McBeer

It didn't seem very non-partisan. Maybe if he says non-partisan one more time it will become true.

Great conversation. For me, this type of music has primarily always been about the guitar work. I have not ever really found any other genre of music with such a high level of mastery of the instrument itself. The layering of raw screaming vocals on top of beautifully precise and technical instrumental work has always confused me. I thought that maybe the point was to contrast of the good guitars and drums with the bad vocals to emphasize how good the drums and guitar really were. When I first heard Howard Jones with Killswitch Engage incorporate actual singing with their guitar work it kinda blew my mind. I am glad that there are many more bands now with great singing with the drums and guitar I always loved. I can see where the free market of the internet is finally allowing bands to come up with music that people want without having to go through the government enforced monopoly of the record labels. Most of the best music in the world will never be heard on the radio.

I have always looked at it as treating people more as victims than as weak. Feminists clearly and repeatedly tell women that they are powerful, except they are victims of a cruel and unjust patriarchy. You can take just about any social justice organization and re-label them as victims of (fill in the blank). The term gaslighting means to try to convince a victim that they are not, but what is the opposite of gaslighting? What do you call it when someone repeatedly makes terrible decisions, and gets told that they are not responsible for the outcome of their decisions? We are all victims of something or someone. It is inevitable in a society that doesn't know what justice is. I will not define my life by the wrongs that have been done to me, but by the good that I do. I can encourage others to do the same and be an example of a positive force in the world. I can't change the world, but I can change my world.

I found the zeitgeist answer. "Science". Seriously, although I don't think even a 9 year old would accept their answer. A while ago I forced myself to suffer through some zeitgeist videos to try to figure out why anyone would continue producing all the resources that they plan on redistributing. It became quite clear to me that P-Jo and the other zeitgeisters have little to no understanding of how resources are created. Wherever the logic fails, they insert the magic solution for everything. science.

I am sorry you feel this way. It is not true that everyone sees the world the way you do. The logical error in this type of thinking is that resources do not just exist in nature, they are the product of the productive capability of man. I understand that resources are not infinite, but they are not fixed either. Resources are maximized by cooperating with others to increase productivity. This is another false dichotomy where either you sacrifice others for yourself, or sacrifice yourself for others. If these were the only options, then of course you would choose to use people for you own benefit. The problem with this dichotomy is that both options are destructive, and cannot be universalized. Cooperation with others is not self-defeating, or entirely for the benefit of others. Maybe the lack of empathy is why cooperation doesn't seem to be an option for you and people are nothing but tools to serve your needs. One more thing. "most people agree" is not an argument. Most people used to agree that the world was flat, and disease came from angry sky ghosts. I think that maybe the idea of "necessary evils" is an excuse you tell yourself to justify whatever you may have done. Evil is not necessary. Necessary evil is a contradiction, and since contradictions do not exist you should check your premises because one of them must be incorrect. Sorry if I come across as rude or insulting, as that was not my intention with this. I don't know what it is like to not have empathy, but from the way you describe it, it sounds like the worst kind of hell I could imagine. Were you born this way or was this inflicted on you as a child? I don't know if it matters, but I am curious and sympathetic.

It's loud at work, so I blast philosophy into my ears at full volume about 10 hours a day. I could use noise suppressing earbuds, but I need to hear if there is a problem with the machinery. Even with hearing loss, I understand what I am hearing much better with a solid philosophy to back it up.

I think the video does a good job of adding another layer of depth and perspective to sharing truth and reason with others. Most of my experiences have been more on the receiving end of the badgering though. In the past if I would see somebody engaging in behavior that is clearly irrational or immoral, I would typically just ask a simple question like "Do you think that is a good idea?" Saying this would often result in an escalating series of responses like "You shouldn't judge other people", and "Who do you think you are judging me", then "Do you think you are better than me?", followed by "You think you are so much better than everyone else". This would typically end with the other person insulting me and pointing out how unpopular I am. The things that I used to think were insults, I now see were actually pretty good compliments. Maybe this is another insight into why somebody might choose to take an aggressive approach when confronting someone. If you think your only options are either to "dish it out" or to "take it", then you are going to "dish it out" because you are not going to "take it" anymore. I have learned. People know when they are doing wrong. They know. I know. They know that I know. I know that they know I know. They just don't want me to point it out because they want to keep pretending that they don't know. I even got someone to admit it to me once. "Just let me have this" she told me. I have learned. Now I just shake my head and keep walking.

If you really want to help, then I don't see any problem with that. When you are talking about things that WE should do, then I have a problem. There is no "WE" in this situation. Do you mean using the force of government to steal money from me to pay murderers to murder bad guys? I need my resources to take care of my family. Using my resources for war hurts my family. You are suggesting hurting my family. I am not OK with that.

If nobody is riding the taxis anyway, then you could pay me to paint my car like a taxi and the tourists could point and cheer as I drive to work.

My wife works in critical care, and we have been having serious discussions about her quitting. The hospital she works at is not prepared to deal with ebola. They do not have the equipment. They do not have the training. It's a bit disturbing when you are caring for a patient while wearing a mask and gloves, and someone from the infectious disease unit come into the room in a full bio-suit. Uhh... why is she wearing a suit? Where is MY suit? Oh, it's just a precaution? Am I not important enough for a little precaution here? CDC blaming the infected nurse for breaching protocol makes it clear to me that they are much more concerned about spreading false security than actually keeping anybody safe. If there is an outbreak, don't expect suicidal doctors and nurses to sacrifice themselves to try to save you.

It is difficult to communicate using labels that have been defined by society to be an absolute negative. The public perception of anarchy is chaos. To describe a peaceful anarchy to someone is inconceivable because it contradicts what they know the word to mean. It's just not anarchy without some idiot smashing out windows and stealing a television. At least now thanks to Stef I have the ammunition to fire back logic at the non-thinkers. I cannot help but point out the contradictions in their emotional responses. It is difficult, but fun.

What about the immorality of murdering plants? Maybe if Disney made more movies about talking plants instead of animals then there would be more empathy for the feelings of vegetables.