thelizardking52

Ok i watched it again and saw that part. It's long and I posted the video on first view and didn't see it as a reason to disregard his entire speech. I still don't see it as a reason to disregard everything he says, especially since he isn't arguing the speed of sound vs the speed of light. I'd also like to point out that rolling one's eyes at it gives me the impression that you disregard it without thoughtful criticism, which if true, then I'd rather not hear that criticism in the first place. If I'm wrong, and your criticism is sincere not purely argumentative, please tell me why. While I've heard some good points made I still see the discussion seems to be only on the points people are ready or willing to address. For example, I mention mindless consumerism and people valuing unimportant stuff more than personal relationships/ their time/ or just ethical behavior. When I did that, the idea of "value" being subjective dismissed this idea. Well, I would have to respectfully say that it wasn't subjective, it was objective. Someone who stands in line for 3 days to buy a pair of sneakers is objectively valuing the sneakers over their time, someone who will physically assault another person to grab the last product in almost every case is throwing out their value of ethics ( non-violence) for that " stuff" they want to buy. This is objective, not subjective, that mindless (barbaric being a better word than mindless) consumerism is a problem. I'd also make the argument that money being taken out of society is not by definition socialism. Remember the guy is pointing out the dissolvence of government, just as most of us here would do too. This is not an advocation for the loss of property rights, just a different system in which we can't be enslaved to money. So what if we get rid of governments, if people still use money to control other people and money still influences us to make immoral decisions we know are wrong. Is that not still a fundamental problem humans will face? I feel that this issue was completely ignored/attacked when it was brought up. So now, nobody can see the system of the use of money in a bad light and want something better where there is less ability to control and manipulate others without the idea being called socialism ( socialisim being equal to evil)? To further this, I'd say in an anarchic society, ultimately there is one dominating feature that trumps anything else, and that is free will ( which is free market and capitalistic in nature). You can and will be always to a degree capitalistic based upon this, no matter if you join a town that says they practice socialistic principles like sharing all their wealth equally. Each member is still sharing what they earned voluntarily and can leave at any moment they feel they are being taken advantage of. Maybe it would fail depending on the morals and honest commitment to the members values towards their stated goal of sharing the wealth, but then it would fail naturally and not be forced into existence by the state, so in the end who cares, they are free to leave the community they joined with no strings attached. They would be free to stay and abandon socialist practices too. No matter how socialistic the society would be, it would still have to compete for people to be willing members of its society over other groups that had non socialistic practices, in the end, that competition they'd face is naturally capitalistic. I also don't see anybody mentioning how the banks do( or the argument that they don't and I'm wrong) screw us over (all of us) and are more than likely the biggest single player in influencing the government to carr out its actions. They don't say money is power for nothing folks. I respect freedom, voluntarism, and property rights, among many other things. How would I personally get rid of the banks, I would and I still do tell everyone about the horrors of the banking industry, just as I do about the horrors of government. It needs to be a voluntary dissolvement, not one of force. It would be an industry just as hard as government, to root out ( government and banking are like husband and wife). I feel the need to bring this up because nobody here has successfully ( in my opinion) addressed these issues or appeared sincere enough about them. The questions are worth being investigated.

I'd also say the argument he makes that the undefendable countries would be defended by allies is actually making the point for you. So they'd help out a smaller nation but not an enormous geographic area of people that has no standing army to defend itself? Still, pointing out facts or logic flaws isn't gonna convince him, especially if he feels he's superior in knowledge on the topic than you, his ego probably won't let him give in on to that. It's better to just point out the ethics of the whole thing and mention that we are already under imprisonment just not from a foreign invader but rather from our own communities within.

when did he say that sound is faster than light?

I appreciate your direct and open honesty. I once gave you a down vote when I agreed with you to make a point that no one really knows the true reason for an up or down vote in the first place ( interestingly it's the one post I've been most down voted for but my belief as to why that is, is that I was misunderstood and that it was my fault for failing to express myself clearly). All we can really do is speculate as to what may be the reason for the vote and feel that we are justified in our view or virtuous in an up vote, or we may feel wrong/beaten/ or misunderstood etc. etc. in a down vote. It's still only speculation on our part unless the voting system requires we provide explanation. Part of me says "who cares" because in the end it doesn't make much difference. However, I don't like the idea of censoring people with too many down votes though and I'll explain why. If I am a regular user on this board and I see a guy who has lots of down votes I will likely already be aware of him and it should me MY choice whether I will censor that person's comment or not, rather than an automatic censorship. I understand the comment can still be viewed but the idea of censoring it at all I am at odds with. Bad ideas don't need censorship to be rejected by smart people. I like to think that most of us here are smart people, but maybe I am wrong. I think if society is screwed up we should not look for the approval from society. I also think this particular community, if it is virtuous, is a good place to measure one's online behaviour thru the voting system. I also believe it should be anonymous votes and not required to explain the reason for the vote as that will take away incentive to freely vote one way or another. One jerk downvoting everyone isn't gonna be able to dominate the final voting results and I doubt there's lots of jerks lurking around to do this. I find the stance on determinism to lack reason and to argue for it is counter to your entire argument. For you have no choice in the matter, of convincing others to agree to its principles, if you believe it. I wouldn't censor the topic myself but it is Stefan's site and he does have the choice to do so...

