Koroviev
-
Posts
387 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Koroviev
-
-
Your ruled dude. And, if there is someone who stand who wishes for you to self rules by consensus rather than coercion..at the moment you're not even bothering to check so..nose spite face.
We've gone full circle now.
Only because you don't see, or are refusing to see, that it's all the same argument. If you want to argue that the initiation of the use of force is not immoral go for it, if not then everything else we're talking about is pretty simple.
-
yeah that's part of it, and there are things you can do to change your environment. Try and figure out the times or situations you get into where you feel the need arising then avoid those situations. Find something else to distract you, go for a walk or something (unless you're masturbating in public, then you might have other problems
). Limit yourself, set a goal to only do it once a week (or I guess once a day depending..) then get really excited when you meet those goals and improve. Don't get down on yourself when you don't meet those goals, this kind of goes back to what AccuTron was talking about guilt and relapse, realize it's likely going to happen and use it as incentive to do better next time. You could even go as far as putting website blocks up with a little reminder that you have a goal you're trying to stick to. As always therapy could help as well.I wouldn't focus on the potential negative effects as those have been shown again and again to just encourage the behavior (think surgeon general's warning on cigarettes).
Just some initial thoughts off the top of my head.
-
No..because your policies (contractually obligated ones) would be reductive...to expand decentralisation of law and military accountability...you're going to have to be quite clever here because you are going to have to sell the idea of greater decentralization to people. You may like to be strategic and start moderate. You can be honest and say..look, I'm an anarchist...but I think we can all agree that xyz are leading us into WW3. It's not using force because you are seeking a consensus on the removal of existing layers of force.
Not that I'm an anarchist and would therefore agree with any of it...but if I were, and intending to implement it...I see it as the only way.
This thread on 'Don't vote stupid if you don't want to be ruled by the corrupt' has gone to parenting experiences and how to move toward anarchy from within an oligarchy posing as a democracy.
You should have no rulers so vote for me to be your ruler. The initiation of the use of force is immoral and I'll enforce it by initiating the use of force. If you have rulers I'll put you in jail. I'm going to enforce property rights by stealing your money (oh wait that one already happens..
)Lack of peaceful parenting is where all of the "stupid" voters come from. If children were not raised with the belief that might makes right, knowing that the initiation of force is immoral, and knowing how to be rational and critical thinkers we wouldn't have these issues to begin with. I, along with many others on this board, also believe that there would also be no state at all as a natural progression. It all begins with peaceful parenting (i.e. the initiation of the use of force is immoral) and ends with anarchy.
-
Honestly, and I have no research to back this up, but if you're really worried it will effect your sex life later on then you will stop. If it is not causing you issues in that area then you're probably ok. My assumption is a lot of the issues come from a lack of interest in their spouse either they're not as in love with their spouse as they're willing to or they have way to high of expectations for their love lives. Find someone you're enamored with in every way and I can't imagine you'd have any issues.
For some insight into the addiction aspect I highly recommend "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts" by Dr. Gabor Mate. It really is a fantastic and truly insightful book whether you're personally dealing with addiction or not.
-
You should stand. If your policies are clear..No invasions without referendum, I forgo my write to call such a deed. Should and enough of you stand then that's what will happen.
If you don't someone will stand saying they respect the bountries of others then invent a reason to invade for war money. You might not vote for them but the stupid 90% will and they will overpower your 10% at a later date anyway.
Are you saying we should promote anarchy by running for office? Promote immorality of the initiation of the use force through a system entirely based on the initiation of the use of force? Might be a little contradiction there.....
-
We've just been though this. Stephs history show is almost continuously covering these cycles and unavoidable scenarios. Evendence wise ALL systems end up corrupting and always will until relative Oligarchs send their disillusioned followers or oppressing mercenaries to challenge another Oligarch. I'm not going to write the history of mankind out for you.
Regarding the voters using competing contractual obligations of authority candidates to fight the tendency for corruption to lead to the above...not been tried yet, but seems pretty stupid to insist on voting for an unaccountable liar in a faux democracy or in an Anarchic group, just because you didn't like the tone of some chap on a forum.
