utopian
-
Posts
308 -
Joined
Posts posted by utopian
-
-
In a single word, fulfillment.
I want to reach and excersize my intellectual capacity, and develop technologies that will move humanity forward, away from the primitive cavemen we once were (and arguably largely still are).
I also want to develop my personality, and be able to have a functioning and loving relationship, provided I could actually find a woman I could do that with.
Mostly, however, what I seem to end up doing is sitting on the computer playing video games. It fulfills me with a sense of constant excitement, to be sure, but I kick myself every day, knowing what I am capable of and knowing I am not pursuing it. I pursue some of it during my game playing I suppose... I can never seem to really hunker down and concentrate on it though.
-
3
-
-
I take it you have also read "The Creature" J.D.? I have seen the debt clock before, though I think last time I saw it, it was 17 trillion. Oh how time flies.
What attributes to that 61 trillion figure, besides national debt? Private debt?
-
It is true, the money does not belong to the tax payers. It is a private money supply that we are just using.
Now, in order to use this money supply, our government, supposedly representing us, their people,
agreed to BORROW this money. Lets say, for the sake of simplicity, they only agreed to borrow 100 dollars.
The private entity agreed to lend us their money supply, but... make sure you are paying attention... AT INTEREST.
So if we have that 100 dollars for one month, and the interest is 10% a month, after one month, we owe the entity 100 dollars, plus 10 dollars.
Here is the problem; that last 10 dollars was never created/loaned to us, so we can never actually pay off the debt.
Do you see the mechanic now? It is actually a complex form of slavery. No one could ever actually pay off the debt.
And not only that, but the problem is a lot worse than 100 dollars. For America, its over 17 TRILLION dollars, and possibly 17 trillion, TIMES 9.
-
And people have been using it to be found not guilty of tax evasion. True story.
-
My life was full of lies from a very young age. Religion. Feminism. The idea that I am special. All men are created equal. Men are the dominant perpetrators and women the perpetual victims.
My life was going down a dark road fast because of all the lies being fed to me. I only survived by slowly and surely sticking to the truth, empirically testing what was real and what was not. Even therapy, so called, did not help me as much as philosophy did. I would say philosophy saved my life, as well as improved it.
-
2
-
-
Gah, how did I miss this thread?
Can someone summarize a TLDR version of some of the more important points reached in this thread? I will read it all if I must, but someone could save me a lot of time.
-
Oh, is the philosopher king status a donater item?
I mean, I was listening to Stef's real time relationships, and he gave thanks to the philosopher kings for reviewing his work. I imagine that is because he has recognized their skill in philosophy, which is why I wanted to speak to just them.
I am not looking for a "debate". There are plenty of fools on here looking for a "debate" with the intention of winning the debate whether they are right or wrong.
I am looking for TRUTH. Truth I can't find myself, and which may not be found in someone looking for a debate.
-
I have a topic I would like to discuss. This is a perilous topic to say the least. It is very controversial, and the reason I want to speak with a philosopher king about it is because it is so difficult to traverse, I cannot determine a logical conclusion to the issue myself.
Talking to Steph about it would be nice, but I dont think he would like to take on the issue, certainly not publicly.
I could post it on the forums, but while the people here on average certainly seem to be a step above the common rabble, there are still people here whom I have concerns about if I were to post this topic publicly.
The only people left I could discuss this with would be someone recognized with skill in philosophy that is not a "top dog", meaning a philosopher king here.
If any or all of you philosopher kings would be willing to discuss this with me, please send me a PM.
-
Thanks everyone... its taken me a little bit to think about this.
I think the first thing I had to think of, was that I think this article had something to say about ME. *I* feel ashamed for *THEM*, at what THEY have done.
