[Seems like the complaining has morphed into pointing out Trump's flip-flopping.]

I thought that was the main problem. I've think I've heard Peter Schiff or Stef mention it is like buying fire insurance while your house is on fire

 

I watched this video 

 

 

perhaps I misunderstood though

[Seems like the complaining has morphed into pointing out Trump's flip-flopping.]

Apparently Obama care, by keeping a part of it (pre-existing condition) and replacing the rest. Also some of his stances on immigration have been moving back and forth, appearing and disappearing from his website. 

 

From what I understand ( which is very little) the pre existing condition is a very small part of obama care, and one that no one has any problems with

[Something rather than nothing at all.]

vacuum isnt the same as nothingness

space isnt the same as nothingness

 

Im not sure our brains can actually wrap themselves around the concept of true nothingness

[Back to find things have gone from anarchy and peace to Trump?]

I can make my claim using the apparatus I have been loaned, my mind and body.  Your concept of self-ownership is absolutely invalid and leads toward bizarre stances such as the quietism you have displayed regarding this most crucial modern election.  That you can be ungrateful for the opportunity victory has supplied remains your choice.

 

Not that I agree with dsayers claims about self ownership, but you are making a claim to self ownership right here

[Computer Programmers, UX/UI Designers, Crypto/Math Geeks]

I am a python programmer, also VBA :0

 

I might be interested in your project

[What Principle does FDR Stand on?]

What Principle/s does Freedomain Radio Stand on?

 

Freedomain radio isnt a thing, and so doesnt stand on anything. Its a group of people

 

If you mean, what principles do the people who frequent Freedomain radio stand on, then there will be a wide variety of principles held by lots of different people

 

If you mean, is there a common set of principles held by everyone, then likely, no. there are all sorts here, morality and the NAP are up for debate all the time

 

If you mean, is there a set of principles which, if you dont agree to, you cant be part of the community, I have only really seen 1 topic that will get you auto banned, and that is support for child abuse and spanking. I havent seen anyone actually be banned for it.

[If you want to a true test of a person's character, watch them around children]

Yours is a very vague, unscientific, claim.

 

Many people are uneasy around children, don't like children, or are simply awkward because they don't have children.

 

This doesn't make them bad people.

 

While I agree that its a vague unscientific claim ( I have no idea why you have 3 downvotes for your post), I think there is a lot of truth in it. Why are people uneasy around children? Because children are autonomous, hard to control, spontaneous, full of life, based in reality. Why would adults find this threatening/challenging? Because they are set in their ways, dont like disruption, dont know how to negotiate, dont know how to have fun, have a need to control people, are dogmatic, think their beliefs are correct, are often unconnected to reality.

 

This isnt always the case, of course. but its a red flag to me when someone claims to not like children. 

[Travelling and relationships]

 

This is my point all of the above shit doesn't matter at all, 

 

I disagree, the above "shit" matters a great deal, and is a huge insight into the people involved and how they act.

[How do Ks exist amongst so many rs?]

 

 

Thanks for the neg though.

 

Not sure what you mean, I didnt neg you

[How do Ks exist amongst so many rs?]

I always find it funny when people claim to be K selected. How could you know that? It just seems to be virtue signalling , in group out group signalling.

 

Im not sure its useful to focus on r/K specifically on individuals.

[Backlash from friends about Supporting Trump]

Social ostracism among the tech crowd I'm part of.

 

do you want to say more? what happens? What do they do?

[Back to find things have gone from anarchy and peace to Trump?]

 

 

Principles ARE reality.

 

Lol, no. In no way are principles reality. principles are concepts, ideas. Gravity is reality. Gravity isnt a principle. 

[Back to find things have gone from anarchy and peace to Trump?]

 

What is the principle people are using regarding this situation, I'm curious to hear from both sides.

 

the principle is, voting is initiation of the use of force, and therefore a violation of the NAP , or something along those lines

[Back to find things have gone from anarchy and peace to Trump?]

