aviet

Do you believe that tattoos are red flags in terms of entering into a relationship with someone? I've seen them as a negative, since I was a child, reinforced when I began thinking (15) and has been reinforced since. Though I don't have a specifically developed philosophy on them. I am particularly interested in any insights FDRers may have into general psychology of a tattooed person. The crux of my casual thinking on tattoos is that they are an act of attention seeking, probably with the idea of establishing individuality with something that is literally skin-deep.

I'd go for 'no', no matter how hard conceptual artists may try to prove otherwise. http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/25/cleaners-throw-away-modern-art-thinking-it-was-mess-from-a-party-this-weekend-5460989/ Agree with WIll T.

To what extent (if any) do you think the current high-water mark of 3rd wave feminism will backfire on HIllary Clinton in regard to her cover-up of Bill Clinton's rapes?

For there to be property rights there needs to be rule(s) regarding the rights of property. Otherwise there is outright anarchy, which does not provide protection for property. Some anarchists put this under the bracket of 'anarchist law'; law being completely incompatible with anarchy - another oxymoron. An anarcho-capitalist society requires a rule/law/custom for the possession of immovable, movable (and intellectual property). Without this it would not be possible for people to acquire and maintain control of capital. You could argue that this could be an implicit, unspoken part of the society, but I don't think we are living in a world where that would be remotely possible. But as the -ism in anarcho-capitalism suggests there would likely be more than just the above rule. Such as what happens to property when the owner dies, when property is damaged or stolen etc. I don't have a low opinion of this audience. As for the latter comment. It is not a passive-aggressive backhand. Last time I posted statements similar to the above, I got downvoted so much that the post became invisible and was eventually deleted. The post was civil, but the replies to it were aggressive, personal attacks without at any point offering counter arguments. So for that reason I added the end statement. I'd love to hear a debate on this topic, which seems to be what the person who started the thread was getting at. Could you elaborate? I put rule as this covers both rules and rulers (rule being a controlling entity). The crux is that someone has to create the anarchic laws and its unlikely that everyone in the society will agree with them 100%, much as the majority of people on the board will not accept the 'social contract' that is forced on us by the state. For example, if I am born into an anarcho-capitalist society that has, say 100,000 words of laws relating to property, and I believe that no one should be able to own property and I go around taking people's property and subsequently face punishment, then I do have rulers.

All of the anarcho-{ideaologies} I've heard of are oxymorons. Anarcho-capitalism is literally anarchy + property rights, which requires at lest one rule. Anarcho-communism is literally anarchy - property rights, which requires at least one rule. Anarchy is literally the absence of rule. When people say anarcho-capitalism, they really mean just capitalism; and when they say anarcho-communism, they really mean just communism. I have an aversion to giving myself any such labels, because my evolving philosophy cannot be boiled down to one conjoined word. If you call yourself an anarchist, there will be a troop of other anarchists ready to bat you down, because your definition is not the same as their definition, which will invariably be much more potent than the literal meaning. [if you disagree, criticise the points rather than voting this post into oblivion]

Your breakdown is concise. It's a shame they are making such a fuss about this, but nothing on say this: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/islamic-state-schools-ban-math-music-philosophy-history-french-and-geography-as-incompatible-with-islam

I don't think there is any need for this to be something you disclose ASAP, but I would expect it to be made known at a point that it becomes serious or earlier if there is a notion that you are both looking to settle down in the near future. As someone who would prefer settling down in the near future, this would not bother me, even though it is not ideal. If you are a good match, it in no way comes close to negating that good match. Your qualities as a good match would far out weigh your reproductive status, which can be addressed. If this is a problem for your romantic interest, then you are obviously not a good match. And if they dump you just because of this, that would suggest to me that they are probably not a great catch. If you feel guilt for withholding this information, then it seems apparent you should tell the person now. The obvious point of disclosure would be at any point a discussion on having children comes up.