Now I had to think about that for a second. Why do I feel this way? It was not me that did it. And yet I still feel embarrassed, as if it was. Is this because, perhaps, this is the way I was raised? To feel the shame of someone else's criminal actions as if it was my own? Thinking back, I do have a crazy mother who did her best to guilt trip everyone and anyone in order to gain entitlements. Not unlike Steph's mom. I think I am starting to see this chain of abuse that makes me feel this way.
Even though I see some kind of abuse mechanic, however, I still feel bad. I need some way of undoing this I suppose, some kind of therapy. I am an abused child myself. It feels it some strange way that I could have been messed up to the point where I turned out like one of the guys in the article, but I did not.
And in the larger scheme of things, it seems like this is perhaps a common thing, women shaming men to get them to do things for them for free. For entitlements. Does it start young, as I believe it started young for me with my own mother? Is this what more militant feminism aims to take advantage of? In no way do I think people like in the article should be excused. But I didn't do it, and I should not have to pay for it. Or feel like I did. I wish I could just say I did not.
-
I think that ideally, it would be best for everyone to find a virtuous partner to settle down and have kids with. However, as a guy, especially a younger guy these days, there are very few virtuous women to choose from. Those that are, probably are already taken. It is impractical to go through life believing the one is just around the corner in these situations. I think in the "current events" section someone posted a link that said more women in their 30s are going without kids. Those women will likely never have children, or perhaps worse, have kids at ages that risk more disabilities. Likewise, I would like to find a virtuous philosophical woman I could raise kids with, but I'll never hold my breath. FWBs makes sense until you find the unicorn.
-
3
-
-
And I just wanted to warn anyone that might wanna look at it, just the title of it disgusted me. Take a second to wonder if you even want to look at this.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-32413502
I don't see how people can be like this. This is wrong beyond comprehension. What kind of thought processes wou... honestly, I don't even want to know. I find myself wishing I never had known this even happens.
The thing is, see, I am usually the kind of guy who is totally for championing men's rights, pointing out men's abuse and stuff. And I still do feel like men's rights are fairly trampled. But honestly, after seeing this article, it has opened up a whole perspective for me about what women could be facing. Obviously this article is a very small minority of men, but man, it really does make me disgusted just to know I am in the same gender category as these guys. I am feeling fairly confused, wondering just what it is in "feminism" I have been overlooking.
-
1
-
-
I decided I wouldn't throw him backIm pretty sure what I have to say about this woman is not legal on this forum.
-
Utopian, I must disagree. Do you remember the wicked laugh she busted out about Qadaffi? (We came, we saw, he died). I do not think this is a woman who cries when the going gets tough.
No I never heard that one. I just tried to find the Glenn Beck episode where Glenn is trolling Hillary for crying but I couldnt find it. It should be no involved matter, however, to find the very famous picture of Hillary's face during the raid on Osama. She emotes fairly easily, and that can be used against her as a display of weakness. Do you want a president who freaks out when Russia starts scrambling bombers?
I think that at this level of power, the dynamics go waaaay beyond the personal feelings of the candidate. I have read several accounts of Hillary and Bill having an open marriage (Larry Nichols, and the state trooper who guarded the Clintons when Bill was governor), and I just don't think that kind of woman gets riled up by women her husband had an affair with (what even constitutes as an affair in an open marriage anyhow?).
As far as anyone having the 'ammo to take her down', I would say that given all the scandals that Hillary has been involved in over the years (whitewater, Benghazi, Saudi money in the Clinton Foundation, etc), the fact that she is running with such widespread media support shows that no amalgamation of facts can take her down. Powerful people seem to have ordained that she's destined for the white house. If there was anything about Hillary's political career that adhered to facts and reason, we probably wouldn't even know her name.
You have a point here, and it speaks to something I call "the government show" where we do not actually have a democracy in America any more, just a few candidates like Hillary who are corporately owned and financed by these corporations, and thus get all the attention while shutting everything else out. I do think, if someone were to do it right, there could be a very effective anti-Hillary campaign waged.
-
I want to say this situation us rare, but that's rubbish,. This situation had never and will never happen to the point that it's practically impoosible. These aren't moral questions.