Should we be forced to vote for someone whose morals don't line up with our own (i.e. someone who believes the initiation of force is moral)? If someone we don't agree with should we be forced to participate (pay for) in the things that person proposes? if the answer is yes to either than that is what we live in now (democracy). If the answer is no to either than that is where we are hoping to get through peaceful parenting, among other things (anarchy). The fundamental issue is whether or not there is the initiation of the use of force. Once people understand the immorality of that then you can propose/try whatever system you'd like.
-
“[T]he deterioration of nature is closely connected to the culture which shapes human coexistence”. Pope Benedict asked us to recognize that the natural environment has been gravely damaged by our irresponsible behaviour. The social environment has also suffered damage. Both are ultimately due to the same evil: the notion that there are no indisputable truths to guide our lives, and hence human freedom is limitless. We have forgotten that “man is not only a freedom which he creates for himself. Man does not create himself. He is spirit and will, but also nature.”
--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Are you arguing that because a left-winged propagandist said some left-wing propaganda religion is rational? Also, isn't that the guy who just canonized a mass murderer? I guess that does go along with the "the initiation of the use of force is moral" argument...
-
Welcome! Glad to have you!
-
I was looking into debate techniques today and one skill competitive debaters are required to use is a switch-side debate. The idea is that it's really easy to argue for something you know a lot about and are really passionate about, but not so much the opposite. Not really practical in the real world I realize but one of the things they mentioned that stuck with me was it helped people be more empathic since the debater had argued similar points in the past and it helped them to better see where the other person was coming from. Another benefit I could see is it would help you to find and/or close up holes in your argument.
-
What person D is persuading you with could be different for each person.
Specifically to your question I'd say that money gives you the ability to do more things in the future.
Looking at it from a persuasion perspective it could be you're broke and can't afford the other things, you don't really like the other people, it could be a good career move for you if you show you're willing to stay late to help your boss out, maybe you want some time off later in the month so it's a good opportunity for you to use it as a favor. Could be lots of things.
-
My defence of Christianity resting, the question now revolves around where this libellous contempt for Christianity is coming from. It's not coming from pure reason, Christianity is perfectly compatible with reason, encourages reason, as the trajectory of scientific and cultural development of the Western world amply shows. It's rather coming from the oligarchy itself, which wishes to destroy Christianity as a means of stopping cultural progress, and is employing every means at its disposal to do so.
Without Christianity in the way, the culture is free to devolve towards ever greater depths of pornographic depravity, crassness, ignorance, rootlessness, and cosmopolitan confusion. By trashing p religion—besides our race, our culture, our language, and our borders—they ensure we are atomised and impotent against the enormous economic, cultural, and scientific problems we presently face.
Libelling Christians to a man as being sadists reveals a person as a tool of the oligarchy.
False, Christianity is the opposite of reason at it's very core. This has already been shown again and again above. The question is why do feel that you need someone telling you what to do, especially someone threatening with guns bigger than the state's and who is the very embodyment of everything you know to be anti-rational and immoral.
-
I kind of lost interest i this conversation a while ago but I just had a thought that was relevant that I don't think had been covered yet. Couldn't you use the same "reasoning" that has been used in this conversation as to why god exists to argue that unicorns exist (the magical ones not just horses with horns on their heads)? Unicorns could exist outside of time/reality/our dimension too, and dragons, and fairies, and flying spaghetti monsters for that matter but how could we know. We have the same amount of "evidence," books and TV shows are written about them, people congregate to talk about them, so how can we say that these imaginary creatures who fit the same descriptions as a god would definitely do not exist but a god could exist?
-
I came across this this morning and thought it was worth a share:
-
1
-
-
I think the other question is do we consider something that looks and acts like a bug to have "bug consciousness?" You can create a program that acts and reacts in certain ways based on certain circumstances, but at the end of the day it is still following a script that a person wrote. Along the same lines there is the rock, paper, scissors robot made in Tokyo that has a 100% win rate. It works by using a high speed camera to see what shape your hand will take then chooses the winning shape seemingly instantaneously. Does that make the robot really good at rock, paper, scissors or is it simply cheating? If I was allowed to choose based on my opponent's choice I'd be really good at rock, paper, scissors too
-
Great point, and thanks for bringing it up. The first thing that comes to my mind is is that not what the dictionary is for? We can converse just fine using prior knowledge and context clues but once our "meaning" of a word becomes contradictory we need an objective (or at least generally accepted) third-party understanding. This doesn't mean the dictionary is law and in the context of the conversation there can be an understanding of a "new" meaning, but in order to effectively communicate that idea with others you either have to return to the commonly accepted (dictionary) meaning or redefine it up front.
