Eudaimonic

Perhaps even get together a group of the major posters on the boards and try to discuss ideas about revamping the boards over a video call. That might make it easier to have a back and forth dialogue.

Part of me likes the idea, however another part has concerns that the board might devolve into strict Spock intellectualism. Often times a debate is about the emotional underpinning concerning the conceding of a point (and therefore consequences) of a given side. This generally has roots in childhood and you certainly couldn't resolve the dispute intellectually, it would be helpful in those situations (which can be numerous) to engage in a dialogue about each person immediate emotional experience, perhaps RTR or use Imago type tools for that. I think it would be helpful to develop guidelines and standards by which we filter out people (via ostracism?) For me (and this is simply my experience, not nesseccarily true) there are more than a few members on the board which dominate threads or appear often, but don't share the communities original values (laid down in the podcasts) or standards of debate. The philosophy thread is of particular concern to me. They come across almost like a sneaky virus to riddle to boards with irrelevant topics and endless debate about seemingly simple stuff.

It seems to me that, if you can argue back they way you have in these posts, your IQ is higher than what you got back. At the very least you have good verbal/reasoning skills.

I feel like we're going around in circles, so I'll stop here. We both agree that abortion is evil and besides, as I said before, the argument is a red herring. I'll quit while I'm ahead.

Anarcho-Capitalism > JQ aware Ethnic Nationalism > Civic Nationalism > Republican Egalitarianism > Communism/Socialism > Islam We're currently trying to fight off the last of these.

I don't see how this disputes my point. Pregnancy is a risk (no matter what you do) implicit and well know in the act of sex. Because you are able to opt out of having sex, whatever happens to you as a result of having sex (especially if it's known to you explicitly, which pregnancy almost always is) is your responsibility, including the life you have created. The fact that you can't actually 'change your mind.' You can't magically go back in time to stop the sex from happening and you can't *poof* the baby out of existence. You have to kill it to 'get away' with the consequences of having sex. The baby now exists (by your own hand) and will become a moral agent if you don't murder it. If I voluntarily sell my body into slavery, it's not mine. This doesn't violate NAP. You can only define evil in terms of an objective (and true) principle (or value, which is what libertarian philosophers attempt to tie the NAP to, except for Stefan.) Otherwise it's nesseccarily subjective.

Here's a man with a low IQ. Be happy, that's all that really matters my friend. When you're laying on your death bed, you won't care what your IQ score was.

The agreement is implicit in the act of sex as pregnancy is a possible (and well known) risk of sex. Similar to how there's an implicit agreement between a customer and a grocery store that you can walk onto their property. But despite what the mother has done, she's chosen to conceive. The fact that the baby is "part of her body" is a moot point. Because she's chosen to conceive and because the baby will become a moral agent which values life (or can make it's own choices) as long as she doesn't kill it, obligates her to keep it alive. Again, furthermore because the baby did not choose to be born and will.need certain skills, the parents are also obliged to raise it well. It is no longer "hers" to eliminate. Murder is a violation of the NAP. If you consensually have sex, you agree to the consequences, part of which may be a child. Since the creation of the child's life is your responsibility, so is what happens to it. To kill the child when it is in the second month of delivery is to kill it at the age of one, ten, twenty-five, and fifty-six. You've eliminated it's life, the probability of which of consisted mostly in moral agency and valuation. That is the violation of the NAP. The people who are starving are not my responsibility because I haven't engaged in any actions making me responsible for the creation of their lives in the first place. I'm confused as to your definition of evil, if you haven't violated NAP you haven't done anything evil, but certain actions in congruence with the NAP would suggest that you're capable of evil or weren't a psychologically healthy person who could pose a danger to others. For instance, killing a brain dead person isn't a violation of the NAP, but it's sick and the lack of empathy you'd have to have to do that would get you landed in a psych ward. As well, as a side, if you could prove the baby was so retarded/brain dead to.be unable to value life (the mental equivalent of an animal) you would be justified in killing it also.

The abortion argument is one of the biggest red herrings in contemporary history. If you're willing to kill a (potential) human being that you voluntarily created when you could easily give it up for adoption (or fucking raise it yourself, or wear a fucking condom) whether it is 'moral' or not is besides the point. You're so close to a psychopath that any decent society should ostrasize you or get you some help. "I love living, but I'm going to kill this defenseless thing which I won't consult about whether or not it wants to despite the fact that there's a 99.99999% chance that it will." The absolute lack of empathy is the most damnable thing about abortion. It's like a person who kills animals just because. Yeah, it's not 'technically' evil, but you're pretty much a psychopath everyone should avoid. Beyond that, abortion actually is evil.