The only fact regarding a potential Trump presidency is no one can forecast it's outcome with certainty. It's unknowable so long as it remains in the future. I'm willing to bet it will not occur, as the smart money has been on Hillary since day one.

 

Seeing the certainty of a consistent argument misplaced on a false savior is utterly surprising to me. I was totally skeptical of the claim that Molyneux had pivoted away from anarchy towards government participation. I see the community has largely followed this pied piper, and I'll keep an eye on how things recover from the misstep.

 

@Gavitor - You may not have read my posts, but I do not want him to win. I was musing that it would be interesting to see how y'all react to a Trump presidency that shows him not to be some messiah.

 

 

neither stef nor mike have put up trump as some messiah. They have made it clear that they think trump is the best chance we have of saving western civilisation. They have stated that they dont know how it will turn out, but that trump is the unknown, and if anything is going to change, its going to change under trump.  If there was some other option , where we ended up with anarchism, or a free society, I am pretty sure they would be pushing that option, rather than trump.

 

Of course, you can disagree that trump is the best chance we have of saving western civilisation. But if you do believe it, it makes perfect sense to advocate for voting in this one particular instance. They arent saying voting is great, or that they support voting per se, or that statism is really the way to go , or anything like that. 

 

its insanity to put principles before reality. If your house is burning down with your kids in it, your next door neighbour has all the water, and you go "well, if I take all his water, I will be stealing, that would be against my principles, therefore, I am just going to let my house burn", that would be crazy. 

[why rationality is not the right method to approaching reality, and results based thinking]

rationality is the idea of deciding an action or idea by a principle. This is also judged by reason and logic, which are based on universals, or well reasoned opinions. Is this the maximum best method to getting results? I think not.

Are you going to give your reasoning as to why you think not?

[Parent to child: you aren't my friend if you don't.....]

 

 

If you are assertive, but it is not changing the situation; i.e. the parents continue justifying the abuse, and the 'friends' keep up the abuse - then I think you have to point out these people for what they are for your children - mean, abusive, evil people who deserve to be treated the way they treat others. But if you're implying to the children that they can be friends with a bully, then you are sort of lying to them (not intentionally or anything). Once you make the case that a bully cannot actually be a friend, and that mean people should not be treated nicely because that is to make prey out of yourself, then at least your children will understand the situation better, and if you decide to step in and not allow them to see these children, it will have more credibility now that you've explained an error you made and apologized for it, and are stepping in to correct it.

 

 

I dont think its a good idea to teach your children to be mean to anyone. I am not saying they have to be friends with them, they can just not play or socialise with them. But telling them to be mean back doesnt make sense. Its not self defence, in the way that fighting back against the initiation of physical violence is, because it doesnt counter or stop the attack ( I suppose it occasionally might, in that the abuser may be taken aback). Far better to teach them how to deal with such attacks and verbal abuse, to teach them not to believe or accept what the other person is saying as true, to teach them that they do not have to spend time with that person, or be friendly or nice to them. 

 

I suppose it depends on what you mean by teaching your child to "be mean"? I wouldnt class not being friends with them as being mean.

[Back to find things have gone from anarchy and peace to Trump?]

have you watched any videos on trump? He makes it fairly clear what his position is.

[Is dragging your child away from a visit because it is time to go force?]

Or 3) you think you're doing everything right as a parent and may not be, and so may be blindsided by your child's behaviour.

 

 

 

ok, I guess its possible that this is the first time youve ever seen an inkling of this behaviour from your child. 

 

 

 

 

Your points are good otherwise, but missing the point of the scenario.  You're trying to jerry-rig the scenario and that's missing the point.  Do you jerry-rig other moral dilemmas too?

 

The point is no matter how good a parent you are, children can be unpredictable and can spoil your plans for them, including the plan of leaving company when it is polite.

 

 

What? Its you thats jerry rigging the scenario by just going "well, they refuse" to every response or answer that is given. 

 

the point of your scenario is that suddenly, for no reason, the child refuses every single approach, becomes withdrawn and unresponsive, acts like a sullen teenager, and that this is on going. No approach is considered or responded to by the child. This is very unlikely, in my opinion.