I'm not sure if that's way off base or even makes sense, definitely have to do more research into information theory myself.
-
There seem to be a lot of people on here who were brutalized as children rather than spanked to shock them out of an irrational destructive rage at the end of an unsuccessful reasoning.
It is sad that happened to you. I suspect that you can do as much damage by 'informing rationally' children constantly of reasons why they should not to something that might pose a risk...and that child grows to ignore everything in an effort to learn something independently for themselves.
If you have 2 Alpha kids as I do, you will soon discover that they NEED to try everything, and get very angry (when they are 3) when you need to say no or postpone of their experiments. For the sake of their protection or your need to redecorate at 8pm.
I don't count the spanking in a book but I would guess my 9 year old daughter and 6 year old son have been spanked at most 15 times for my daughter (Who is hyper creative and an authority challenger and my son perhaps 6 times he is the Alpha boy at school and while he did challenge authority at first, he tends to remember ideologies (and constantly asks me questions about morality, life death etc). over 70% of spanking would have been between the ages of 2 and 4.
They're trained now that reason is the only way now and know and that rage has swift unpleasant consequences.
Some homes will never benefit from spanking. Parents who get angry and are actually venting should never spank. Children who are scholarly do not have the biological deep rooted basic instinct to just taking what you want and hurting any who challenge you.
But if you do have kids with that basic instinct. In my experience, spanking is the most efficient solution.
Do my kids in revenge? Sure. But all the Alpha kids do and I'd say these days 2 in 3 parents say they do not hit. Though I do think hitting is wrong, corporal punishment should take a non combative form and be reserved for destructive violent behavior. Force met with force. Evidencing in that moment that you, as the parent, at all other time have the capacity for force but CHOOSE not to use the power you possess when they stop fair reason.
You can do it the long way. I know unhealthy unkempt stressed people who are still doing it with their 10 year old Alpha kids.
I feel bad for the kids, who are literally looking for the firm line in the sand and no-one will give it to them. Once they find the line and know where it is...they can focus on something else.
How this entered the topic I guess is that my question was loaded.
My point is that no mater your authority structure, if those in power have no accountability (bureaucratic systems, withholding evidence, control of the big stick, its going to fail.
Since only 1 person replying appear to have considered that you should not empower a stranger without getting contractual obligations might be a bit stupid..and we should stop doing that.
Some people seem to be angry with this observation. If you are unable to be open minded and calm with such an obvious, non personal observation...Then your not ready for an anarchy that an be anything but barbaric.
The other vested interest is the Peaceful Parenting bit, from which people think a functioning Anarchy can succeed.
In Stephs own words. You can't eliminate 10,000 years of evolution instincts in 1 generation and, assuming you will not get escalating violence in an Anarchy filled with peacefully parented children, you would have to do it in 1, because the not so peaceful kids will do the evolving.
If you stop voting for them when they lie...perhaps they wont.
your stance is really confusing. You claim that reason is the only way to make the world a better place but are insistent that beating your kids is the only way to get them to listen to reason. How do you not see the obvious contradiction??? If you'd taught your kids NOT to escalate to violence, maybe put their needs before your own, maybe taught them to use reason as opposed to violence they would not resort to violence and you would not feel as if you had to hit people half your size just to get them to listen to you!!!!!!!!! Your voters don't listen to reason would you bend them over your knee to get them to listen to reason? NO because that's ridiculous, but I guess it makes sense the voters can vote your children are just kids. You don't have "alpha" kids you just have taught your kids that when something doesn't go their way (i.e. you don't want them to eat in front of the TV because they might get a little milk on the floor which would you take 5 seconds to clean up) instead of finding a win win situation you always revert to violence.