This is a perfect statement. I suffer[ed] tremendously with debilitating risk aversion. It's only by chance and extreme circumstance that I have not ended up living at home with my parents in near complete isolation. I've been lucky in that I was able to do one thing on my own that has given me some confidence in myself - I've built a business from nothing that puts me in the top 0.2% of earners in my home country; probably < 0.01% in the other country I live in. Yet I still live with my father. Achieving something, particularly if you have something substantive to show for yourself will be a big boost. I think financial success is probably the best. Although I still have problems with people. This alone has had a considerable affect on my confidence in talking to people. I don't even talk about my financial success with people I meet, but just knowing it gives me more confidence - that I have some value - not just a boy sitting at home. In terms of people, throwing yourself out there will help, though I know it can be difficult to find an area to do that, especially if you are from a small town or village. Last year I went to a very poor and depressed country and at first was petrified with its strangeness and strange people. Then I had to cycle over 1,000 km through several countries with no mobile phone. The possibility of being stranded or left without food or money was a real possibility that I was surprised never happened. I didn't bother to plan any of my routes until the night before and in some cases had little idea where I was going. I typically had only a few hours sleep before each journey, some of which were mentally stressful due to mild injury, dangerous roads, abysmal roads and a huge 15kg load on my back. On the way I stayed at about ten places on AirBnB and CouchSurfing and had some good experiences with that in terms of interacting with people. It may not sound stressful to an extrovert adventurer, but for someone who had spent their entire life at home, it was a big challenge. One of my favourite quotes of Molyneux is 'resistance builds strength'. And this odd journey has built some strength. When I go again this year, I will be more excited than worried. So if you are an introvert, all I can say is - challenge yourself. Once you challenge yourself a little, bigger challenges will appear that you can convince yourself you need to tackle. A short bit of travelling on CouchSurfing would be a good start. As for finance, if you don't have a job, look around for one that you think might have some scope for advancement and learning skills. Or start your own business. Several years ago, a friend in a similar situation asked me if I wanted to start a gardening enterprise. I refused, because I thought it was below me. It was, but other than the fact it could have negated my present situation, it would have been better than being at home all day. I think many people are highly introverted, but they are able to wheedle their way into a social strata and find a place there that gives them confidence in that strata. Take them out of it and push them into an alien social strata and they will have big problems adapting.

This will only be part of the puzzle - finding something that your children will gain self-worth from; as well as encouraging them to develop their character, confidence in their judgement etc. Taking them out shooting with a couple of country blowhards might be a good idea. Real-life experiences. None of that namby-pampy stuff.

Gays Should Be 700% More Likely to Get a Job at the BBC http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/19/bbcs-government-stipulated-target-10-lgbt-staff-far-outstrips-rivals/ Keith Chegwin offers some common sense: One of my observations in life is if you have a system, people will very quickly find out the bounds of it and game it. The system that starts with guilt and ends with resources (not sure if it has a name? maybe 'social injustice') has been so thoroughly gamed that the guilt part no longer needs to be exploited. There are enough people running around looking for the perfect photo-op of handing the keys of a Lamborghini over to a blind, gay albino that efforts expended in seducing guilt tears is no longer needed. Perfect time to stop paying your licence fee.

I have found the opposite. I've had a lot of arguments about it and those pro tend to stumble after their first sentence. Though I guess the reality is few people know anything about the EU. Another poll shows the age-distribution of leanings: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3592871/Happy-birthday-ve-turned-Eurosceptic-Polling-data-reveals-43-age-majority-people-start-Brexit.html A good case for raising the age of entry for the voting franchise Likewise, I am also hoping that the result is hinged on a low turnout of youngsters. Coincidentally, this film is coming out on 23 June: We will not go quietly into the night. The EU is in serious trouble either way. Last year a lot of countries ignored the rules and built border fences and installed checkpoints. This year is seems highly likely that the Eastern Europeans will ignore their 250K Euro fines for not excepting economic migrants.

Is there a point you are trying to make here beyond the questionable validity of research into IQ heritability? I was expecting some info on the extent genetics play a role in IQ. It is clear that genetics play a huge role in IQ, i.e. Down's syndrome sufferers are obviously not well disposed to gain high IQs. I don't think race plays much of a role in IQ though. The average IQ in India is given as around 82, but the average IQ of students with Hindu and Sikh background in the UK was 102. That would be a jump of twenty points. Though I think if you could assess the IQs of their immigrant ancestors, they would have been above average. As such I don't give much credence to the regression to the mean argument. As for the average black American IQ of 85. I don't think it's much of a surprise that it would be so low with levels of violence, family breakdown, drugs etc. If you assessed white IQs in the south I'm sure you'd find lower IQs than in the north. There are some interesting questions in relation to race though. My main observation is the relative roaring success of northern European and Mongoloid societies and to a lesser extent Southern European societies; yet African societies in particular have been despotic, crime-ridden failures. Why were Mongoloid societies able to make such great leaps (albeit largely copying western societies) and others unable to? Another observation is the success of Estonia (average IQ 98) post-Communism compared to the often lackluster paths of their other former-red and lower IQ brethren.