I think you are right to say something and if you were to engage in further discussion I really like JamesP's suggestion to make a comment on animals that rape to see how she would react to it. I'd expect a complete flip flop and irrational outrage. I'd say don't let it bother you too much though because their negative energy is unhealthy. This is her hatred being spewed and it's contagious, so be careful. Don't let them take away from your positive energy. This reminds me of a girl I know who is multiracial and felt she had a pass to make meanspirited derogatory comments on both the races she is. I pointed it out to her that I found it offensive and that even if she was both races that it didn't change my race, nor did it make her remarks sound any less offensive. I gave her an example that helped her to see it from another viewpoint. I said, "what if I contributed $ to both the republican and democrat party and when in the presence of a republican, made nasty comments about republicans, and then do the same when in company of a democrat?" I then asked her if my contributing $ to both and therefore being an interested party of both made it ok for me to blatantly insult each one. She then said it wasn't nice and so far, she hasn't spoken like that around me. We never had any problems either, I just calmly pointed out that it was still offensive regardless of what racial background she had.

Thanks for sharing the thoughts guys and I hope you don't see me as trying to prop up socialism because I am and have always been against that, as it's the most or right up there most oppressive form of government. I still am having some issues with the banking industry that really I find highly unethical. That is where I actually ended up running into the video. Fractional banking, the federal reserve, tricks like calling printing of money " quantitative easing" to confuse the average joe, and many other issues with the banks I find deplorable. I would be okay with it if they were honest and not passing hidden taxes in the form of inflation, and actually physically had the reserves of money. This is a major reason (ethically) to buy and invest in precious metals ( or to mine bit coin) to avoid supporting fiat currency and the crooked mafia-esque bankers. Researching the federal reserve and banking industry will make one's head spin if they dig deep enough. I feel I need to get back to earth, the whole banking history and federal reserve stuff is insane. I am pro business but not pro chrony capitalism which the banking industry appears to be the mother of chrony capitalism. I also have hope that maybe there is another technology out there that will one day improve the lives of humanity like the ideas of sound energy that he presented. All the other stuff aside, what would society be if we were to develop a way to use an energy so effective yet cost nothing?

I want to look at this objectively as if I wasn't an anarchocapitalist or any other ideaology. I see problems in the idea of distributing everything freely. How would this happen? I still don't equate it to socialism as I look to see where is the force being used onto those who choose not to participate. Getting rid of money isn't socialism either and some of his points on money are correct. Paraphrasing "to each his own" has no relevance , no where was that on his website and I don't believe it's correct to attribute that to him. If I overlooked that language then please show me. I am cherry picking here but he puts this on the site, A society with a new set of laws based on the needs of the people where everything is provided freely to everyone who contributes. I think the key part there is, "to everyone that contributes". However, who is to decide that and who is to determine what is a contribution. In an infinite resource world this could work, but in a fininte resource world I see it problematic. Here's where the ideas in the beginning of the video seem promising to me. Energy from sound and light, especially sound. If his video encourages others to study this and we get new inventions that help humanity, then his work wil have helped lead to forever changing the world positively. I would have to contend that yes, mindless consumerism is a problem, and moreso in the societies today that have the disposable income to splurge. Gluttonous, wasteful, selfish, narcissistic behavior is a symptom sometimes found in people with disposable income. Having the income to spend as you like is great, but so many people are valuing the wrong things in life. I'm refering to the people who stampede others, get in fights at the mall on black friday. I'm referring to people camping outside the store for the next pair of jordans' or the new videogame, or people who MUST have the newest Iphone simple to say they have the latest version (yet they have a perfectly working Iphone already)etc. Far too often, people are valuing their " stuff" more than the personal relationships in life. People have become enslaved to their stuff, they don't value their time as they should and money does have a lot to do with this. Too many times, we see an advertisement and now we are compelled to buy this stuff, some people even go into debt (servitude) over it, and it's sad. There is little to no education about money and debt and so many people are knee deep in this and its harmful. This is where I see the bankers and the system in place as harmful, they do prey on the ignorant masses and the government is happy to sell us off as cattle to inquire new debt. So, yes I see problems in Ubuntu and how it could be carried out, but that doesnt mean there isn't some good stuff in there as well . I'm not convinced it's socialism either.

