neeeel

Do you agree with the lefts strategy to call their enemies racist nazis, which legitimises violence against them? Because that is what your strategy is akin to. I suppose you can argue that you are only using their tactics back to them but I am not sure thats how it works

ye, I can relate I was on welfare for pretty much all my adult life. Hate work, hated the idea of work, hated the people that wanted me to work. Work was simply being exploited by someone, doing something you didnt want to do, every day, for most of your life, until you died. It seemed crazy to me that, just in order to have a house and food, you had to spend 8 hours of your day doing dull and pointless tasks. I had multiple failed degree attempts behind me, years of depression. When I found FDR, I went into therapy. Listened to hundreds of podcasts and call in shows. Gradually learned that work didnt have to be like that. It could be a mutual exchange of value. You could bring value to a company, and they could reward you for it. A chance came up for a data analyst ( not exactly something I was interested in, but it was working in IT and with computers, so it was somewhat appealing), the interviewer seemed interested in the skills I could offer, and I think I actually gave an ok interview, but in the end, I didnt get the job. The job came up again a few months later, I applied again, and somehow ended up with the job. While the job was initially as a data analyst ( a glorified data entry and data checking job), I showed that I could be useful in automating tasks and using my programming skills to develop software for use in data analysis. So I am now pretty much a full time software developer, and enjoying it. I was really lucky to find, in pretty much my first job, a boss that could recognise that I had something to offer, and to take a chance on it. And if it was a job washing dishes, I would probably still think the same about work in general. But it can happen that even without any previous work experience, if you go in with the idea of giving value, and not be scared to try things out, to put forward ideas, and to work outside what you were taken on for, that you can be surprised.

Not sure what lots of people would do is relevant?

when? just whenever you see them?

You dont get to punch someone for having committed a crime. No matter how disgusting the crime. You get to defend your property, to defend your person, and any persons that depend on you.

Yeah robin hobbs stuff is good. The Assassins Apprentice trilogy, and the Fools Errand trilogy really captured my imagination, I have read them multiple times. When I was young I liked real war stories. Paul Brickhills books on Douglas Bader ( Reach for the Sky) , and the Great Escape, also the DamBusters. I also loved the Narnia series( it never occured to me that it was a christian narrative). and Susan Coopers Dark is Rising series. Also agree with someone in an earlier post for John Wyndhams stuff.

Not sure what you mean? You are admitting that I have shown you are incorrect?

My previous post addresses your "evidence"

I really dont see your evidence anywhere. I might have missed it, so please point it out to me if I have. heres what you said This is not evidence that legalising gay marriage will lead to a slippery slope. This is you stating that conservatives have CLAIMED that it will lead to a slippery slope. Even saying "look whats happening now, therefore, slippery slope" is not evidence. It MAY be the case, sure, but you havent shown it. you havent shown causation. You havent shown that one necessarily follows from the other. You have , at best, shown correlation. You also havent shown that the slippery slope argument is sufficient evidence to support not allowing gay marriage. I agree

Nope, your "addressing it" was simply restating the slippery slope fallacy pointing out that it is the slippery slope fallacy is an argument. Its pointing out a flaw in your logic.

The Slippery Slope Fallacy is a fallacy for a reason http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I dont think that believing that someone is a white supremacist can be used as defence.

of course I can. I can say "self ownership doesnt exist". You are assuming self ownership in order to prove self ownership, which is circular reasoning. You are stating, if you argue against self ownership, you use self ownership to do that. But its perfectly possible to argue against self ownership, and for self ownership not to exist. For example, if I was a robot, I could argue against self ownership, and self ownership wouldnt apply to me( the robot) they are only contradictory if self ownership actually exists, and we humans have self ownership. Lets quote the quote i was responding to which was To show that is false, all I have to do is show that some things that are alive, or have life, do not exercise self ownership or use logic. He may have meant "human life", but thats not what he said. Also, humans dont exercise self ownership or use logic every second of the day. So, for a large portion of the time they are alive, humans are neither exercising self ownership or using logic. The fact that people believe they are wielding self ownership is irrelevant as to whether it exists or not. Not sure what you're point is. The form of my argument isn't Neeel is a hypocrite therefore I'm right the form of the argument is all arguments against self-ownership are self-contradictory.

If you really hated god, you werent an atheist. Do you see why?

This is exactly the point of the OP, as far as I understand it. "The assumptions of [self ownership] are taken for a debate, but aren't necessary outside of it. ". Do you agree that it would be perfectly possible for self ownership to not exist, and I would still engage on this forum? Its totally possible for God to not exist, and people to continue to go to church. That is, the belief about god in no way proves or disproves the existence of god. I suppose if someone didnt claim to believe in god, but still went to church, you could accuse them of hypocrisy, but that STILL in no way proves or disproves the existence of god. Yeah, because you see, thats exactly what I said, right? his claim was which is blatently untrue. I said nothing about humans being vegetables

Lol ok. "all atheists secretly hate god".

Property rights do not exist anywhere in reality. They are a concept. Self ownership does not exist anywhere in reality. It is a concept how can mind own anything? How can mind own the body? How does that work? What does it mean for the person to be derived from the brain? Nope. Lots of things live that exercise neither self ownership or logic.

trading takes a particular mindset, not everyone has it. It is almost the most important factor. Not chasing losses, taking the hit, but also not exiting early out of fear. Staying calm. Not allowing emotions to sway your decision. If you have a strategy, then sticking to that strategy, ie if you have picked an exit point, then you exit at that exit point. ( i can tell you from experience that its not easy to do) Self knowledge can help a lot. An understanding of your own psychology and that of others. I also recommend reading "Black Swan" by Taleb. He is almost suggesting that being a good trader isnt even a skill, but is just a result of a large number of people applying a large number of strategies at any given moment. At least one of them will appear to be profitable, but then for reasons unknown, their system doesnt work any more I dont know if you have ever seen Derren Browns horse racing system This is along similar lines. He appears to have a system, but he doesnt.

I am fairly sure that a number of times, Stefan has stressed that doing nothing, or "not raping" does not make you a moral person

What?

things like "cynical" or "passive" are conclusions. Im not sure if you can ever prove your conclusions correct, even if the other person confirms them. I think this is why RTR focuses on facts and actions. What were their specific actions, and how did you feel.

Try what?

Op seems to be getting quite moody and aggressive

Ignorance isnt aggressiveness Impoliteness and rudeness arent traits of low IQ. Apart from being pretty subjective ( as in, what is impolite and rude in one situation, or with one set of people, isnt impolite or rude in another), high IQ people can be impolite and rude, especially if the other person is being impolite or rude. I dont think you will be able to find a simplified set of rules that will tell you if someone is high or low IQ or not

b) isnt true. I have seen a couple of people on the boards that have a pro spanking stance. Also the FDR facebook group is full of posts supporting spanking