuals? People who are strange cannot be called queer unless they happen to be gay, in which case they're not strange or happy, just homosexual. I think it just messes up the issues.

No, but apparently you do. Feel free to tell me about it. 'Serving' is just a way of saying I 'was' in two armies. And you do actually serve, although who and what purpose you serve may not always be what you would choose. I served at a time when I didn't care whose purpose was served by my serving, all I knew and cared about was that MY purpose was served. I'm still not undecided if there was anything wrong about that. That's not why I joined. For me it was basically thrill seeking. It was one of the ways to suck the marrow out of life. The way I see it it's mostly people living sad dreary lives, no real high points, very little real low ones. Nice and safe. That's not what life is for, IMHO. You only get to do it once, I really wanted all it had to offer, and I still do.

Hi people, My name is Daniel, 51 years old, married, two teen boys. Currently reside in Spain but I am Dutch by birth. I have worked most of my adult life in IT, but have also served in two armies. Traveled a lot. I have a wide range of hobbies but have had a philosophical streak since early puberty, albeit with mostly a practical application to life in mind. I have almost no formal schooling in the subject. I've been a libertarian before I even knew the word existed. I've only recently discovered Stefan Molyneux but I've always lived my life according to the "everybody's free to do what they want as long as they don't encroach upon the freedom of others" principle, which I feel comes pretty close to NAP. I've been reading up on modern libertarianism and it seems to me a no-brainer that this is how society should be 'organized' (for lack of a better word). In 2010 I stopped working full time, I basically burned out. Almost the only thing on my mind since then has been the meaning of life (yes, big Monty Python fan), and I made some real progress. What I've learned may also be relevant to many of the topics discussed on this forum. So I hope to contribute, and I'm certain I'll be wiser for being a member here.