hannahbanana

Hi, not sure if this post fits into the Anarchy section or the Self-Knowledge section, but here goes... I was dismissed from jury duty because I said that due to my issues with practices of the government (for philosophical reasons) I would be unable to give an impartial opinion if I served as a juror. The judge was livid, and intimidated me into feeling selfish and ungrateful for all the protection the american judicial system provides, compared to other countries. In the end, I was dismissed, but I felt really afraid afterwards, and sort of doubting my decision to do this. Could this get me into trouble in the future? Now that I've refused to participate in the judicial system for my values, what do I do if I someday have a crime committed against me and may need to use the judicial system for compensation? Would that be hypocritical? I suppose I am trying to discern if these negative feelings are from my true self, or from my false self. I guilt myself for a lot of things, sort of like an inner authority figure (haven't figured out which figure it is yet), so I suspect that much of my feelings are coming from that. But I really do feel like if I had to face this situation again (which I probably will in 8 years or so), I wouldn't say anything. Part of this post was just to get it off my chest, but I think it would be helpful for me to get some other opinions on this as well.

Haha, good point. Accuracy in my words is something that I've noticed recently that I need to keep in mind, thanks for correcting me. From my knowledge, the girl was taking birth control before, so the boyfriend thought that he was fine and didn't need a condom. The girl then decided to stop taking her birth control in order to become pregnant, but lied to him and told him she was still taking the pills. So in this case, I would say that most, if not all, the responsibility of the pregnancy is on the girl. Excellent analysis to ChristopherScience, by the way

Faith of the Fallen was actually my favorite book in the series (maybe that was a good sign for me to become an anarchist, haha). I have the first book for the next arc, but haven't started it yet. My brother did, said it was not as good as the first series, but still decent. There is also a stand-alone book that is connected to the universe called The Law of Nines (also very good). I was also unsure of how to feel about the statist view, but if felt that it brought up so many other good questions about society that I was able to overlook that bit. I also liked how the magic system was pretty legitimate (it goes into it a little more in the Law of Nines), which is different than most other fantasies.

I don't really know this girl, actually... it was my friend who told me this story, because it was bothering her so much and I asked her what was on her mind. But the reason I told this story was because even though I have never met this girl (who, yes, is around 17 years old and is dating a 'hottie drug dealer'), the story will probably stay in my mind for a really long time because of the near-unbelievable stupidity of her actions, and the devastating consequences that she probably doesn't have the intellect to realize. So to answer your question at the end, I doubt I'd confront her, because I don't even know her. But I did encourage my friend who DOES know her to say something about it. This was about a half a year ago, so I don't know how it's been going since. I actually already read "Your Friend Menstruation" from your first post, and the other posts as well. It's pretty interesting, and I appreciate the logic of it (rather than blatant appeals to emotion). It reminds me of a more legitimate version of some Honey Badger Radio episodes, where she goes into the biological aspects of people's actions/biological roots of certain cultural behaviors. However, I feel it is important to not fall into the trap of simply saying that women are subject to their biological impulses and leave it at that. As human beings we all have a responsibility to use our frontal lobes to be better people. To chalk all women's behaviours up to biological drives would be excusing them from that responsibility, as well as demeaning their intellectual capabilities. I'm not completely immune to the impulses mentioned in these articles, but I still have the capacity to say "Yeah, it'd probably be awesome to shack up with this hunk of man, but I've got integrity and committment to someone able to give me a REAL relationship." It's saddening to me that so many people don't have the desire to do so, and instead allow cultural norms to justify their actions. So no, I'm not trying to learn more about this for this girl who got pregnant (although she very quickly came to mind while on the topic), I'm doing it mostly for myself, and for the men in my life. For myself, to gain self-knowledge so I can live more consistently with my values, and for the men in my life, so I can better understand troubles that they have and to make sure that I do not behave unjustly towards them. This is just one bit that I may disagree on, or need more clarification for. With the way things are with the culture today, assuming women are "Team Sophistry" until proven otherwise makes sense. But what you say about crafting a virtuous woman doesn't make sense to me. You can't force virtue on someone, it is something that they discover within themselves. If you did, it would make sense that they could become non-virtuous at any time, because they weren't really virtuous in the first place. And someone who really WAS virtuous would not arbitrarily become non-virtuous, because that would go against the core of what virtue really is. I think it would be a pointless eneavour to try to "create" a virtuous person if they are not the ones who seek knowledge to gain virtue in the first place, and if they were seeking it, it would not be necessary to create them, because they would create themselves. So it would probably be better to expose people to as much virtue or examples of self-knowledge as possible, in the hopes that they might eventually want that in themselves. Does that make sense?

