Troubador

Well I think the simple response is that there isn't a society founded upon anarcho-capitalist principles to go to. Plus I think most if not all land masses on the globe are claimed by some nation or another, so unless you can invent interstellar travel in your backyard going anywhere is a bit of a non starter. FYI I'm not entirely sold on the abolition of the state myself, but more power to you if that's what you believe, you can only really seek to change the system you find yourself in at this point. Which is fair enough.

I'm a gamer and yeah video game piracy is rife, I also don't choose to pirate. Although I don't buy many games atm as my backlog is too big and my time is increasingly taken up by other things. However I remember several points which I'd like your take on A4E. - If someone pirates your game, but would not play it otherwise has anyone practically lost anything? If someone pirates but would have bought it if they had to, that scenario is indistinguishable from theft, but it seems that isn't always the case. - I recall one developer coming on a forum making the point that piracy was in his eyes free marketing, ie those who pirate who really enjoy it and spread word of mouth lead to more sales. - Conversly I recall the lead dev on Heavy Rain coming out and complaining about the preowned market, inasmuch he sees nothing from a sale where the product is sold on. So are all instances of someone consuming media without paying its creator theft? Say I loan you a book or have friends over to watch a DVD has a theft (or at least something analogous to it) occurred?

Of course we are always going to be shaped and molded by large and complex systems, wether that is a natural system like the weather, or man-made like politics. However I do not need to intimately know the totality of all there is to know about weather patterns to know to put a warm coat on in a snowstorm (or even just stay warm indoors). One can still be wise and navigate the world without knowing in punishing detail the complexity of all systems that exist. In fact sometimes truly staggering intellects, despite a vast amount of knowledge can really struggle to navigate practical everyday reality. Sometimes it's the different between intelligence and wisdom: be intelligent and know a tomato is a fruit, but be wise enough not to put one in my fruit salad!

Given how resources from prior generations have been used to generate innovations in technology including but not limited to advances in medicine, transportation, labour saving domestic appliances etc. It is evidence that there are distinct advantages to coming late to the party. The playing field has never been level, but there has been a net increase in human liberty across history there is greater freedom from disease, violent death and a whole host of other issues. My main contention against socialism is that need drives innovation and all of those improvements I listed have been driven by humanity's ability to strive. You are right that some people start out disadvantaged, but what they need is a hand up and not a hand out.

Thank you, much obliged!

This is more of a general public speaking technique, but as you reasearch your material bullet point as economically as you can, simply as a reference aid. The objective here is you want the most of the data and information locked in your brain, but with a rough skeleton of what you want to cover to be sure you don't miss anything or get lost as you speak. If whilst someone else is speaking and they raise something make a brief note of it if it needs rebutting, to make sure you remember to tackle it. Finally if this is new and at all nerve wracking eat a banana 20 mins before you go on air, the extra potassium helps the body combat stress and anxiety.

Sorry what is an ACE score? I'm not sure it's abandonment it's more like obligation, if I miscalculate the money in my wallet and I don't have enough money to buy a book in a bookstore for example there is a momentary flash of embarrassment, but I can easily pick it up another day. If I'm ever participating in a transaction where I have consumed or availed myself of the service already like say with a meal, if I don't have the money I'm now the bad guy. I suppose when I am part of a group I'm somewhat responsible for the actions of the whole group (not entirely that would be batty), but a group I choose to associate with projects itself as a whole and I'm part of that projection iyswim, so if I went out with ten people and it turned out all nine people forgot their wallets except for me I'd want to know I could cover mine and their meals just pay and get out the door, without projecting that a group I was a member of was comprised of so many people that couldn't get their collective crap together enough to organise going out for a simple meal together. Thus far my choice of dinner companions has never seen me in this position, and I'm not opposed to spotting someone dinner who just honestly made a mistake, I guess it's just a weird foible of mine that I like to know "worst case scenario I can cover it."