Lets say it does happen, and after hours of care, and chat, and warmth, and inquisitiveness, and love, your child is still standing in a corner not responding, or refusing to co-operate, the whole time they have just said "no" or said nothing. Then there is something deeply wrong with your child, or with your relationship with your child. In that scenario, yes, I probably would pick them up and take them to the car ( if they were small enough).

 

but these things generally dont come from nowhere. If you have treated your child with respect right from the start, negotiated with them, it will already be second nature to them, to come to a resolution that suits everyone. If they have negotiated and been respected right from the start, they dont suddenly, for no reason, start acting like their needs and wants dont get respected.

 

Its not about children being unpredictable. of course they are. Its about finding out why they are acting the way they are acting, what needs they are trying to fulfil, and helping them to fulfil those needs in a win-win way for everyone.

 

Your scenario is terrible because it assumes irrationality. It assumes that a child brought up in a loving home is suddenly going to start acting like one brought up in a horrible home, who regards their parents with dislike and suspicion. It assumes the child is acting on a whim that comes from no where, for no reason. Its not a real scenario in any way.

[Is dragging your child away from a visit because it is time to go force?]

Your child refuses to tell you why he/she doesn't want to go.  What do you do?  There are no couches in the room suitable for paediatric psychoanalysis.

 

You are constructing an unsolvable situation. Yes, everything that someone comes up with, you can counter with "well, he just doesnt want to do X" or "he refuses to do X", but its not realistic.

 

There are 2 possibilities in this scenario.

 

1) you have a good relationship with your child. They talk to you, they negotiate with you, and you with them, you treat them with respect, and so on. In this case, your scenario is extremely unlikely, and, if it did happen would be very worrying for the parent. Their child, who has rarely or never acted like this, suddenly becomes sullen , lifeless, unresponsive, acting out. I have no idea if, or how, this could happen, but if it did, it would be something as a parent I would do everything I could to find out what was happening, and why. You can keep responding "well, they just refuse to tell you", but that doesnt happen in the real world, unless they have had a stroke or something.

 

2) you have a bad relationship with your child. You override their wishes most or all of the time, you dont treat them with respect, they feel that they cant come to you with worries or stuff to talk about, your relationship is one of "do this! do that! stop that! dont do that!". In this case, its likely that they have behaved this way ( what we are talking about in your scenario, refusing to go, etc) before, and so you know before hand that it may happen. In which case, you just dont take them to your friends house. 

[My current Family battle with "The Truth" VS Nietzche]

the quote also applies to her just as much, so you can dismiss her in the same way shes dismissing you.

 

You cant "save" your mum. You cant help her if she doesnt want to be helped. Tell her honestly how you see things, and if nothing changes, or if she just dismisses you, then you have done all you could. What else can you do? Its not your job to save them. 

[Attempted logical proof for God]

2. What could possibly have created redness, extension, being, and nonbeing, and all other categories and Platonic forms, as I  as much as ask above, if not something on the order of a God? 

 

 

You realise that platonic forms dont exist, right? 

[a tad worried about my anarchist-2-year-old..quite a handful of action.]

 

The day we went to the pediatrician to get a routine checkup he ran to the door and opened it to leave the room to go to the toy section. My memory is a bit fogged, but I think my wife stopped him and he started to protest and then I picked him up and explained to him that we are doing a check-up. This is when the doctor explained that he's just protesting and not really crying and he is learning by trial and error to exert his will, or over-power/dominate his parents, which would lead to a difficult child/parent relationship. This is when I started to be more affirmative, meaning instead of "shall we go to the pool?" I use "let's go to the pool" instead which worked a lot better.

 

 

 

 

again, does the doctor know what he/she is talking about? theres nothing wrong with him learning to exert his will, and he will also find out that other people have wills that are different than his.

 

 

How do you explain to a 2-year old that he can't have ice-cream every time we step out? Unfortunately there is a café just a stones throw away..and he knows it! I find it very difficult to set the boundaries but I will try subbing out the actors and see if this works to find win-win solutions.

