SWMA

I think you should include the very real threat of public backlash that a potentially discriminating doctor would have to fear. People smearing obscenities on your house, keying your car, yelling at you in the street, harrassing your family, campaigns on social media against you, whatever you can make up, people would do it. Not necessarily *you* because some of that's very close to being immoral, if it not straight up is. But there's loads of people that won't hold back. The whole SJW idiot brigade would be very quickly mobilized. So I can see the mob mentality actually doing something good in this case.

https://www.youtube.com/user/Genderratic/ I've only stumbled across her channel yesterday but already am fully enthralled by it. As I went about it I watched everything she uploaded in chronological order, that is oldest to newest, and it seems to be structured around that approach very well. Can't say that other approaches are less good of course since I don't know, but I'm telling you what seems to be working. watch all of it, everyone

sorry to raise this thread from the dead - but are you still at it? I am another native German speaker and am interested in translating, or helping translate, Stefan's work https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43763-for-stefan-are-you-looking-for-translators/

thanks, I was unsure about whether or not to commit thread necromancy but I'll trust your implicit judgement that it could be alright here

"Young children before they are able to use reason" are different to the group of people you advocate manipulating. I see what you're trying do to, but no thanks. If you want to talk about how we should treat "young children before they are unable to use reason" then that's a different thread now, is it not? What you want to do here, what you advocate in this thread, is immoral. I have already stated what I think is the moral way to interact with someone who does not subscribe to reason, in my very first post. I thought that maybe you had some curious idea of what "manipulate" would mean and asked you to clarify, but all you are answering with is anti-intellectual demagogy. So I have to conclude that you indeed do know that what you are advocating (manipulating a certain group of people in a way explicitely excluding reason to get them to "our" side) is immoral. And I see that you are even trying to do it here, you are trying to manipulate people here in this forum for your goals when you state it as bringing "them" to "our" side.

I am sorry if you felt that was hostile and or condescending, it was not meant in this way. And the meaning you quoted there is surely not the one you mean it in this case. This meaning is not applicable to "manipulate humans"(which you proposed to be done), it is not "useful" in our context we have right here. And even if you stretch it to "well technically" then it sure is still neither moral nor universalizable (though those last two might be synonymous here). So I find you quoting that as if it answered my question, which obviously pertained to this very topic, to be intellectually dishonest. It may have to do with you thinking I was being hostile, so I have no ill thoughts of you because of it. If you disagree with my assessment then please allow me to rephrase: How would you define "to manipulate another human being" in a useful(!) way which can be universalized as something not morally wrong.

People here are assuming you want to use reason because people here subscribe to reason. And evidence. Oh and please, please go ahead and define "manipulate" in a somewhat useful way that does not result in immorality and is able to be universalized, I am quite a bit curious to see you try.

Pretty sure you can't universalize "It's ok to manipulate". I wrote another post on this and it's not here yet, so keep in mind that when it finally does pop up it was originally written before you posted that, jpahmad. And as an addendum to my to-come above post: I meant "I prefer it here", as in I find it both more applicable and poignant to the subject of religion and the starting post here itself.

Where's that quote from exactly? I personally prefer the Ayn Rand quote "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone." It describes accurately what's going on, on several levels. As for "getting" anyone to "our" side - it could only be as something which they are not. You cannot be both christian and fully subscribe to reason. That is because christianity, as any religion or other occult movement, is based on fantasy. Not reality. And it is impossible to sway someone with reason and evidence, if that person has already decided for himself* that reason and evidence are not the (only!) way to gain knowledge, but superstition, wishful thinking and makebelieve are what counts. *most likely the person has not decided that at all, because most people don't even think. They just re-live what others told them of lives. They just re-think what others told them of thought. They just do what others told them to do. And they like it that way. And thats sadly what I have come to think of most people.

This is a topic that I find very interesting myself, if you had not made a thread about it I would have now Are you guys interested in starting something of a list of words that are not, or not in the same way, in your mother tongue and in english? I think such a thing could help get a deeper understanding of the concepts involved. An example from German that I posted in another thread already: the english word "force" In German you could translate it with three words, "Gewalt", "Zwang" and "Kraft", which are all related but slightly different. Gewalt which is literally force from the state "the power of the state", can also be "violence", it is the direct encroachment of someone on your person with physical force. Staatsgewalt(literally force from the state or power of the state) is what you would use to describe policemen, since they are what brings physical force to the entity of the state. Kraft is related to "being strong", but mainly used in physics as "the force on an electron from an electromagnetic field" for example. But you would never use the word when someone is for example hurting someone else (other than to describe if it's being done by someone strong). Zwang is something that is exerted on someone or something which "forces" said someone/thing into a certain action or path. For example if the bowling ball rolls into the gutter, the gutter "forces" the ball to stay in there and it's path into a straight line. "Gewalt" is the one I feel most adequate for the NAP, the non-aggression principle. But when describing the state and society "forcing" people to do certain things, "Zwang" is the better word as generally there is no physical force being exerted, there is "only" the threat of it. And said threat is "Zwang", which can of course become "Gewalt" I am looking forward to hear other people's thoughts on this, feel free to add anything. cheers, SWMA

Hello Stefan, hello everyone reading this I've been listening to a lot of your stuff, I started reading one of your ebooks, and as it just happens someone near me could really benefit from reading it, too. Problem is, she doesn't speak English very well (basically has not since school) and I know she wouldn't be able to read it, or more precise she would stop reading because it's too hard for her. So I thought to myself, I'm quite good at English myself and obviously in my mother tongue, German. I have enough basic philosophy knowledge that I know what's what and how to say it in German, too. (Though I have some questions on how you would best translate some things, as for example there are roughly three translations for "force" which describe slightly differently nuanced concepts). So, are you looking for someone to translate your works into German? I'd like to do it. If you already have someone - are you looking for proofreaders? cheers, SWMA