neeeel

It doesnt. That is, the NAP doesnt justify punishment or retribution ( as far as I understand it). The NAP says nothing about the age of consent Im not sure they would be prosecuted, but the perpetrators would be extremely ostracized, to the point of having to leave the area, or dying of starvation.

No, well not specifically, but words like "moralizing", "getting carried away", that have a very negative connotation , and are usually thrown at you in order to make you shut up

This is something that stef himself talks about, and quite recently too. Its quite insulting to be called "moralizing" . That is, it has a very negative connotation, Its like the call where the caller accuses stef of getting "carried away". It implies some flaw in his character, and implies that that flaw makes stef incorrect about what he is saying. Bring your arguments. Show us that he is wrong. But stop throwing words around and expect them to do the work.

To be fair , it wasnt like that at all. It was more like, you burn his house down, and his neighbours house, and his whole city.

Of course, I cant say exactly what, but I would guess, feeling good about himself, or "wanting to make a change" or any sort of psychological benefit

If you were really getting nothing out of it, you wouldnt be doing it. Im not saying its bad or anything.

because there is no such thing as a selfless action. Everything is done in order to get a need met. So, if its wrong, then we should not do anything..

It sounds like you believe in interaction for interactions sake, or some sort of selfless action. Every interaction is in order to get a need met. Theres nothing wrong with that. It doesnt necessarily mean you are using people.

If currencies are backed by USD, and USD is backed by nothing then ?????

I was just talking from personal experience, and probability. Of course its possible that he triggers something somehow and self launches, but the number of those is pretty small, and its more likely that therapy will be needed IMO.

You may be ( likely are) right. At the same time, if you are destroying yourself and your actions, without knowing why, its incredibly difficult to stop doing that, even a little bit, and having the support and guidance of a therapist is extremely helpful. I am not suggesting that you cant also do things in your own time, with your own efforts.

Right, and thats not something you are likely to be able to overcome on your own. Or quickly

I also have problems with this. Only just starting to realise how difficult I find it to have wants and needs, to express them, to know what I want to do, and do it. Its possible that you really just dont like the selling aspect, and arent able to do it well. Perhaps you could find someone who can do the selling for you, and build up the business together? I cant give much advice, except, go back to therapy. I think that therapy is a great way to explore self erasure and heal.

I dont know why you are switching from rational to principled, when they mean two different things.

sorry I know of no definition where rational = principled. from google definition of principled - "acting in accordance with morality and showing recognition of right and wrong." I have no idea what that has to do with rationality

what? What definition of rational are you using? rational is to do with logic, premises and conclusions. a fact is never rational or irrational.

"Just is" isnt irrationality

sorry, I dont know what this means

the universe can "just be" and we can still look and notice the principle of bodies of mass being attracted to other bodies of mass. These 2 premises are not (mutually exclusive.) edit: I meant, contradictory

Again, "just is" does not necessarily equal "pure chaos". If its true that the universe just is, then you have "dealt with it" for however many years you are alive. You have stayed alive, fed and sheltered yourself. So saying "how does one deal with it" is not an argument against anything. You cant deal mentally without the belief in god. That is a different thing.

I think you missed my point, which was that being a loner isnt a "natural" state, that theres a difference between appreciating and enjoying time on your own to do stuff, and feeling alone in a crowd, being scared around people, keeping yourself isolated and alone. The first isnt a "loner" , the second is. My assertion is that you are only a loner because of the way you were treated growing up.

You cant deal with things if there is no god. I get that.

what? did you not read my post? The universe doesnt "bother". Again, you are starting from a flawed premise, and reasoning from there. You are implying that the universe is choosing, acting, deciding, has preferences. You may be right, but you would need to show it. ( saying "well, you exist so....." is not showing it, btw) I dont know what you mean by "whats causing you". You would need to define some things before I can answer that. "whats causing my behaviour" is current conditions Why didnt you address any of my other points?

depends what you mean by "what" and "causing" The probability of a fair coin landing on heads is 50/50( if you discount the very small possibility that it lands on its side). There isnt a "what" that is "causing" this. Its down to conditions at the time the coin was tossed ( to put it very simply). You cant predict with 100% confidence what the result of 1 coin toss will be. .But you can, with close to 100% confidence, predict that after a large number of coin tosses, the number of heads and the number of tails will be close to 50/50. Whats so hard to understand about that? There doesnt need to be some sort of actor intervening and causing things. Total straw man, and demonstrating no understanding of how things work, or what things refer to. Why are you blabbering on about little green men rolling dice, when no one believes that, no one has suggested that, and it doesnt follow from anything anyone has said? Yeah, you havent shown this Where have you shown this? The universe isnt rational or irrational, it just is. That doesnt mean you cant make predictions based on previous observations. You are starting from some flawed base assumptions, and extrapolating your world view from that.

There is a difference between choosing to have few friends, and being unable or unwilling to make friends because of how relationships were for you when you were small. I dont think anyone is born a "loner". I would imagine that pretty much all children would not choose to have no friends