The NAP doesn't create positive obligations, but you do. If I sign a contract and fail to fulfill it, I've stolen, therefore violating the NAP. A child (from the moment of conception) is, at the very least, a potential moral agent (i.e if it is allowed to develop normally it will become one whereas a sperm or an egg by itself could never be.) By voluntarily having sex you agree to the risks involved, including pregnancy. Since the child is essentially a moral agent (or will be if you don't murder it and raise it) and is helpless, has not chosen to be born, will, by a huge probability, value it's life and having been born in the future and has come about by your voluntary action, you not only "owe" it life but owe the child the skills to survive and thrive on it's own (up until adulthood.) If you don't have the capacity to do so yourself, you have an obligation to find someone who can. By killing it you destroy it's future moral agency, have committed the rankest form of hypocracy (since you value your life and would not have wanted your mother to abort you, since you are living) and have given yourself the liberty to place value on the life of a being you created all because you think it will ruin your life (when in fact you're ruining the life of someone who could've lived, much more completely.) It's one of the most vile things a person can do and one of the most blatant acts of violence and force against a helpless child. The only situation where abortion is "technically" justified (though I think it's still awful) is if the woman is raped or the child is really young and incapable of responsibility. This invalidates your "contract" with the child because you didn't enter into it voluntarily. This is covered by the 'violinist argument' used by feminists, which is actually a pretty good argument.

The arguing above is the reason this board suffers. There's no longer a cohesiveness or bother hood and it can be majorly negative and frustrating to post here. How many people left on the board live the principles laid down in the first 200 podcasts?

There's no reason to prefer a high IQ society over a lower IQ society. However, a lower IQ society is more prone to violent/immoral behavior, so if your prefer a more peaceful and moral society to live and raise your kids in, you ought to prefer a higher IQ society. As well, a higher IQ society will tend to be more open to therapy and more peaceful means of parenting, which, through generations, would eliminate the irrational psychological roots of socialism/communism.

Why does it matter?

It's unfortunate how much time he spent to put together this video when the foundation for postmodernism (essentially Kant; partially Nietzsche and Descartes) has been so thoroughly refuted and deconstructed (by it's own hand) as to make it a laughable position. Beyond that, roots of misleading philosophy and other social ills are, of course, more psychological than a problem of the wrong philosophical outlook. Even as such, postmodernism has yet to offer any practical advice for dealing with a postmodern world beyond "don't strive too much" and "try to have fun, whatever that is to you." Postmodernism is a base for communism and other powerful groups simply because it pacifies the population. What is one willing to die for in a world of subjective value, meaning, and morality? This is why Nationalism is popular, it's a small circle to put your meaning in, but it's better than "starring into the infinite." He could've spent his time better by trying to find a solution to the problem of postmodernism, rather than trying to defend the philosophical consequences of an irrational base. Or getting himself a therapist.

I'm seeing an IFS counselor.

I don't understand the furious hatred of the guy, compared to other countries and their "great leaders" he's just about the same. Lebensraum is essentially manifest destiny, the genocide against the Jewish people is no different from the one against Native Americans...it's evil of course but everyone gets hung up on Hitler for some reason, I think it has to do with the anti-communist vein National Socialism was running. As well, your history teacher probably never mentioned the polish aggression against German minorities or the blocking of the East Prussian port, nevermind the seemingly looming Russian-Communist threat at their doorstep. The guy was about as justified in invading Poland as anyone else has been. I also think the Jewish Question is interesting. If Jews tend to be in positions of power and culturally they trend towards the left, doesn't that pose a danger for Western Civilization similar to the low IQ dangers of Muslims and African Americans? I'm not saying that justifies genocide, but if it's true it's something that people should be aware of.

It doesn't assume free will. If we had a deterministic universe that could be 100% accurately predicted, the fact that if the machine told us that we would stand still for a minute but we could jump up an down presents a problem for determinism. Th reason this can't really be used as an argument against determinism is because it's hypothetical and we couldn't actually experience the situation. But in the closest thing we have to that, which was Libet's experiment and the experiment where they were able to predict behavior 10 minutes before someone was conscious of it, they could only predict it with 60% accuracy which is only 10% higher than pure chance. I'm more interested in a rebuttal of the epistemological problem.