Finally, you completely ignored my last set of responses and implied that a better example was necessary. Suggesting that I misunderstood and that my reasonable criticisms would be invalid if I just got it better is both terribly rude and an awful debating technique.Don't get me wrong, I am trying to find a good example of things that are in some way the same as the actual argument I want to consider, without actually putting forth my real issue. I don't want to put forth my real issue because, like I said in my OP, I am concerned that anything that may logically lead to an answer that is not best for the libertarian will be ignored, denied, or eventually shun anyone discussing the topic with empirical evidence. Your criticisms seem valid, but do not seem to apply to my real issue. And seems that yes, though I am only speaking of a "test issue" I am running into some of my concerns in responses here.
Your initial premise is flawed. Only a philosophy based on utilitarianism would proceed by asking "what is best?" Generally, philosophy begins with the question "What is TRUE??" and proceeds on the basis of principles which encapsulate those truths.
Aah, but you see, I am finding that libertarianism does not ask "what is true" but "what is best for my personal freedom". If you were to ask "What is true" you would conclude that "survival of the fittest" is a valid philosophy, because humans, among many other species, only exist because of the validity of this philosophy. The thing is, "survival of the fittest" and "NAP" are opposed to one another.
If lions could understand philosophy, the NAP would render lions extinct, because they could never agress against the zebra they eat. Do you see how this translates to humans?
and it's a stupid question, because why kill him when you can save him from his abusive caregivers and put him in a warm and loving home.
The concerns of my OP, personified.
I do not understand why people resort to this. There are much more prevalent questions of similar quality.
It was some kind of study on the difference between men and women;
-
That's an individualist view in the extreme, by current social standards. Can't say I disapprove, but if that last point is true, then I have to judge my approach to this whole matter as the proper and correct one in pretty much all regards, and I wouldn't want that.
What are you talking about? A relationship without sex is just a friendship. Are you saying you want nothing but friendships? You WANT a perpetual friendzone?
-
The timing is indeed interesting... I was thinking more along the lines of working AGAINST Hillary. Trolling Hillary, reminding her of the pain in her past concerning this. Hillary has been known to cry when the going gets tough, and the media was all too ready to pick up on it and use it against her.
If she becomes president it will be a testament to how brainwashed America is. With her previous campaign foolishness available for reference, Monica coming back to elbow her in the side, the whole debacle about her involvement in letting the soldiers at the embassy die and more, I think the "Stop Hillary" campaign has all the ammo it needs to take her down.
-
The objectification of men is not primarily sexual - men are objectified for their utility rather than their fertility. Karen Straughan talks about this. While a nude woman is more appealing to most men, a nude man is not as appealing as one in a uniform demonstrating high status.
Agreed, but do you think men are as prevalently objectified in this way as women are sexually? To tell you the truth, I don't spend much time thinking about how men are primarily displayed.
The only problem I have with this thesis. Is that consequently it would appear that the 'freedom' feminists have won. Females are more promiscuous than they have largely ever been in history.
I certainly agree that there is a socialist agenda underpining many feminist theories and I also agree that there are feminists that want the market value for their sexuality to increase. Hence their opposition to pornography or their lobbying for increased penalties on the Johns that frequent prostitutes.
I did a thread about this, concerning how "suppression" feminists have won;
https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43641-what-exactly-was-it-that-feminism-achieved/
And while I agree women are more sexually liberated than ever, Anna Kendrick is still complaining she does not get to see enough dick. Perhaps, both sides of feminism have won? As supported in my thread, the law has been unreasonably tipped in women's favor, as well as the economic and marital situations.
As women could use their sexual appeal to their advantage before marriage, this has turned into an arms race where women increasingly dress more provocatively and sexually in order to gain power over men.
Aha, so, do you see the concept that, just like women objectify themselves sexually to gain power over men, men have yet to explore options to objectify themselves to gain power over women? As Rose says, men are already objectified, with status/finance. Why have we never explored the power of our sexual objectification?