I've personally lost count of whose paid for what in most of my dating endeavours, if I'm nearing the end of a nice meal that has gone well if we're not engrossed in a stimulating conversation by that point I've done something wrong. At that stage the cheque appearing should be but the most cursorary of pauses usually tackled with something along the lines "I've really enjoyed this evening, so how shall we handle this? How about I get this, you can get the next one, or even vice versa?" I think it's important it's phrased as a question, and your talking about it in context of a "we", because what is a date but an opportunity to see how you both are together? It's a good time to have flexibility. On occasions where it hasn't gone overly well my brain is usually mulling over other areas the date hasn't gone particularly well, and I'm struggling to recall personally a time where the bill coming was specifically fraught. As a side note, and I'm not sure why but I have a pathological fear of being stuck in a restaurant and not being able to pay, so I'm not comfortable unless I know I can reach into my pocket and cover the whole bill if need be! Dates never seem to be a time where this ever becomes a stress, it's usually only an issue when if I'm out with large numbers of friends, we're eating somewhere fancy and I'm wondering for some bizarre reason "holy crap can I foot this if I need to?" although luckily I've never been out for a meal and all my friends have spontaneously combusted, been taken by the rapture or someother equally unlikely event.

Freemarkets are governed by efficiancy and viability, if something costs more than you can get out of it you're out of luck. The best example of this is the worlds oceans, the cost of operating in that environment is astronomical, so from a strictly profit based perspective it doesn't work. Ask any marine biologist. Another interesting component is the majority of the worlds oceans are international waters and thus stateless, states come up against equally prohibitive costs, hence why managing immigrants trying to cross the Mediterranean is proving such a problem as well as Somali pirates for example. This of course doesn't stop states trying to control, but in practice they realistically can't. A free market would probably see the end of Wales, sharks and plenty of other marine life. I don't think the free market is quite the magic wand you think it is in this instance. I'm not saying states are either as they quite demonstrably aren't, I believe additional thought needs to go into the problem. Assuming you accept that is even a problem in the first place, and I'm sure to plenty of people it simply won't be.

I must admit sexualisation of children is to my mind bonkers and abusive not by any stretch of the imgagination likely to lead to a utopia. Exploring one's own sexuality is a personal affair, some don't feel comfortable doing so until well into adulthood. The goal here is to let people figure out where they are, free from pressure and coercion of any kind. Because it is an outlier homosexuality can lead to major isolation in the teenage years where a lot of people are often starting to work all this out, whilst there is a simultaneous pressure to fit in and conform. We have a collective responsibility to create a society where our children can figure this all out for themselves. Furthermore throwing gay people under the bus in the name of 'family' isn't going to create the sorts of nurturing environments families ultimately need to be.

Meh I think the wise things to value are varied and diverse ecosystems. It's all too easy to get uneducated masses riled up cos something we identify as aesthetically pleasing to the eye is endangered. Getting them to get equally up in arms over less photogenic species is like getting someone to ice skate uphill in roller skates. Most conservationists have cottoned onto this fact and will try to identify an "ambassador" species like a lion, tiger or panda. Get everyone to give damn about that species and thus attempt to preserve their whole environment. Sometimes the knee-jerk emotional response backfired though. I remember at one point back in the 90's people got incensed at native populations clubbing baby seals. Which got banned, and then had the net effect of decimating local fish populations, as the seal population surged which in turn hurt local fisherman who relied on fishing. As to what appeal I can see in hunting? Time spent in the great outdoors, and developing a greater understanding of nature would be my top picks. However hiring other people to do the tracking and luring sounds like the hunting equivilant of hiring several burly men to hold down Chuck Norris pummeling him into unconsciousness and boasting how you took him down.

Hi all I was just wondering where people stand on this? I'm personally of the view that whilst it is a shame I've been somewhat taken aback by the explosion of international media coverage. Hunting is not something I've devoted an awful lot of brain power to examining. I can see the appeal, although if I were ever to consider participating in it I would want at least a few tasty dinners out of it. It has made me wonder about the ethical/moral dimensions of conservation policies. Like do we have a collective responsibility to leave the earth as close to how we found it for future generations to enjoy? Or is it an inevitable consequence of the march of human progress that ecosystems should be exploited to human need. It's all very well to sit comfortably in the west and bemoan the endangered status of the tiger, gorilla etc, but people in those regions have a right to provide for themselves and their families. Any thoughts?

As embarrassing as she is to us Brits, it's all smoke and mirrors. Her whole media persona is predicated in coming out with targeted, deliberately controversial comments which offer precious little insight into the topic at hand. Yet every time she spouts her particular brand of vapid, inhumane nonsense her profile is raised and her coffers replenished. That whole performance (and it is a performance!) is designed to incense and get people talking about her (more than the topic she vomiting up inanities about!). Best left ignored in my opinion.