Well, you can't feel too much sympathy for the mustached maniac and you know he was a psychopath even based just on his childhood experience. White nationalist do have a lot of interesting things to say though, if you look at it in a voluntary light. However, if we were going to 'separate' people by any standard, IQ would make more sense to me than skin color. Murdoch Murdoch is a pretty funny pro-white nationalist cartoon YouTube channel that can get damn inspiring at some points but also makes the case pretty well in my eyes if you're interested in learning about it while being entertained. It's a lot less dry than Main Kampf and more relevant. I'll also just state here that I'm not a white nationalist, these are just my thoughts on the movement.

An example of a blatant epistemological contradiction is to say 'there is no such thing as truth.' The posit contradicts itself, it posits as a truth that truth does not exists thus invalidates it's own posit. The denial of free will results in the invalidation of knowledge (Justified True Belief) as I pointed out in earlier posts, yet the denial of free will is a claim of knowledge, thus it is an epistemological contradiction. It also results in an epistemological paradox: if the outcome is determined and we could hypothetically create a machine which could measure all the variables and give us a 100% accurate read out of the future, we would be able to falsify that read out through our action. How is this possible in a deterministic universe? It's not a contradiction, but it is a significant problem for determinism. I don't know because I don't study biology or neuroscience. Perhaps, though it doesn't seems likely as almost all other species fail to adapt at some level but humans seem never to fail to adapt (It makes intuitive sense to me that free will is an adaptive evolutionary trait that comes from the unique structure of our brain.) These are interesting questions for science which must assume free will just as they assume knowledge is possible. Yes, in isolation. Humans are what give meaning to the universe. If there are no humans (or human-like beings) then there is no meaning. As a side note, I feel sad that I seem to be the only secular free will libertarian on this thread. I've briefly looked at Andi's stuff, so I don't mean to rule him out, but it feels like fighting a mob alone Not arguments, just my perspective. Where my brothers at?

I think you're misunderstanding me, outcomes in a deterministic universe are set. There is no changing the outcome of anything, even those in the next moment. Your "actions" have no point or purpose because you can't do either X or Y you must do X. Your actions only have 'meaning' if they can determine the outcome. Meaning is a concept dependent on the assumption of free will and value i.e if I value something it is up to me to manifest that value in reality. If you value nothing, but have free will, you don't act, if you value something and don't have free will then whether or not what you value is manifested or not is not in your control, but has been predetermined. Beings that neither value nor have free will are animals or robots, therefore the lack of meaning in their behavior. This is a misunderstanding of knowledge which assumes that there is no action in learning. Look up the machine paradox of determinism. As well, cause and effect doesn't eliminate the concept of Free Will. Everything you pointed to is man made and rely on a conception of meaning dependent on human existence and human meaning which is itself dependent on Free Will as I pointed to earlier. What is the meaning of these things if humanity is taken out of the question? Action independent of choice is action which is independent of value and your ability to manifest that. This feels as if you keep moving the goal-post and you're assuming determinism, which faces not only the burden of proof but the epistemological problem. This argument is getting a bit.....pointless. Determinism is an epistemological contradiction and I don't think I have to argue these points over and over again when determinism faces so many other problems, it's like debating a theist while ignoring the basic metaphysical contradiction.

This doesn't address the point that if your actions are determined then there is no point in doing anything. The very fact that I can change my behavior based on the knowledge of determinism is itself a testement to free will. Yes your role is pointless because whether or not your children survive or 'continue your story' is not up to you. It is futile because no matter what you do the outcome is determined beforehand. Because they're entertaining and I have no interest in trying to change the content. If I did, I would've chosen to become apart of the movies creation if that was open to me. I have interest in changing the content of my own life and that is open to me via free will.

Collective neither exist not are individuals. A forest doesn't exist, only individual trees. You can't abstract the collective from individuals.

Right, if you assume a deterministic universe than nothing you do matters as to the outcome of that universe because it's determined. There's nothing you can do to change a deterministic universe, so what's the point of doing anything? If I'm determined to fail or succeed at getting to the moon, there's no point in exerting effort about going to the moon. If I fail, it's determined. If I succeed, it's determined. I have no control over the situation. If the universe is determined, there is no point in expending the effort to do anything.

In a deterministic universe the only thing that makes sense to do is nothing because you don't have control over anything anyway and everything is futile and pointless. You might as well fall on the floor and stay limp until your body stops functioning.

Libet's experiments also couldn't predict behavior...and this is the argument that Sam Harris rests his hat on.