luxfelix

I'm thinking... philosophical dictionary?

Maybe it's a chicken-and-egg scenario (word vs. meaning)? Do you want to resuscitate the word, and/or find a new word for the meaning you want to convey? Perhaps providing historical context, in combination with proofs, can help (while acknowledging the common use of the word)?

Would "possession" work?

Is this similar to a regional DRO (Dispute Resolution Organization)?

Related: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51EJeeRRbiL._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

I'm going to guess "politics"... More hopeful music, mayhaps?

Related: [Video about an app for members which lays out rules to follow and odd word choice in reference to pizza.] Related: [Video about missing children reports -- with focus on Virginia -- confirmed previous cases of child trafficking and a bit about the culture.]

Another way to think about it is the way that Facebook is free for the user because the user is the product Facebook sells to advertisers and special interests. Users create much of the content, interact with the content, and likewise make themselves easier to market to which benefits Facebook's customers.

Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38FPi5-4g7A [This documentary suggests previous incidences of ties between those in power and pedophilia rings.]

I'm referring to both the pedophile ring in Hollywood and the one in D.C. (alleged), and whether or not they are connected to a larger ring (such as the Rotherham ring -- link below -- or the Afghan ring). Related: [link] CalebSC brought up a good point that we don't know if the FBI document is an actual FBI document, but it wasn't the only piece from the original post. The specific link to pizzagate is the use of the symbols in the document within the logos (before they changed it), menus, and promotional materials for Comet (etc.) from the original post. This hinges on the premise that these are indeed images with encoded meaning for ring participants. Edit: @neeeel Maybe there was a misunderstanding, did you think I was talking about "ring" as in jewelry worn on one's finger?

Provided that this is an actual ring, what would be needed for proof, without a reasonable doubt, in court? On the other hand, what would be needed to likewise disprove it?

I did not know that the subreddit was banned... Edit: This reminds me of the recent video with Lord Monckton about how someone paid to scatter dead-end links on Google in order to bury the viral video (another form of censorship)...

One theory is that those in power can not trust one another, so they instead generate mutually assured destruction.

Relevant: [Provided that the ring in Hollywood is connected to the ring in D.C., this documentary sheds more light on a practice that goes back even further.]

I've heard about this. Update: If you have spoken to others about this, do you find it more effective (referring to the receptivity of the audience) to lead with this, or build your way to it through the more commonly known e-mail scandals/Clinton foundation connection? Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=346KeO7LcYI [Video presents a potential on-going cover-up of this topic.]

What I mean is that the people I've spoken with have become more receptive to an alternative -- even if this is moreso a result of the bandwagon effect than intellectual curiosity, there are many paths to the red pill. The intense feelings people have expressed over the elections is not necessarily an obstacle; the personalizing of politics have broken the ice of apathy, and when they feel hurt that their candidate did not win, I've offered my help to cross the icy river.

Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.

When Hillary lost, I was able to speak with a friend of a friend about the core issues underlying government as force (as well as r v K, etc.). Edit: Maybe more Hillary supporters will be open to alternative ideas?

Voting is neither moral nor immoral, but rather amoral? (As you said, despicable but not immoral.) Would it be too far of a stretch to then categorize voting as an aesthetic preference (vanilla/chocolate/strawberry), the key difference being the preference of acting in line with reality-based principles (not voting) versus the fantasy of politics (voting)? (The problem, then, is that these preferences have real world consequences when it comes to justifying/legitimizing those actions which do fall into moral categories, such as murder/theft, among those susceptible to being guided by fiction?) Thank you for your patience. I see your point for why my analogy doesn't work. Is it that we do have the right to convince self-aware people to vote for one candidate over another (free speech), even though it is not practical (wasting time), encourages harm (government in this case), and reveals cowardice (for avoiding the harder fight of speaking out against the institution of political voting as a whole/seeking safety in numbers of like-minded?), however, we do not have the right to convince self-unaware people (unable/unwilling) since they will then view the institution itself as legitimate? (In other words, those who can recognize voting as fantasy versus those whom can't/won't and will see it as legitimate?)

I've come across conflicting reports -- whether the chance of WWIII is a real possibility or fear-mongering (or somewhere in between), I can not say for sure. I'm aware of the policy of mutually assured destruction which was one of the reasons the Cold War did not result in direct/conventional battles between Russia and America; and, as you've pointed out, Russia may not be as big a threat as during the Cold War. Perhaps a bigger threat than conventional war is the possibility of cyber attacks and utilities failures which can lead to unrest closer to home (etc.)?

Thank you for sharing -- and for what it's worth, I'm glad you and others are here and I hope there will be no throwing of people under buses... the resulting delay will make us quite late. I would agree. (We ought to rule ourselves; excepting those times where the trusteeship of infancy, infirmity, or otherwise apply, we confer with chosen council of credible character, and remember to respect the realms of liberty inherit to others in keeping with our oaths.) We are aware that voting is immoral. To those still unaware (incapable or otherwise) whom see voting as valid, and/or those whom do not want the freedom we sell, is it immoral for us to then recommend a political candidate? In another way, if we are doctors telling our patient that they will die of lung cancer if they continue to smoke, but they refuse our warning, can we then recommend that they at least smoke e-cigs instead of cigarettes? This in no way changes the immorality of voting (or the unhealthiness of smoking), but would this way have practical value for either those whom know or don't (or both?)?

Nice pun. What I'm getting at, and I imagine you've already done this, is if you've tried arguing from the opposing side (a kind of role-play/mental chess exercise). If you have and still find the null hypotheses still more closely resemble reality, then that can be a good sign that your null hypotheses are solid. From the link (and the links/videos in that link), it sounds like, at least in this community, that the principles outlined by Stef in the past are still in play, however the disagreement follows whether or not the new information of Brexit/Trump warrant the experiment of voting; and/or that there is a practical component for short-term/long-term goals. On one side, the very participation in this experiment is invalid because it either isn't necessary and/or discredits us as advocates for the principles established before; this is probably also why you have yet to find a counterargument since the null hypotheses are inarguable. To the second part, voting could result in a short-term gain/long-term loss (if that). On the other side, the political process is presented as the great test for those principles, a way to reach a larger audience, and a way to keep the game going so as to push the Overton Window in the other direction (by avoiding war, economic collapse, etc. in the short term) toward northern culture (the multiple-generational approach to universal liberty since most people aren't able/willing currently). (Would it be accurate to call it cognitive dissonance, or are both of these views compatible towards the same goal?) Provided reports on Hillary's desire for war with Russia are accurate, would that count as a credible threat of harm? (Maybe closer to fear mongering?) I've seen a few discussions on effectiveness of voting and this being a special case; is it that, perhaps, this is not a special case, or even that there is no such thing as a special case? (Nuance or no?) Related in thinking, would one attend a church service as an atheist for the benefits of the community and not the religious teachings? I understand dsayers, thank you for the engagement; I get that these are discussions for mutual benefit and that criticism of a position does not equate ad hominem.

I'm glad you're writing works like these dsayers. They help keep principles front and center when discussing this topic. I am curious as to what has(/have) been the best counter-argument(s) you have come across so far on this matter; or, maybe you can become the first to be willing to encroach upon one of the null hypotheses? Is there any condition, whatsoever, wherein you would vote, even while knowing full-well the null hypothesis that you don't own me (as well as the others enumerated)?

Didn't something similar occur in Belgium a couple of years prior?

Truth in Comedy Great text for improvisational comedy specifically and teamwork/listening/etc. in general. https://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9781566080033-us-300.jpg