The research simply does not support your claims. Violence harms children and we cannot have rational thinkers until people stop teaching their children that violence solves controversy. You did not just end up with alpha children you created them, be accountable for you own children before you try to start preaching accountability for everyone else.
I'm sorry to get so angry but until people realize this is truly evil it will never change.
Don't take my word for it do some research. Fortunately it's not far away:
http://www.neverhitachild.org/
http://drgabormate.com/book/in-the-realm-of-hungry-ghosts/
https://board.freedomainradio.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=524
-
1
-
-
Some small childen, but not to obey and instruction. To stop freaking out and screaming. You can trap the in your arms for however long it takes. I have very close friends who peacefully negotiate with a young rage monster for hours, our holiday (group) were tied to his whims. My kids would never do that. I grab him firmly by one arm, drag him to a corner pin him down and give him an earful (bad cop mode) he can leave when it's over. This is NEVER about I want you to wear this or walk like that, it's about him being destructive etc. Tell everyone he's not going anywhere until he's stopped trying to get out of my grasp an apologized. 30 minutes later, his crying changes to one of anguish..he's given up. He goes to play with mum.
Now here is the amazing bit.
He makes something out of lego that afternoon, passes his parents and comes to ME so show me how clever his creation is. I tell him how clever he is too.
It helps that we have a good play relationship too. I think you have to earn the right to use force, it must always be measured powerful control, not a fight. If you are not able to control you emotions you should never consider corporate punishment which I have used on my children. Over knedd spanking to acts of sheer evil (dangerous, destructful acts that they know is evil) at a time where straight to bed is not an option.
We ARE animals and some people need to be shown that others have power..great power..and choose not to use it other than to enforce good, otherwise the kids don't know what their physical energy is for. There is also Pablos dog, to create a negative experience when they try to impose an injustice on someone else, a subconscious predisposition. Tough to my most peacefully parented Jahova whitness friend when for some reason at 18 he decided to try intimidating people for fun (when I was not there have a go at him) . It stopped when he got his teeth smashed in.
Were you to meet us both then would have been sure we had each others upbringing.
I remember as a child thinking the only person stronger than me was my dad.
I was a little sod back then.
Little sods need more discipline than most, but we can come out allright with parent who understand us.
Does it not worry you that your son might be as terrified of you as I'm sure you were of your father? I know personally growing up even though my parents were against spanking or anything like that there were lots of times where I was certain my dad was going to literally kill me. The only people in the entire world who are supposed to care for you and nurture you, you are deathly afraid of. It was awful. Isn't that simply ingraining into his psyche that might makes right, that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't wake the sleeping dragon who will pin you against the wall and scream into your face? Would it not be better to plan ahead and work in conjunction with your child to make sure both of your needs are met? As opposed to waiting until he does something that you don't like then imposing your will on him through force? Like you I "turned out all right," but I'm 1/4 and I can tell you for certain the other 3 did not. Even if that was a valid argument is "all right" really the kind of person you want to raise.
Now keep in mind that there is a huge difference between peaceful parenting and what i'd assume your friends are trying which absolutely leads to hellions because they have no concept of others' needs since their parents give them no boundaries whatsoever. Parenting is a lot of work and yes if you don't put the time and effort into it it does get to the point where you feel as though you've run out of options, but that is all the more reason to put the time and effort in before hand. Show me one parent who has put in the time and effort into peaceful parenting and ended up with a hell raiser and I'll change my opinion, but it's just not possible. People only speak Chinese if they are taught Chinese. People only act violently if they are taught violence.
I truly am sorry but isn't it time we did everything we possibly can to stop the cycle of violence?
Anyone who hasn't read it I cannot recommend "The Origins of War in Child Abuse" enough
-
1
-
-
Apple could not run that business in the absence of international trading agreement, mining rights, consumer protection for you, both in regards to function and safety.
Are you saying Apple can only run their business because the government has an agreement with another government allowing companies to trade with each other, because governments give permission to gather resources, and governments (sometimes) protect them (and me) from other governments attacking us? What if we just removed the governments?