Ok notjam this has gone on long enough, first of all I am a man of faith as well, but what you are doing is becoming utterly bizarre. To answer the thread title "can atheists be moral?" the obvious answer is why yes of course they can. All it requires is a simple moral act. An atheist can refrain from commiting fraud, adultery, murder, assault and indeed in addition to refraining from immoral acts commit to honesty, charity, self-sacrifice and simple kindness. We religous folk do not have a monopoly on morality and ethics. That is actually a treasure all of humanity is heir to, not just one specific school of thought, nation, philosophy or religion. You have been given the (correct) answer that atheism and evolution do not contain within their remit any authority to disseminate or examine moral philosophy. Yet even despite that people have been kind enough to point out that for a social species like ours co-operation and protecting of our young provides a net benefit to our species and thus we have evolved accordingly. Now we come to my biggest bugbear to what you are dithering on about, what objective morality? You and I both believe in a higher power maybe the same one maybe not. In either case if it's the same one which of our interpretations are correct?, because it sounds to me like our interpretations are radically different. If we believe in different deities whose right, and why? Or are we both wrong and another religion has the right of it? Maybe the atheists are right and we are wrong? As people have asked on this thread prove it. Why is your particular flavour the correct one?

Ok genuine question as in this instance I'm really just finding my way around this topic. This isn't meant as a challenge or strawman, but would this apply to finite resources within the land? Say you discover gold, uranium, oil or whathaveyou? It would require your labour to extract them, but you are in essence removing a component of that land (and presumable a portion of what future generations could be heir too). Does the act of labour in literally tearing a valuable piece of the land itself makes its totality yours from that day forward? In addition once you've strip mined and rendered the remaining land pretty useless for anything else, what is the sensible way going forward from there?

I think it depends on how it is used. First of all is it a massive problem if someone is smarter than you? I personally am very happy that I'm just smart enough not to be intimidated by other folks smarts and indeed value friends and acquaintances who are obviously brainier than I am. If your not constantly worried about not bieng the smartest person in the world (or even the room!) you can stand to learn a great deal. The issues stem from people wanting to appear to be the smartest person in the room, and use smoke and mirrors to bully and silence people. I must confess trully smart people I've come across rarely tend towards "I'm smarter than you" to try and win an argument. Prodigious intellects tend towards a benign frustration if I'm trully failing to grasp something they are trying to get across, but that's just my experience. Where I can see the OP's original frustration is on occasion with a buddy I had at Uni we were doing degrees in different fields and often we'd argue and sometimes these arguments would touch on a topic one of us was studying, oftentimes he'd shut down anything I had to say with "yeah well this is my subject so I know I am right and you are wrong" which who knows may have been right on each and every occasion, but I wouldn't know as effectively I had to take on faith he had the right of it. When discussions strayed onto my field I was loath to shut down discussion as, well to be frank I'd rather my ideas and mechanisms for expressing them were sound on their own, however on one occassion just out of curiosity I threw it back at him and announced as this was my subject I had the right of it and he was just going to have to take my word on it. His response was to get emotional, flounce off in a strop and fume at me for a few days. Which I think says it all really. Grand scheme of things there really is a colossal amount of knowledge out there, and perhaps magnitudes more bullshit besides. I think trully staggering intellects are aware of this fact and realise no matter how much they may know, it's always going to be a drop in the ocean of what there is to know, and that puts their own ego into perspective. My own personal pet peeve which isn't necessarily intelligence based but rather knowledge based is that when I'm exploring a subject with someone, and I know my knowledge is limited, and it starts to become rapidly apparent that their knowledge base is roughly even or perhaps even less than mine, and they sally forth as if they are a bloody authority on the topic! End of the day though we all have to sift through and seperate the bullshit from truth in our own heads, and we can only do that with the tools we have available. Some people have shiny sleek superbrains they can do this with, the rest of us have to make do with what we have. However you can keep an open mind, and work tenaciously at expanding your knowledge base, and acquire new modes of thinking. That is a tool at your disposal you CAN improve through sheer hard work and tenacity. Sure smarter people may be able to get there faster but most people of reasonable intelligence can get there if they apply themselves.