There's a friend-of-a-friend whose sister (I know, a pretty crazy connection) got herself pregnant to keep her boyfriend around. Truly terrible, the baby will probably end up being raised by the grandparents now, because the mother really doesn't care about the baby (especially if it doesn't work in tying down this guy). Not to mention how unfair it is to the father. I find this even more destructive, because now that baby will have very high chances of also growing up not knowing how to be in a stable relationship, thus continuing the cycle. Misandry has been surprising me more and more as well. Part of me feels betrayed, like I've been lied to all these years about misoginy etc. Was ALL of it really a lie? It looks more and more like it to me. It also makes me feel ashamed at times to share genders with some people, even though I know I shouldn't have to feel that way. That's really interesting, it wasn't in my mind at all when I started the thread, but I understand. It's kind of like when people try to place blame within the inner workings of the government; the whole thing is corrupt, so why look for corruption within a corruption, correct? But I also wonder if it's still important to look closer into the issue, because it very well may be that it can be dismantled from inside, or that people can be more easily persuaded out of the culture. I remember in one of Steph's early podcasts, he talks about how welfare makes risky behavior more appealing to women, but he also talks about the 'studs' and 'bad boys' that benefit from them as well. Do you think that they have any responsibility in this as well as women who behave badly? Or are they possibly that way because their mothers were also benefitting from the welfare state in the same way?

I just read this article, which a friend of mine posted on facebook: http://elitedaily.com/dating/hookup-culture-non-relationship-generation-getting-nowhere/664654/ Although I agree with the main message, I did notice the definite bias towards women. It talked about men being unwilling to commit to long-term relationships, and how women are victims who think they can convince such men to be in one. But I was hoping it would also mention that the more prevalent the hookup culture is, the less likely it will be for people to know what a good relationship is like, for both men AND women. I also would have thought it would be interesting to mention Men Going Their Own Way, who came about because it's getting more difficult to find women who can be in a functional long-term relationship. I'm interested in hearing what other people think.

First, I feel I should apologize a bit; it seems I misunderstood some of the things that you were meaning to say in your previous post, and that I didn't pay close enough attention to some parts of your comment that were key to understanding. I will do my best to understand your questions better this time In this case, I was using the textbook definition: re·li·gion noun noun: religion the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. which does specify the belief in a higher power or being. But I see now that you mean more the practices and historical traditions etc. of the religion, and not the god itself, correct? I'm quite alright with using "noigiler" as a substitute. This is an interesting question. I cannot claim to make any over-arching statements about this because many people have different experiences. However, I find from my own experience as an atheist that although I was once a major contributor to and participant of my own church (I was in the choir, youth group, bell choir, lector, etc.) I do not miss that community at all. I view the community I formed in my church the same as I view any other community I might form, be it a book club, sports team, or even this forum. And from that same token, I can recieve the same benefits that I may have recieved from a church community from any of these other communities, even though I am an atheist. I even have some friends in these various groups that are atheists too. Although we may talk to each other about atheism, we feel no need to form an exclusive group (there are only so many times we can say "god doesn't exist" to each other before agreeing and talking about something else, hahaha). So I guess as a short answer, I would agree that we can form an equivalent community, I just don't personally see the need on making it exclusively about atheism. Do you mean to improve on these pre-existing communities that are hostile towards people who change their minds, or do you mean creating new communities that do not suffer from the same mistakes? I'm sorry, I just want to be completely sure what exactly you mean by that before answering. I mentioned earlier in the post as to how I felt about the social benefits, that I believe you can access these benefits from any other community (or even from a couple of well-developed friendships, for that matter). The other aspects that you bring up is something entirely different, and a very good point at that. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to me that people see atheists as people with no morals or conscience, because we do (I hope ). In that case, it would seem most beneficial to try to find exemptions to things that go against those morals, like religious groups do. For example, if I am against the use of force, I should be able to object from military service. I believe that at least in the US, you are able to be a conscientious objector without necessarily using religion as a reason (I knew someone who gained his exemption from reading Henry David Thoreau at his hearing). I'm not so sure what could be done in regards to the economic side of it though. Since much of it (like tax exemption) is political in nature, I would imagine a lot of it has to do with the fact that almost all people in politics now and throughout history are religious, and atheists are not really viewed upon in a good light, unfortunately. I hope this was a little clearer than my last post, and I really do apologize if it seemed like I was attacking you or belittiling your statements.