That is certainly the case. I think it will take a serious debt crisis to push prices down.

You could probably get something like that for under £40,000 in my town. Are you a British or London native? I got the impression you were American, but just because you used $. There are a few places in the UK where you can buy houses from local authorities for £1. Stoke-on-Trent is one. I think Middlesborough is another. I might go for something like that at some point. The actual cost to build a house will vary by area due to labour costs and suppliers. I was told by one developer that average houses in my area will cost bout £40,000 to build (that was several years ago), but on top of that you have the price of the land. Average house plots are about 450m2 and in my area that costs about £40,000-60,000 due to planning regulation bureaucracy. Unless you live in London, you can get an idea on the build cost of an area by looking at the cheapest houses in the area on RightMove. Those will be about the same as build cost. In my area the cheapest is: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-49905748.html Though I have seen cheaper. You can get agricultural land for about £8,000-12,000 per acre (4500m2) and its possible to blag your way to living on that, which I may look into in 10 years. No and they don't speak much English there. It's somewhere where backbones are still very much intact. I'm not going there to be part of their economy, though I will bring a few jobs. I may look at doing something there in the future though. If so I will look forward to stumping their politicians. The property is very cheap I've seen a big house, about 5 bedrooms, with small swimming pool and four acres, in good condition for either £35,000 or 35,000 EUR. Luxury for under £70,000 in Bulgaria: http://www.bulgarianproperties.com/Houses_in_Bulgaria/AD38119BG_House_for_sale_near_Veliko_Tarnovo.html

I also agree that changing the voting system is the way forward. However, I think leftists would go nuts if it was suggested that people on benefits could not vote. It would be a hard sell. I think the best move we could make is a move towards direct democracy in which each unit has the right to seceded from any federal programs or secede entirely, as in the Lichenstien Constitution: You could sell something like this to leftists. Though I am having some trouble selling this to a friend who is a recovering socialist. He seems to have a hostility to any of my comments regarding the better living standards of countries that are freer. The great advantage of such a direct democracy system is that at least you could organised with like-minded people to create a jurisdiction that is more favorable. Sure, there would be some jurisdictions that would go far-left insane. But how long would they last? In the UK, there is considerable difference in political opinion in different areas of the country, as in the US. Under direct democracy, each of these regions could be modified to better cater for their constitutes. There are probably a number of issues with this system that would need to be thought about. The main one that I am concerned about is the ability for Islamists to section themselves of and chip away at the country at large.

When I was young, I was very stubborn in regards to what teachers and my mother wanted me to do. Everything I was forced to do was a complete waste and everything I choose to do myself, sometimes against advice, I learnt something from. Some of my decisions were bad ones, but they were some of the most important decisions of my life. The only thing I learnt from being forced to do things is that you don't yield good results from forced situations. It's like if there is a government program, say socialised health care. The vast majority of people take it as a given and are people are hardly pulling together to build something great; and thus, in the UK the NHS is so bad that no one would pay for it if they had the choice. But if you have something people are enthused about and pull together in the same direction, then it can be very powerful. Linux is such an example, without which the internet would be very different. There was one thing in particular I was aggressively forced into doing by one teacher: going to University. Luckily I put my foot down and did not go. If I went it probably would have been the biggest mistake of my life. I'd have ended up in debt with a degree I now know is completely worthless. On top of that I'd probably have ended up in jobs that are no way near as good or financially rewarding as what I am doing now. On the other hand my mother did get me my first and only job. At the time I had essentially dropped out of society on most fronts and although I did not explicitly not want the job, it was not something I would have done myself. My first question would be: What are your options beyond London? In terms of career. It seems your not happy with your current setup. So unless there is some possible pot of gold that can only be accessed by getting an apartment, then you have no reasons. As for London property prices, I'm not sure how much $129.87 is. Seems to be a typo, but London is obviously a giant bubble. If you consider the actual cost that it would cost to build the property and observe the difference between that and the market price, you can work out how much you can potentially loose. Personally, I am only interested in property that is about the same value as the build cost. On the other hand, there are obviously a lot of opportunities in London. If you are interested in pursuing them, it means that you have to tough it out in London for the chance that you might excel. Its your prerogative to make the most of where you live. I am moving to a country with 10X lower wages than where I live. It's a country that people are leaving in relatively large numbers and if they join the EU even more will leave. Its one of a number of countries that are already in population decline and will face a pension crisis in the near future. However, where everyone else sees lack of opportunity, I only see opportunity.