GuzzyBone my role in a debate isn't necessarily always to sway everyone around me to my way of thinking. It depends on the debate, sometimes I'll partcitpate in the hopes of learning something new, or exposure to a new idea/concept. Unless something monumentally daft is proposed I generally don't like to come in guns blazing with an adversarial position. I usually try to work through what someone says to see if there is something of value there. I would like to wholeheartedly agree with you that decent thinkers no matter wether secular or religious have much to offer one another, but the big barrier to this (and explanation as to why atheists are so bloody hostile sometimes) is the sheer amount of blind devotional thinking that exists, and yes even atheists can be guilty of this, although I like to think that devotion to reason and logic immunises a lot of them from the worst of this. I also see your identification to a nation state or ideology produces precisely the same problem, and *this* is one of the essential problems of our age we should seek to overcome. It is by no means only the religious that suffer this problem, but if the world religions could get together and hammer out that no it's not ok to butcher your neighbour because he prays to a different thing, that using condoms are a *great* way to stop the aids epidemic in Africa just as two ideas off the top of my head. Wheras by contrast I can't think of a single thing the atheist community could alter that would produce quite so much real world right now benefit to the human race. Maybe more atheist charities perhaps? But then again I think Dawkins and Hitchens set up a disaster relief fund or some such, or have at the very least asked for donations to such organisations. Sure some atheists could a be a little bit nicer, and not quite so condescending to people of faith, but on a personal level I'm thick skinned enough to weather a small number of people calling me irrational or moronic, and I have crucially never once encountered rampaging gangs of atheists avowed to cause me physical injury of any kind, so I'm afraid I can't consider the possibility they are all that bad. Besides we all owe a collective debt to anyone who can name a problem, and frequently the antidote to blind devotional evils are all atheists. Also I think it's worth mentioning I've only been posting a short time here, made no secret of the fact I am a man of belief, but haven't actually been insulted or talked down too once. I also note on one hand your personal individual experience of God should be valid information that we should all wisely nod and sagely contemplate, whereas my experiences of people off their heads on drugs is emotional, state approved lies and safely rejected, simply because it doesn't fit your narrative. I think that is one colossal double standard right there.

I wish people wouldn't automatically roll out quantum physics as a catch all polyfiller for holes in their argument. It does the subject a disservice. If I'm talking to a PhD physics proffesor who can enlighten me then apologies I would be eternally grateful for further instruction in the subject. Maybe you're talking about quantum logic? In which as far as I'm aware nobody detected a tiny little God hand pushing photons through one slit or the other in the double slit experiment. I think quantum logic may well lead us to a fascinating new perspective on the universe, but hands up I haven't done the due diligence and understood it yet, so I certainly wouldn't use it to try and justify a belief. Reacquaint yourself with the difference between faith/belief and knowledge. One of the biggest fuelling factors in conflicts concerning religious vs secular thought is that religion wants to present faith/belief as proof in and of itself. You either have to let it go because this debate cannot go anywhere useful, or go off maybe get the advanced maths and physics required to examine quantum logic intimately enough to make your case on that level, but be warned that may be a dead end as well. However why not let people think/believe how they choose to and work on philosophical problems we can all work on together? It's fine to say "hey guys just FYI I have a religious belief" I've done much the same myself, but it's really not cool to proselytise and I'm sorry that is what in a round about way you are doing. And the state didn't tell me lsd can be bad fucking news I worked that out all by myself stopping a mate who was off his trousers at uni from coming to any harm. In closing even if what you posted was true about God both existing and not existing, and you and Stefan being both simultaneously right and wrong, and belief and non belief being basically the same thing. Doesn't that render this whole thread utterly redundant and only useful as some sort of mental masturbation? Anyway peace out and best of luck in your future endeavours.

I'm going to play the semantics card here, philosophy means friend/lover of wisdom. If by philosophical you mean you live in a mental landscape of high concepts, then fair enough, but to me wisdom requires engagement in the real world, as mucky, dirty and chaotic as it can be. I worry you are using your ideals as an excuse to divorce yourself from wider humanity. Now of course your response I predict is that any watering down of your principles is somehow the opposite of virtue. Well I would never argue for a watering down of virtue, but I would however question what leaves you so isolated you felt the need to post your original request for advice. I guess and it is only a guess on my part that you pursue perfection which a lot of philosophers do, but that pursuit leaves you reticent to engage with life for fear of making a less than perfect decision. Might I suggest you look at Shakespeare's Hamlet as the eponymous character suffers from just that flaw. If we come back to wisdom the wise thing isn't to have never made any mistakes ever, as such is impossible to the point of actually being foolish in and of itself. What wisdom is is to be able to make mistakes take responsibility for them and to learn and grow.