-
A different example perhaps. Another study surveyed people and gave the following situation: you see 100 people standing on a train track. A train is coming, but you wont have enough time to warn the people. You can, however, pull a lever which will drop a crate on the tracks in front of the train, stopping it, but killing the one engineer.
If you were to pull the lever, killing the engineer and saving the 100 people, would that violate the NAP? Cause you are agressing by taking the one guy's life.
And I do want to look into NAP more/libertarianism, but I dont have all that much time and there is a lot of stuff here I want to look through and do.
-
This is more of a light hearted thread concerning some relevant serious issues.
It is a more common theme these days (though more publicly denied) that women are perturbed that there is not enough sexual objectification of men in the media;
while there is obviously no lack of sexual objectification of women. Game of thrones is a great example, noted by many to be full of boobies galore, but no real male nudity.
Compared to the rampant and often flamboyant acceptance of female nudity in many aspects of media, male nudity is a very hushed and hidden thing. You see it every once in a while in things like "Magic Mike" or in themes such as "50 Shades of Grey", so sure it's out there, but as women are noting, they are certainly not getting their fare share of male sexualization and objectification.
It can obviously be seen, however, that women are starting to come out of the woodwork more publicly in favor of accepting being sexual with men. I, like I am sure many people here, like Stephan, grew up with a crazy mother who confused my ideas about it, but realized in my more recent years what women can really be like.
So it gets me thinking, in this day and age of women empowerment, when so many of them are championing freedoms including sexuality, why is it still such a taboo for them to express and pursue their interests in men?
I think I found the answer one day a while back while reading a book called "my secret garden"
http://www.amazon.com/My-Secret-Garden-Womens-Fantasies/dp/0704332949
The book is by a self proclaimed feminist (wait, don't discount this yet!) who wrote the book detailing several anonymous letters describing women's sexual fantasies concerning men, and even more. She describes, in the book, how there are two kinds of "feminists"; feminists that believe in freedom for women in all areas including sexual expression, and feminists who believe sexuality should be suppressed to better control men.
She goes on to describe how there was a small movement of "freedom feminists" to have their sexuality more accepted. Here is the important part; the "suppression feminists" attacked the "freedom feminists" socially, destroying their public image. Nancy Friday herself was attacked by "Ms. Magazine" as "not a real feminist" and diminishing her character.
Now, apply what we know here on FDR about feminism only actually being a front for socialism. "Suppressive feminism" makes sense for this agenda, because women are more susceptible to social manipulation, and suppressing their sexual desires keeps them controlled in ways that can move them towards socialism. It also controls men, because men are renown for naturally higher libidos, and will follow any government ideology including socialism if it gets them laid more.
And so, with a heavy heart, I must put forward the idea men that, in order to free women and allow them to express themselves more openly, we must cast aside our hopes for an independent future and well paying career and subject ourselves to the wanton lusts of women. I know, I know, it's hard being objectified in such undignified ways when men are obviously so globally sexualized already. But the real issue here is that socialism hidden by modern feminism must be combated, as well as women liberated. I therefore choose, oh so grudgingly, to subject myself to the sexual objectification of women, leading by example and volunteering as tribute.
-
Libertarianism asks "Does it [insert proposed action] initiate force against others? If not than we are good - if so than we have a problem".
This is all.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy, and does not get into aesthetic and/or pragmatic questions regarding "what is best for ME, children, etc." all it is concerned with is the NAP applied to society.
Hmm... ok so, Libertarianism is unconcerned with potential moral issues? For example, a study was recently done on men and women, and the question was put forward "if you could, would you go back in time and kill Hitler, knowing his death may potentially save the lives of millions of people?"
Because though the moral choice may theoretically be to kill Hitler, according to this definition of the NAP, the only problem would be if you initiated use of force in the killing of Hitler, despite potentially saving many lives in the act.