Beautiful ending. Shame the producer isn't as capable an editor as the produce of Winter is Trumping.

I love it. Brilliant line for a T-shirt. Here in the UK I will be voting for the first time in the European Union referendum; and from now on I think I will be voting for UKIP, for the same reason. I agree and believe that for anything even approaching minarchism will require there to be a general agreement world-wide to certain principles and a relatively equal distribution of wealth. Either that or the minarchist state would require strong immigration policies, like Singapore, who refuse entry for refugees. I'd go a step further and say if I could snap my fingers and change the minds of everyone in the world to be conducive to living in a world without government and other coercive bodies that I would not do it. It kind of defeats the point. For us to get to a world like that would require it being earned, through the same hardships that our ancestors went through against the church etc. Clicking your fingers is too much like the instant fix that statists think they can roll out through government; paid for by future generations who they naively believe will be so enriched from their clueless tinkering that paying it off will be a breeze.

I mean that unless someone has the will to enforce laws, then the laws are to some extent redundant. As an example, prostitution is illegal in many countries, but little effort is done to enforce the laws and its essentially tolerated. Though, if someone wanted to crack down on prostitution, it would be easy to find large numbers of people to arrest and chip away at the sex work industry. There is a similar situation with illegal immigration, where it is to a degree tolerated with unwillingness to deport, sanctuary cities etc. If someone came along and had the will to enforce immigration laws, it would not be difficult to enact large numbers of deportations and decrease the pull of trafficking and illegal entry.

I completely agree with your following remarks. When I talk to people, it will typically be a discussion, rather than a debate. However, when I was referring to winning, I was thinking more of winning in the minds of other listeners, not who you are debating. I agree that the person you are debating will be unlikely to change their mind via forward or gung-ho tactics, but I think that this influences others listening. As an example, in the Republican primary debate Trump used forward tactics to win in people's minds, but obviously not Jeb's. I think if it wasn't for that Jeb would have done a lot better. The inspiration for this was an argument that arose in which I was arguing against the dictatorial nature of the European Union. I was rebuffed as a tyrant for doing so, without any reference to anything I said. So I tersely pointed out that I did not see how my comments could be construed as such and that their statement does not appear to counter anything I said. They went on to say that my argument was not an argument, but propaganda followed by a snide remark that may have been clever other than the fact it was completely subjective and had nothing to do with what I said. So I pointed out that they were again unable to address any points. If it is a propaganda, then they could argue against a point or points. Followed by an insult. They again made a statement, which had no bearing on anything I said and said that they will not dignify the points with a rebuttal because they are irrational. To which I replied they had done it again, if all people had to do to win an argument is say 'you are wrong' and 'I don't have to tell you why you are wrong', then the art of debate is over. I then pointed out that if my points are irrational, then it should be child's play to demolish them. At this point they were ruined and I had obviously won in the minds of other or at least cast their side as weak. But yes, I had probably only reinforced their position - though I never got to know their position. I guess this is the obfuscation mentioned above.

Thank you. Those are some useful directions to think in.

I think this is a deviation from the norm and the United Kingdom would be something to learn from if you did want to create a union of disparate people - who don't speak the same language etc. But if you look throughout Europe and the rest of the world, it is obvious forcing disparate people into a Union has generally ultimately been unsuccessful. When there was a common link like language between peoples, such as France, Spain, Germany and The Netherlands, it was easier to create a union.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Thanks. I will check that out now.