Ok Andrew31 now this thread has been going on I feel a lot more more confidant as to what is going on. You don't have a problem initiating encounters with women, but there is a colossal block between progressing things past a certain point. I am a little concerned you are passing the buck onto women here. By that I mean you are interpreting your lack of success as down to the absence of quality in the women. You mentioned up thread how a woman should accept you unconditionally as is, pretty much straight out of the gate. This may sound harsh but the common factor in your interactions with women is you, ie that is overwhelmingly likely where the problem lies. However the good news is *you* have control of that. The question of what use is a joke? Well honestly humor is an advanced, not basic nor inane human trait. You can use it to satirize, an advanced mind can do a staggering amount with humor. Look at the videos where Stef helps people navigate personal problems. He used humor to connect and put people at their ease. I am concerned Andrew that you view some basic human socilisation rituals as frippery and unworthy. I would like to put forward that it is the fundamental nature of the individual that engages in them that demonstrates their value. A wise quick thinking mind will often demonstrate itself through humor. Basically not every dimension of life requires the utmost solemnity at all times. Social interactions (of any kind), essentially thrive on relaxed and fun shared moments, particularly early on. No one is saying you can't be deep, reflective and virtuous, but dear heavens if you intend to have children one day it will pay dividends to be able to radiate boundless fun energy. Also to MMX2010 apologies if I judged you too harshly earlier. Taking your posts in totality wether you and I would agree on every point is doubtful, but it's increasingly clear you genuinely wish to assist Andrew, and I respect that tremendously.

Ok I'm getting lost here, game is is dating right? Or is it an oblique reference to game theory I'm not understanding? Opening a girl? Is that just introducing yourself? Despite not getting a lot of this I am in agreement with MMX2010 this really does have to be joyful. Andrew you mentioned fear being healthy and we shouldn't ignore it. Up to a point I would agree with you, but fear can be one of the biggest blocks out there, so it is an essential state for you to be able to overcome when you need to. Without all the complex tactics and strategy I'm seeing that is going way over my head. Boiling it down to basic interactions with women can't you just relax meet a girl and have a fun conversation, kinda like the girl you got the Facebook details for? Just rinse and repeat until you meet a girl that a) you like and b) likes you and you BOTH want to start seeing in a romantic context. Does it absolutely need to be any more complex than this?

GuzzyBone I am a man of faith myself, but you have to appreciate when you are engaging in rational logical philosophical discourse the current paradigm precludes any discussion on the topic of God, because quite aside from the debates that rage around the subject one of the qualities almost always assigned to God/the divine/the Tao or whatever is it is unknowable. That actually pretty much renders any debate next to impossible unless you are exclusively discussing with those who accept the same suppositions (ie there is a god) and also frequently the same flavour as you do. The premise of what you're discussing seems to me is for people to accept your personal experience of God (as well as others who say the same) as part of a body information that should be accepted by the wider atheist community. Can you not see how that leads to the precise same blind faith sate of affairs that allows the statism you so abhor in the first place? I like you arrive at faith from personal experience not necessarily from what I read out of some book, however I consider it the height of daftness if anyone were to hang the hat of their own religious thinking on the basis of my experiences, because for one human beings can be either or both deluded and insane, and you have to entertain the possibility thats us (ie people with faith). Also and I am by no means trying insult you here but LSD is a fecking dangerous drug that can cause mental illness all by itself, now I am not one to tell you what you should or shouldn't put into your own body, but taking the idea LSD could lead you to God, if an impressionable person were to read that, it could case incalculable harm.