-
1
-
-
Small projects are doable, but energy, sewage, roads, national health. That takes funds / collective organisation beyond you employing people with money that does not exist , promises you can't keep or land you can't protect. At some point you will have to be the doer in something you are unable to trust you have fair access to. Then there is not enough to go round, 'Whose child gets the eye treatment today' and it decends into poplar anarchy. The moment the vioence starts..you need a system that can make it stop and the only force that can do that must be 1. Big enough and 2. If it is to have lastig legitamacy, provide fair justice afterwards. Without fair justice...the violence is simley put on hold until the parents stop watching.
Therein lies the beauty of Anarchy. As long as your system is moral you are free to propose whatever system you want and then it's up to the market to decide which works best. It is only because of the state that we believe we need the state.
If you are claiming "politicians" full accountability for their actions and a system that is not able to force people to pay for things then we are proposing the same thing.
How can you get big projects done in an anarchic society? Well, how does Apple sell millions of cell phones per year? No one is forcing anyone to pay for them. Apple makes a product that people want and people pay for it. If people want a road, if people want a dam, if people want protection, then they will pay for it. If taxes don't exist then they have more money to pay for the things they want and the things they need.
The only thing the government does is steal money from some people and give it to other people. In a sense they are a middle man who removes all freedom of choice from the people they "work with." The people being stolen from have no choice in who that money goes to and the people who receive the money have no incentive to give the best value or even to meet the needs of the people. All I'm proposing is removing the immoral middle man.
Peaceful parenting, to my mind, is irelevent of political ideology. There are two dogs in this world, some will not calm down until you tell them no and give them a firm tap (we evolved to have pain receptors to stop us doning something) and another dog will only calm down if you hug it shower it with love for the 10 minutes you can before it need to run around like a nutter fo a bit.
are you saying some children are like dogs who need to be beaten to obey you?
-
1
-
-
Almost all major infrastructure project, although stolen through capitalism now, were created through the scale of communal investment that can only be achieved by a democracy. Doing everything yourself better is a long slow process, we also have the problem that you need to protect your family from the worst of people. If your child survives your death and grows up, what will they do to the family that grows up in the home you build before it was taken?
Doing things my own way does not mean on my own. I'd obviously still hire other people to help and since I do not have to get a majority vote to get the projects I want to get done I am not limited by the factors that limit government projects.
Why is it that you think without some government/god/overlord telling people what to do everything will descend into violence and gang warfare? Even if it did would that not open up a HUGE market niche for protection services (obviously with these protection services I'd want reassurance that they would not try to gain power over me and would be extremely skeptical until I could know for sure)? Especially if we focus on good/peaceful parenting, why do you think people never raised around violence would resort to violence (and the popular conception of anarchy) simply because the threat of the state is gone? Not to mention in an anarchist society (true anarchist not popular anarchist) people would be held even more accountable for their actions because the few "evil" people would not have the guns of the state to go hide behind.
-
1
-
-
I definitely agree with your intentions, however it's clear to me that this cannot be achieved through government. If there was a "democracy" where all of the citizens are not forced at the end of a gun to pay into, that I am free to choose not to participate in, and that allows me to be free to come up with better ways of doing the things that "government" is attempting to do, and held those in power accountable for their actions. Well first I'd argue that that's not a "government", but second I'd be all for it. That is a free market, that is anarchy.