-
1
-
-
Having a philosophy concerning anything requires that the philosopher first ask "what is best". For example, the philosophy of a cage fighter would be "what is best for defeating my opponent". A person playing video games would ask "what is the best way to win the game". And of course, a decent parent would ask "what is best for my children?". Once this question is asked, the rest of the philosophy can be built upon to realize the goals of the first question.
Considering this, the more I look at libertarianism, the more it seems to me that the question that the libertarian philosophy first asks is, "what is best for ME?" I notice that, every time there is a topic or situation that may logically lead to an answer that is not best for the libertarian, this topic will be ignored, denied, or eventually shun anyone discussing the topic with empirical evidence.
I don't want to introduce those topics because I don't want a derailment of this thread. What I am interested in, however, is a more clear definition of what libertarianism is asking for "what is best" because if libertarianism does indeed start with the question of "what is best for ME" then it would have inherit conflict of interests, especially concerning other philosophies one may run into while being a libertarian. For example, a libertarian who was also a parent, may find themselves not first asking "what is best for my children".
-
I see that MMX guy is still posting. I am glad he's trolling himself by wasting his time trying to talk to me, cause I still have not read any of his posts here lol. He must be pretty desperate to matter to me. Too bad he never will.
When I look around me, I see people who go with the common beliefs about relationships. Follow biology. Live stereotypical lives of quiet misery and confusion.
Then there are those rare people who seem to be advancing in consciousness and don't wish to be beholden to biology. Don't want to play games with trading bananas anymore. Are looking for something real and fighting their biological urges.
I hesitate to engage a woman about this topic, but I bet you are a step above the rest intellectually just for being on this forum.I too see the ghosts living lives by how the media and society tells them to. Their ignorance is bliss, but can also obviously be seen as their frustrations. Is it any wonder there is so much divorce, mental issues and unhappiness these days?But don't get me wrong, I think a big part of being human IS fulfilling those primitive urges. That is only a third of the equation however, the basic functions of the paleocortex. Most men only seek fulfillment on this level of course, while women are more on the second level of the lymbic system, the emotional level. Can you relate to my issue then, as a woman seeking fulfillment on that emotional level, that I too am seeking emotional fulfillment by looking for a woman who actually cares about my feelings?I like to think I am very different from the majority of women out there who are looking for either beta bucks or alpha fucks. But I am not free from these compulsions. I feel them and experience them. But I fight them.
The problem is that I now almost have contempt for men who are attractive or doing well financially. I have conditioned myself this way. Do I want an unemployed man who doesn't take care of his looks, then? Well, no.
Again, I am not saying you should avoid men just for their looks or their resources. Of course it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. But we are humans, and though these urges are natural parts of us, we should be evolving to develop our potentials. The caveman will satisfy your desire for sex and resources, but he will never fulfill your emotional and intellectual desires. The thing is, I am quite sure of, that many men are getting the idea these days that they can ONLY care about your emotions and intelligence, and get somewhere. These are the friendzone guys, wondering why the caveman asshole is the only one getting laid, when the "nice guy" is caring about your intelligence and feelings.
The traditional problem being for you now that you have to choose between the cavemen and the nice guys, and neither will ever leave you fulfilled.
I want a man who sees my value unclouded by his desire for sex, just like it seems some people here want a woman who isn't wooed by dinner and dresses.
I don't know if this man exists.
I think when you really REALLY REALLY get right down to it, the value of a woman to man, starts and ends with sex.
Your first sentence describes a longing for fulfillment on the third level of the brain, after the paleocortex and lymbic system. The neocortex is the part that strives for an INTELLECTUAL fulfillment. The good news is, this forum is probably the best place for you to find it lol, as philosophy requires a certain degree of intelligence. The traditional problem still exists however, of intellectual and emotional guys not usually being attractive providers.