I'm throwing out my ideas kind of jumbled so please let me know if I'm not expressing my thoughts in an understandable way. Well, I'd say that I am against socialism for sure. That is a failed ideology. I am wrong if I say the fault lies within capitalism. I believe in voluntarism. However, I would point out that it's the mindless consumerism that is a big problem in society and eats away at our principles and ability to think independently. This is a side effect of free markets,becoming complacent and victims of our own success. I don't think he's advocating socialism. I think he's advocating anarchy and cooperation within community. He is also questioning the positions of authority and hierarchies. I particularly think the banks are a force for bad, debt is slavery. I believe that the banks do have a bigger hand in what governments are doing and abuses around the world than most people think. The manipulation of money is another form of enslavement and it's much more sneaky than direct enslavement. I think the banks and governments go hand in hand, at least at this time period they do. I have no problem with the ideas here appearing radical. Society and rulers want us to feel like "nut cases" when there is an idea that may challenge them. Normalcy bias is a handicap to learning. Regarding the evidence in numbers, I think if we want to learn more to validate its truth or not, we'd have to do further research. Probably the best validation would be to actually see these places first hand. I also think it's healthy to hear a challenging viewpoint. I don't recall him advocating forcing people to give up their stuff but he did advocate freely and willingly helping community and it sounded like another form of voluntarism to me. I'm not throwing out my capitalist/free market viewpoints but I am willing to challenge them and always seeing how they may be improved. The video had some very interesting concepts that may be helpful in the future. If there were a technology that brought us energy that we could all use freely and manipulate for our wellbeing then some of his ideas may very well work. We aren't there yet but we likely will eventually get there one day if we don't destroy ourselves first. I'm sure there are flaws here and I haven't thought it all out enough yet. I wanted to share this with everyone here. What would society become if we all could wield a free and powerful form of energy rather than having to work with finite resources?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiVROBhwHUM this is a long video, 2 hours. It's worth the watch. The first one hour and twenty minutes is about history and archeoligical finds in Africa but then it turns to world society and the bankers/government/corporations and the answer ultimately being anarchy. I have trouble being a capitalist with the concepts provided in this video, as there appears a better solution.I always linked capitalism/free markets to freedom but maybe there is more than what we have been taught to see. I am not and never will be a government supporter, this is a form of anarchy society that most wouldn't grasp right away but makes sense. Let's get the violence, greed, consumerism, and waste out of our society at the same time as we get the government out of it.

I moved from the US to Panama. I am lucky, my wife is Panamanian so it wasn't hard to get here. It was one of the best decisions I ever made.I would encourage US residents to look into moving here (they are very influenced by US culture and do not resent you for where you were from like in other parts of the world) if it fits their needs, do the research. I can vouch for it. Much freer society, it's like the US use to be back in the day. If you can create a business and invest, or have a very good and needed skill set you likely can make it here. As it is more free, the business environment and taxes are way lower. That said, no where is perfect, including Panama. If anyone wants to know more or has any question feel free to PM me.

So it's illegal for the kid to take pictures of his own body voluntarily, but it's ok for the cops to take the very same pictures of him, against his will, and additionally force him by injection to have an erection and then take more photos of it. And none of them see this as child pornography when it's the same act, taken even a step further with the injection. This is child abuse.

male sexuality gets shunned by society. This could be a reason for her disgust (and yours) w/ your masturbation. In a healthy relationship you shouldn't have barriers like that. How would you feel if you caught her in the act? How would she feel? If you guys can touch eachother erotically why should it be wrong to touch yourself. I find nothing wrong with it, nor should you be ashamed. Anyone who says they don't or never have masturbated is either lying or impotent. Another way she can see it, positively, is an outlet for you in which she can be assured that you would never go after another woman. Nevertheless, don't feel ashamed of this. I'm very happily married, and that doesn't mean the hand must retire, nor does my wife expect otherwise. We've had this conversation and she respects that I'm a human with physical desires. Don't be ashamed at all.