Morally obliged ostracism? Really!? If some guy posts he's having trouble attracting a decent sort of woman, but doesn't elect to take advice that's freely given is grounds for ostracising? I mean if you don't want to freely associate with him by engaging in this thread by all means stop doing so, but unless he starts advocating rape or kidnapping I really don't see as he's harming anyone to the point we should all give him a wide berth. The path towards truth is arduous enough without actively throwing obstacles in the path of people who are struggling yet not actively harming anyone. The world is also slip sliding away from basic humanity and racing towards a narcissistic oblivion, so I'm more than willing to take a scant few minutes out of my day to post in support of someone who is looking for a bit of help. Even if they choose to ignore my advice that's cool, the thread may well be read by a lurker who does derive something of value from it. Even if not I've lost nothing.

Ok if you're willing, let's examine some fundementals. You have said you have been rejected dozens of times. Did any of these women give specifics on why they would not entertain a relationship with you? If so did any of the women give similar reasons for not pursuing a romance? I also hate to keep banging on about it, but you really are getting held back by your fear of rejection. If you are talking in terms of "fear of getting hurt again", in context of being rejected that says a great deal. This is a particular problem for us men as generally more relationships will have begun with the man asking the woman out first. The main thing that separates you and I is sheer dumb luck believe it or not. First girl I had an attraction to at the tender age of 16 I did precisely fuck and all about it, and in that order!! Two years I did the pining thing, only to discover on the day I finished school that she had carried a bit of a torch for me too! I did a fair bit of soul searching before I started university and arrived at a few conclusions, firstly I wasn't ever going to let timidity and fear get in the way of being happy, and secondly in correlation to that I figured there would be times when I conversed with women I would come off as a gibbering moron, but there would also be times I'd pull of charming and erudite, and it seemed to me batshit insane to *completely* rob myself of experiences where I managed the latter simply for fear of the former. Long story short we all need the space to let the better angels of our nature shine forth, and touch those around us. So let me pose this question to you, what stops yours?

I dunno how much mileage you'll get out of this, but I'll give it a shot: Take a bit of a step back and dial back the "I must get a gf, I'm 24 for heaven's sake" attitude. I understand it can feel like a bit of a void, as it is incredibly difficult to buck the societal trends that beam out you *must* be successful with the opposite sex (a pressure both genders have in common). Fill your life up with cool experiences and even cooler people, of both genders. Life is too precious and short not to, besides it also serves to make you more interesting. I'd say actually having some good mates is a real boon as quality people tend to congregate, and will point you at stuff you can work on. Now I can't speak for all the PUA stuff it really isn't my area, but if you have a good social circle that contains some good female friends, I'd say their insights on where you might be able to improve may have more value than a random sample of men trying to work it all out on their own. As successful as some of them may well be with it. Managing a sort of Zen like attitude can pay off dividends, if you'll forgive a quick sampling of my own personal experiences. Back when I was younger and tended to meet more people with greater frequency, I can't think of a single occasion I went out specifically to hook up with anyone. My goal was to meet interesting people of either gender and shoot the breeze with them, sometimes that included women I could see myself being attracted to, and I could tell initially sometimes the assumption was I was just trying to get into their pants, once they figured out that wasn't my objective several interesting things would happen. Sometimes they'd just be cool with it and relax and we'd hang, or even become good friends, but on occasion there seemed to be this subtle shift as if the fact I *wasn't* interested suddenly became a personal affront, and then they might start being a bit more flirty, charming or whatever qualties they had that they liked to use to get men interested. Then there was a beautiful sense of do I go along with that flow and become a bit more assertive myself? or just dial it back if I didn't feel a connection I wanted to pursue. In short it is like this dance of intimacy, there are points where you are pushing things foward, and other times you shift to a more receptive pattern. All of this is really difficult to get to if the number one thought in your head is "must find romantic mate immediately!". All of it is a mix of interpersonal, creative and communication skills, all of which are learnable, but all the harder to chillout and learn when you put yourself under fear and pressure. The whole process can be pretty exhilerating and fun if you let it be. Perhaps counterinutitively be *really* *really* picky, in the dating market we all have something to sell, but if you don't realise the great value that you bring to the table other people are rarely going to point it out to you (although see my point of getting some high quality friends around you above!). I don't really know you, but if you want one objective observation if you don't want to manipulate then that is demonstrative of the fact you have some measure of personal integrity about you, and that right there is as rare as rocking horse shit in the dating scene these days, if you pair that up with just a small measure of confidence, it's practically rocket fuel! Anyhow sorry that was so long, but best of luck, and I hope there was something in all that of use.