 

 

The same way you explain to anyone else.Be honest. Tell the truth. Why do you not want to go and have ice cream every time you step outside? You tell him the reasons why, and if he doesnt understand, you can explain a different way, or with different words, or using examples from his life. Perhaps hes right, and going for ice cream is a good idea? 

 

For example, "I dont want to go for ice cream" is a valid reason. It doesnt mean that its the law, or that it will always be that way. Perhaps your son will even persuade you to go for ice cream, in which case, great. If he asks you why you dont want to, then you tell him. So, when someone wanted me to buy them ice cream, I said "i dont want to spend any more money" and I think that was a valid reason. It didnt blame them for wanting ice cream, I didnt get angry or make out he was being bad or ungrateful. And, perhaps my reasons arent great, or are based on some other worry or want or need ( perhaps I am worried that I need to teach him the value of money, or worried about being too permissive, or worried about not setting boundaries, non of which are to do with ice cream, or the present situation), examining my reasons, I may see that, actually, yes, he wants to go for ice cream, I want to go for ice cream, so lets go for ice cream!! or, you might feel that right now, you dont want to., or youve had ice cream recently or whatever, so you explain that. 

 

Ive never been a fan of this "kids need boundaries" thing. Perhaps its you that needs boundaries, not him!! Yes, kids need to be kept safe, but dont get locked into "I have made my decision, therefore I HAVE to stick to it, because boundaries". You can stick to your decision, and thats fine. You can also change your mind, and thats fine.

 

There is nothing wrong with you expressing your wants to him.

[Son Violating Non-Aggression Principle - Can I Use Physical Force?]

Right so the behaviour happens when it's time to finish an activity? To incentivise the behaviour you want instead of using spanking try a star chart. Get some star stickers and make up a chart, include categories like brushing teeth, getting ready when you ask etc whatever you like really. However make sure to include several things he already does.

 

The key is to reinforce his self perception of bieng a good boy. Too often when we tell children they are 'bad' that starts to be incorporated into their identity. So let him choose a star put it on the chart, and positively reinforce with praise. Once he fills a chart and make him aware of this he can choose a special activity: trip to the zoo etc. However make sure it involves plenty of time and interaction with you.

 

perhaps its not relevant, but my reaction to star charts and such "positive" incentives is usually "ugh" or "yuk". 

You arent teaching them anything except to please you. I suppose if you are also explaining reasoning or whatever as you go, then it wouldnt be so bad. And its obviously better than spanking. But still leaves a nasty feeling for me.

[a tad worried about my anarchist-2-year-old..quite a handful of action.]

Thanks for the reply neeel. I'm not sure cooperate is a good term for this - I'd rather negotiate a win-win with him, which works for me most of the time. But my parents and my wife often don't have the patience or commitment, they want him to do what they ask. What started to worry about is something our doctor said when we last went there. If I let him control us, he won't respect us and things will go downhill from there. There are a few boundaries I've kept for a while. For example he's not allowed to climb onto the table, and he respects this 99% of the time. He tests this boundary in a playful way, and I jump in and stop him in a playful way. This has worked well and kept a happy atmosphere. He didn't articulate what he wanted when turning left that time, really no idea what he was up to that time..

 

 

 

Does the doctor know what hes talking about? If hes just assuming that peaceful parenting = permissive parenting, or =weak parenting, then I think you can safely ignore his advice.

Are you letting him control you? It doesnt sound like it. 

It sounds like its going to be tough for you and your son because of the way your parents and wife treat him. He needs you all the more because of that

[Attempted logical proof for God]

Strictly speaking you're right.  The mind is to the thoughts are vision is to colour.  Who has seen vision?  We only see colour. Our supra-logical Intellect intuits that there is such a thing as vision, and mind, though these things are outside of the logical apprehension.

 

We dont intuit that there is a mind. We notice phenomena, and attribute it to a mind, and imply that the mind has all sorts of characteristics, qualities, powers, actions. 

 

it would be like intuiting that the rain is god crying.