To me this seems dishonest. If you can't accept yourself, openly and truthfully, about your views because you fear backlash or disgust, then maybe you aren't 100% convicted to your own beliefs. I sense it may be a fear of social rejection that prompts this and I do understand that, it is natural. Yet, I think it works counter to as you put it " converting" a significant proportion of the population. I say why not just change people's ideas on some issues and win the battles we can and not focus on converting people. I don't like that term "converting" either, but I get what you mean. You don't have to advertise to the entire world when it's not being asked, nor do you have to share with abusive people who will try to harm you. Protect yourself when you have to.However, I see no harm in being honest and forthright when in the right environment and right people. I think we have to be mindful of our work environments and how our ideas can affect our income. Besides that, I say, for personal relationships, don't hide anything from anyone. Again, there is no shame in not advertising, but don't hold back words you wish to speak for fear of social rejection. Be yourself, or tighten the handcuffs you are wearing. I also think it's not effective. It seems akin to promoting gay rights while in the closet. It's disingenious.If we want to promote ourselves, our views, but not be honest about them from the beginning, then we are undermining our credibility. That's not the way to start a revolution of ideas. I don't write this as an attack on you. I write this as genuine criticism and why I beilieve we should actively promote anarchy and actively discredit the state when the opportunity presents itself. Don't waste your time where people will not listen, but do, scream the evils of government. Do present the peacefulness of anarchy and nonviolence to all that you feel would listen and can't harm you physically or financially. If they would harm you emotionally, then they aren't worth your emotional investment.

First off, you are totally right that in thinking your actions may hurt your nephew, but in the end, could actually help him a great deal. If your brother is a terrible dad and must either change to become a better father due to you calling him out, or your nephew unfortunately has to be in another environment because your brother is that bad, then you may end up helping your nephew/sister and not hurting them. If he is abusing them in some way and you helpe stop that, then, you've done something good. It's tough love, as they say. I think it is very, very hard to hold people accountable DIRECTLY for their actions, especially people that we expect to be loved by and try to love, ourselves. To blame yourself, or find fault or weakness in your own character, due to having problems in confrontation with abusive people is similar to blaming a victim for feeling the pain from their abuse. In this case you are the victim and blaming yourself, at least partly, because you didn't confront your brother. Don't beat yourself up about it if you struggle in this regard. I know this isn't quite the same but it's my current reality. I don't call my boss out for not treating me like a human being because he is my boss, and if I want my job I must conform to his abusive world. He holds some power over me, at least in the moment. He probably doesnt realize how he speaks to us, yet when he is in front of his superior, he too suffers the same treatment that he deals upon us. It's a chain of abuse. Thankfully, it's a very small part of my job and I rarely have to hear from him but I never feel comfortable around him because of it. I won't blame myself for not acting upon it though. Confrontation is never easy, and painful to deal with before any positive effects of the confrontation can be felt. Akin to ripping off a band-aid fast. As per my question to you of how would you react if it were another person doing this, the purpose in asking you this was to make you want to deal with the reality, and not excuse your brother since he is "family". You may have had the answer right there but you weren't happy with that answer so you ruled it out as a possibility. I totally get this and I still have this problem in some facets of my life. I have confronted family members being abusive to me and it was extremely difficult. I can tell you it's totally different than a boss or other relationship that is unequal. Unless you have some other dependence on your brother I don't know about. Then, if your brother loves you as you love him, when you confront him, you should be on the same level. Don't feel that he is better, or has a morally higher position, or some resposibility to others, that gives him the right to his abuse. Demand a fair resolution or else he will have to deal with the fact that it is he who is destroying the relationship, not you. Ultimately, it should be his choice, whether he wants to throw away the relationship. You have to put your foot down and show him the choices, but that a choice that doesnt exist, is for him to abuse or take advantage of you. Because people who truly love you wouldn't do that to you anyways. Either he loves you and wants to make it right, or he doesn't. This is very hard to do, but you can do it. You don't have to repeat the mistakes you saw your father make. Especially since you are aware of them. If you want resolution then you must do things the hard way and not ignore the problem.

My wife wanted to have kids (biological children) before 30 or none at all, so I had the operation done. Just after the operation, the first couple months I would sometimes have some pain in the area coming and going throughout the day but nothing excrutiating. On occassion I still get sharp pains down there but they generally go away after a few moments and the incidents occuring are few and far between. I'll adopt once I've become ready to be a father if my wife and I decide to do that. I'd rather take a child away from the state than bring a new one into the world anyways. Whether you have the "blood lineage" or not is completely absurd, unless you think you are royalty (joking). The only downside I can think of is that you may not know the child's genetic preconditions. That said, I know if I had a biological child there would be a higher chance of mental illness and that was a strong reason for me to have the operation.