But yes, when you get down to it, emotions and intelligence is not necessarily what got humanity through to this point of our evolution, it was the caveman who brought home the bacon; the guy most concerned with sex. Hopefully one day we will both find fulfillment on each level.
-
1
-
2
-
-
I am a fan of this kind of thinking, but the problem is, anyone smart enough to consider why the theories are important are probably people who you don't want to die.
Consider this study;
NASA says we are destroying the planet's resources with overpopulation. We need to reduce the population, drastically and quickly.
But what does that mean exactly? It means people need to die. A lot of them. And fast, before the effect on the planet is irreversible. Because if we don't do it ourselves, it will be done to us later in a way that is not our choice. The world environment will become so deadly and exhausted of resources, we will not be able to support humanity anyway.
So now we have to ask ourselves a few important, and really tough questions.
Who should die? These people who are voluntarily going extinct are helpful, but they are a very small percentage of the population. I don't like the idea of them dying in the first place, if they are smart enough to consider why they should go extinct. Why not one of the many unintelligent, uneducated people? How about someone in the lower 40th percentile of intelligence? Hell, how about the entire bottom 40%? How about all the criminals as well. and since we need to save money and resources, how about letting all the severely mentally disabled, vegetative, and extremely elderly die off instead of racking up the extreme costs of caring for them when they can't even contribute to humanity?
Now take a step back, and consider all that. Consider actually doing that. Monstrous. Unhuman. Unthinkable. And yet, if we do not do it, we will cause all of humanity to go extinct, in the face of NASA's research and overpopulation. No one can pull that trigger. That is why humanity is doomed to extinction, unless large quantities of the population go voluntarily extinct.
-
1
-
-
Nazi-ism is not a debate. You either are against Jews in every capacity or you are an asshole and you belong in the fucking ground.
The logic is overwhelming.
A philosophical struggle of mine
in Philosophy
Posted
This is not the exact issue I have. The exact issue would take so much explaining, most people would fall off before they got around to finishing understanding it, so this will have to suffice.
I see this problem where there are 100 people standing on a train track, messing around, having fun and living our their regular lives. I see a train coming. I start yelling and screaming to everyone, hey, there's a train coming, get off the train tracks.
Most people ignore me. Some make fun of me. Some half jokingly ask for proof. Now, I can show them some fairly obvious proof; the ground shaking, the whistle blowing, the train actually being there in the distance. Yet despite all this, many people will not even bother to listen to me. Many are not even smart enough to understand that the evidence presented is actually a train that could kill them. Many may have the intelligence, but find it painful to bother looking and listening, and seem to choose subconsciously living out their short lives happily and ignorantly before they get killed by the coming train. Maybe around 10% of people listen and get off the tracks.
Now, after having gone through this struggle of trying to warn people against the impending death of the train, and being faced by such ignorance and resistance, I can't help but feel like these people deserve to die of their own stupidity.
If people are so stupid that, not only do they not care to consider they are playing on train tracks, but do not bother to listen to someone warning them about the impending dangers or even care to consider evidence (and furthermore, sometimes choose to stay on the train tracks, knowing there could be a train coming) are these people even worth saving? Because if people have become so ignorant and desensitized, how can I justify striving to maintain their existence? I mean for god's sake, when people reach this level, it goes against the very philosophy of survival of the fittest that produced them in the first place.
I have generally concluded that people like this are not worth saving, and that I would rather let them get hit by the train. Furthermore, I position myself to profit in the instance that these people do in fact die, proverbially, investing in the local casket shop, etc. knowing that eventually a lot of these things are going to be sold because of the impending deaths. I feel justified seeing these "humans" get run over by the train and profiting from it.
And though I do feel justified, some part of me wonders why these people have turned out this way. Was it that no one taught them that trains are dangerous, when someone should have? Is it my responsibility to teach someone about trains, if they never were? And if I do take time out of my life to do so, and I am ignored and shunned for it, is it ethical to profit from a person's stupidity?