If you've ever read A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, there's a pretty funny quote about how proving god exists actually proves god DOESN'T exist: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. Although I am not so sure about Taoism, I know that there are a few different forms of Buddhism, some of which are religions (have divine figures) and some of which are philosophies, and do not involve gods at all. So it depends on which form people are talking about. An atheist can have a philosophy (and many of them do) which can help set goals/values in life or how to achieve them, but they would not involve a divine being. I'm not so sure if all of those aspects are ultimately good. Yes, you can form a community centered on a religious belief, but is it really good if it is all based on a lie? Not to mention the countless situations where as soon as someone shows doubt in the belief, many people of that community turn on them and become hostile. That makes me think that it might not have been a good community in the first place.

I think that this kind of bigotry is often excused because of some of the "positive" short-term benefits you can recieve from it (AKA not being held responsible for actions). But I think you are perfectly right in finding it insulting. I find it insulting too. Sometimes it's surprising the number of inconsistencies you can find in people's daily lives, which are accepted as perfectly normal. For me, once I see these inconsisencies, I don't see how anyone could look away from them.

I think that the negative connotation of "selfishness" was created as a form of control. If you were living in a bad time and wanted a better life, the people/government/religion in charge probably thought it would be a good idea to tell them that being "selfish" like that was bad, and that they should be happy with whatever things they had. That way it would keep people passive, since for them to speak up about the poor conditions they were living in would be called selfish and bad. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting good things for yourself. It would be masochism to say otherwise. So I don't see why it's "bad" to say that you like people or do good things for others because it causes some benefit for you, except as some remnant of the past where it was (and still is) ingrained in people that they shouldn't ask for more than what they have.

That's absolutely horrifying. With the lies and abuse that he went through, I am not surprised he committed suicide.

I think a lot of it has to do with empathy: You want to be treated well - you want people to be "good" to you. You feel bad when people are mean to you, because that's detrimental to you either physically or emotionally. Having empathy makes it possible for you to make the connection that since YOU feel better when people do good things for you, then OTHER people must also feel better when people do good things for them. Conversely, you can also feel their pain when bad things happen to them. So you do good things to people to sort of share in the good feelings that come to them, or to avoid feeling the bad feelings that others get when bad things are done to them. It makes sense to me, since most people in the world who consistently do bad things have very stunted capacities for empathy, or are entirely sociopathic altogether.

I'm not sure if this applies to all people, but I do know that there are cases of children born hermaphroditic, with both sex organs, and so then it can eventually be put up to the parents to "decide" which sex they'll settle on. A good amount of these kids then grow up feeling like they should be the opposite sex than what they are, and then they find out that it was because their parents just sort of had to make a crap shoot as to which gender was the right one to pick. So that starts me wondering whether there is some sort of biological influence (hormone levels or the like, that may be at different levels than are normal for a typical male/female) that influences what gender you feel that you are. I'm not sure if there's any more difinitive information on this, but I feel that that could be a logical hypothesis.

Why do you think you'll regret going to college? I know you said you're worried about debts, but is there anything else? I know debts can be scary, I have to face them myself. I sometimes have to remind myself that most people who go to school have to take on debt, so at least I'm not alone in it (although that doesn't make it any less ridiculous that more than half of people going to college can't actually pay for it). Working during school would definitely be a good thing to do if you're worried about money.

Do you read a lot? I think that reading has played a major role in my spelling abilities, because I am able to sort of learn through observation; seeing words being used commonly in books helps ingrain the image of the word in my mind, so I can "see" the correct way to spell it when I am using the word myself. Then, it eventually becomes habit. Does that make sense?

This is a big reason why I'm always cautious around the GMO issue, because most of the time the real science behind it is not understood, nor is it explained as the information is spread around. Genetically modified crops have "built in pesticides" which are actually proteins that disrupt the gut of insects that eat the plant. An insect's digestive system is much, MUCH more basic than the human stomach, which immediately and permanently destroys the protein, thus eliminating any capability of affecting humans. However, @tjt makes an interesting point about that potentially harming bees. But again, many GMOs have been made to either not produce pollen or to not open their flowers because people worry about cross-pollination and "superweeds." I'm not sure how many GMOs are like that, but that would prevent bees from eating pesticidal nectar. Anyway, I don't think that all objections of GMOs should just be thrown out the window, but it's important to know what the real dangers are. There is a LOT of fearmongering out there. But I think that it is good that there are at least people out there watching the effects of GMO, because if there was actually a GMO that managed to go through several stages of laboratory trial and still have a horribly negative effect, it would probably be exposed pretty quickly.