-
Hot on the heels of Katy Perrys 'Roar' music video; in which a tiger kills her male companion and she then goes on to demonstrate her independence by embodying the very thing that killed him- the tiger. To Taylor Swift's music video 'Blank Space' which sees Swift bashing up her boyfriends and trying to kill them at times.Now we have prominent pop diva Lorde graphically killing a man in her new music video 'Disclosure'.And what is most disturbing, Lorde admits she has had this fantasy since she was 18 and has envisioned doing this to real boyfriends. Scary.So I am watching TV and noticed a lot of shows revolve around violence against men, which popular culture is ok with and nobody ever complains about. Sure you may easily dismiss it as an innocent action sequence against a faceless man- but isn't that the whole point? That men are portrayed as these disposable things who we have no problem with depicting the death of for our entertainment. Isn't this all kind of a little sick? I mean you always see this or that man being killed or attacked in some high octane action adventure drama; yet you never see women killed in similar circumstances. Usually when women are killed on TV they have at least been humanized before hand so we feel a loss when they die; yet with men we just see them as these dehumanized non-entities who are expected to be killed like worthless sacks of skin and bone, and we are conditioned to see this as normal and not feel any loss when they die.And what makes this all the more worse is that everyone only focuses on violence against women; yet the majority of what we see on TV and in Movies is violence against men.When you think about it, I mean really think about it, movie studios and television producers are profiting massively from depictions of violence against men. How is this acceptable in a modern humane society? Especially in the context of the way we deal with violence against women.Kind of feeling like there is no hope for men in the world right now.Why is it ok for women, lets remember these are GROWN WOMEN; to make such videos that celebrate, perpetuate and profit from depictions of violence against men; ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW SOCIETY REACTS TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN!Why is this type of behavior by women celebrated, yet if the roles were reversed such a thing would be seen as domestic violence. Women can't be strong and independent without resorting to hateful attacks against men- why is this? Why is it when women get into positions of power they have to behave in a way that is hateful to men?I mean in the past women were not allowed to vote etc, but you never saw men actively running campaigns of hate towards women.And it's not hard to see why, with Kiwi singer Lorde, 18, showing off her darker side in the raunchy clip.From kissing a married man to later setting him on fire, it seems Lorde has enjoyed playing an onscreen vixen, tweeting: 'One of my life goals has always been "to one day play a hitgirl who pretends to seduce then burns alive douchey boyfriends (sic)."Lorde, real name is Ella Marija Lani Yelich-O'Connor, first stuns on-screen in a plunging white dress as she cavorts around a party at a Los Angeles mansion.She's then seen canoodling with the married man as tensions appear to rise between him and his partner.At one point the other woman turns near a window with what looks to have a black eye.While it appears Lorde's character is having an affair, she later dons a shiny leather trench coat as she looks at the wife, implying they are working together to avenge the man, before pushing him into the pool and setting him alight.Lorde tweeted she not only played a 'hitgirl' but also implied the woman was the subject of domestic violence and that's why her character was around.'The most important part of the video is when you see her black eye as she turns away at the window.. hope it all makes sense from that point,' she tweeted.She also retweeted a picture post about the black eye, which in part read: 'That's the point the whole video hinges on / takes it from being "an affair narrative" to being "dude's girlfriend hired miss ella the hit girl to 'seduce' him then take him the F**K out. (sic)"She then later thanked fans for '1,000,000 views in 1 day, thanks beejs (sic).'Lorde is known for her hits including Royals and Tennis Court and was discovered at just 12-years-old.She's had a number of gongs under her belt, including Grammys and Billboard Music Awards.She is currently dating long-term boyfriend James Lowe, who she has been with for more than two years.
yup
-
Do what's best for you.
If you're in a good place stay, if not, or you think you could do better elsewhere then leave. Either way be confident in your decision and don't look back. Also, don't be concerned about being labeled as one or the other, if you're bringing something good to the table and they turn you down that's their loss.
-
There is no enlightened decision in anarchy because you literally have to guess if you have more weapons than them when ripping someone off. The purpose of a society is that you have the right to be enlightened, and we are, no one can sell you a fake camera and keep your money. Ever been shopping in a Medina in morocco? Anarchic negotiating is a slow painful gamble.
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Are you saying there are no "enlightened" decisions in a free market? Without government to tell us what to buy people revert to cavemen? As soon as government is gone everyone reverts to lower than the third-world? Have you ever heard of ebay? Etsy? When freedom is allowed things trend toward more innovative not less innovative. Also, even if everything you are claiming had any semblance of reality I'd take freedom any day over choosing between slave owners.
Finally aren't you kind of saying that if people don't have someone telling them what to do and how to behave they'll automatically revert to cheating and violence? I won't, and am not, will you? That seems like a very religious train of thought. Give people some credit, we're smarter than a lot of people think.
-
3
-
Multiplayer pc games?
in General Messages
Posted
Ark: Survival Evolved is another good one I've been playing (probably too much). It's still early access so there's still performance issues, but the dev team is extremely dedicated and pushes out updates at least 2-4 times per week