Hmm, sorry about the passive aggressive way your questions were treated; I didn't feel like you were attacking or writing off the article at all, you were just trying to clear up points that were a little fuzzy in it. Which, if I were the original poster, I would want to do so that people would be able to understand this apparently great message that I'm trying to put out there for people. It sucks when things don't make sense like that. But I digress. I can say as a rational person that I'm still not quite sure what exactly rape culture is supposed to be, and I'm a woman who supposedly "inherently understands" it. I read the examples given in the article, but I'm not exactly sure that they are as prevalent as they are made out to be. Sure, maybe they were more prevalent a couple decades ago, but even in my short lifetime I've seen their occurrence go down drastically, at least in my personal experience. The fact that people are hostile towards explaining rape culture towards men seems very passive-aggressive to me (sort of like a "you should know why I'm angry at you" situation, which never helps anything), and it makes me worry about what sort of reception I myself would get if I asked what it was I was supposed to be mad at men about. I'm always a little confused as to what the goals are of the people that post these sorts of articles, particularly feminist women. While reading the article, I felt a little put off by the sort of patronizing tone the writer had towards women. If I wanted to be strong and independent and free, as A Feminist says she wants to, why would I be approving of an article that seems to say that men need to tiptoe around women lest the vibrations of their footsteps crack their fragile porcelain bodies? It just doesn't really make sense to me. I could go on about the amount of double-standards and conflicting opinions I see, but I doubt that's necessary here.

You keep saying your sister agrees with the majority values because that is beneficial to the majority. But I wouldn't say that that's always true. The majority of people. The majority of people "want" taxes (even if because they are uninformed), but imposing taxes harms more than just the minority that don't want them, it also harms to people that wanted them in the first place. Maybe if you could disprove her main justification for agreeing with mob rule (that it is beneficial to the majority), then her idea would lose weight.

For any readers interested in fantasy as well as libertarian themes, this is a great series to read (personally, the first series that got me interested in libertarianism). Although the first book is a little more fantasy-focused than the sequels, the following books in the series each address several topics in the setting of a made-up world. These topics include but aren't limited to: justice, abuse (in the past and present), self-knowledge, rationality, atheism, racism and slavery, self-defense, and the welfare state. It focuses around two main characters, Richard and Khalan, who are basically fighting an evil emperor who controls his people through violence and keeps them compliant with welfare programs and religious guilt. Although I might not have agreed with all of the ideas implied by the author, I found it very thought-provoking, especially for fantasy. I've read the series more than once, and still notice new ideas. It's probably one of the best series I've read.

I'd probably say "I wish I didn't have to tell you, but I'm truly worried about the well-being of your child." Even if it doesn't change anything about the attitude of the parent, I think it's important that the child knows that there are people that care about them, and people who think that "no, it ISN'T okay for you to be treated this way, you shouldn't have to grow up accepting that as a reality."

All I can see out of this article is the false conclusion that anecdote equals evidence. Unless compiled and analyzed statistically, an anecdote can't be validly used to make a conclusion about a group in general. Also, she makes statistical claims, yet doesn't list her sources. All the more dangerous for impressionable readers who are easily influenced by appeals to emotion.

Although I wouldn't say that you should FORCE someone to get vaccinated (not to mention the fact that some people can't take the vaccinations due to allergies), that's not really the main issue, I think. It's more about people disseminating false information, using scare tactics, and making false and uneducated conclusions about vaccination data. To me, it seems obvious that forcing people to be vaccinated wouldn't really be solving the problem, since people would still be believing false information about vaccination. But unfortunately that's how a lot of issues are handled these days.

They want you to be unique, but only within a set of perameters that they create.

I've actually kind of been feeling the same way...I find it difficult to "defriend" some of the people on my Facebook because, regardless of our now-large differences in the way we think about things, I have had some very fun and memorable moments with them before I started thinking about self-knowledge seriously. But I know how it feels, I look at my Facebook less and less because the things people post on it can be so frustrating to me. Maybe you feel reluctant because of past memories that you've had with them?

Although humans would be able to last a long time on Earth, that still defines some point where we would fun out of resources. And another question is, at what cost? It could be that humanity could survive, but what of other species of plants and animals? What about population growth, food shortage, war? It's about more than just pure supplies available; as population size increases, the risk of wars and conflicts increases. If there was a nuclear war, the planet would become largely inhabitable in a very short amount of time, not enough time to find another place to live. So I guess the point of going into space would be to try to avoid all that death and hardship while we still can, since it is clear that there are so many different situations that can mess it up for us (not including asteroids and random solar flares that could incinerate the planet). Going to space would also grant a huge opportunity to people that want to start a new way of living. Although there are proponents to colonize space in a statist way, I'm pretty sure that right now space exploration is increasingly being funded by private businesses. It might be possible for a privately funded expedition/colonization to take place that could be completely separate from governments. Also, space is just pretty freaking cool.