thebeardslastcall

Good people want you to discriminate and choose them over bad people. Bad people don't want you to discriminate and choose someone else over them. Government is based on thievery and violence. Government must therefore institute anti-discrimination to protect the evil people from the good people that would push them out of society and cause a degradation to their pillaging ways. Political correctness and anti-discrimination cloaked as some ridiculous notion of equality is just evil guarding evil and doing what it always does, pretending to be good. Losers don't want to accept defeat so they get violent and camouflage their activities and pretend to be victims in need of forceful protection. They'll defend attacks with statements like "blaming the victim", but the truth is they aren't the victims, but aggressors who failed. They'll start a fight, lose the fight, and then cry "they beat me up!" and seek reparations. The essence of evil is a denial of the right to discriminate.

Tragedy of the commons is often the result of public or semi-public resources, not private resources. When private companies try to work together they get punished by governments for "price fixing" and "being a monopoly" and other stuff that prevents them from working together. Like with the example of over-fishing or farmland, if you own the land yourself you can prevent it from being abused and farm it sustainably and would have no reason to overwork it. When you share or lease the land or water you have good reason to abuse it and suffer from the tragedy of the commons problem, because by removing proper ownership you remove long-term incentives. Also lots of people are pushed to over farm their land in the current environment because the government is subsidizing farmers and essentially corrupting the market by keeping toxic and ill performing farmers in the market and promoting excess production. Many farmers can only do this because they have been subsidized and otherwise these practices would lead them to fail and then the market would recover, leaving only the healthy farmers. It's often government interference that prevents sustainable markets. Farmer subsidies are awful for farmers that wish to do it sustainably and profitably. Many farmers in the US aren't failing and in debt because of insufficient subsidies, but because of excessive subsidies. If a company lowers their prices to try to keep out a competitor this is costly and can't be sustained, but if there are massive subsidies infused into the market the company can keep up this practice for extended periods leading to practices that are essentially otherwise not profitable. I'd wager they'd get more people voting for the lower option if it was $20 dollars vs $100 or even higher stakes. Especially if they knew of the past failures and how risky choosing the higher option was. I'm not saying the tragedy of the commons problem doesn't exist in a free market, but in a truly free market I think the problem would come up less often and people would have better ways of dealing with the problem. One of the greatest tools of a free market is voluntary association. This is not allowed in today's society, whereby if you try to exercise your right to deny customers or hire and fire people on voluntary terms you can get sued for discrimination and other crap. The government has made free trade highly illegal and teaches everyone to be irresponsible and to lean on the government to get whatever they want to try to forcefully "solve" these problems instead of teaching people how to take personal responsibility towards solving many of these issues. Private property is formally regulated by the owner. Public property is competitively "regulated" by everyone, which includes "private" property under government thumb. Just think about how many animals, without governments, learned to live sustainably with their environment because to do otherwise was death. Humans defy this problem by centralizing and globalizing the debt to prevent local corrections. These general tendencies also help lead to global pollution and destruction as well as people are incentivized towards irresponsible behaviors and the fabric of communities is destroyed by national collectivism.

I would have totally gone for the 6 points. If you choose 6 and the points are given you get a 4 point advantage over most of the class. If you choose 2 and get the points you get a 4 point disadvantage against some people and no advantage against the rest. If you get no points then it's a level playing field, no advantage or disadvantage against any classmates. Relative to your classmates this is the best option. The only advantage of going for 2 is if you need some non-relative score to do better overall somehow, but frankly I wouldn't care about that as these are "bonus" points. Competitively speaking the top performers in the class may even want the lesser performers to not get the points to prevent future competition from them and would also be less likely to need the points. I'm not even sure this cleanly fits into tragedy of the commons in that I don't view this as a loss overall by people not getting the points. It's not as clear cut as situations of an overall inhibition or reduction of real wealth. They aren't any less qualified in the field due to their not getting the points, so it's just a competition thing as I see it. Tragedy of commons doesn't quite apply to such zero sum or competition games. It's more for situations where resources are diminished, like by over-fishing leading to less fish resources later.

I think it's a way to surrender and is another way to say "I'm confident I'm right, but I don't know how to make you understand the flaws I see in your statements" People make deductions all the time and can be highly confident with what to them seems like simple or obvious flow or logic, but which many times is an incorrect deduction. Making people understand when they have done this can be extremely difficult and frustrating when you can see what seems flawed to you, but you aren't smart enough to explain it to the person. On the one hand you feel superior and on the other hand you may also feel inadequate. This causes you to wave the flag and end the conversation with "I'm smarter than you", but they rarely say the second part "but I don't know how to explain it", because it's a form of "I just am!" when it comes to an actual argument for your "superior" position. People are sometimes confidently at odds because they haven't realized they are working on different base assumptions about causation and the world. They may both be using sound and logical methods to reach their conclusions, but since they disagree on the underlying assumptions of reality, which they don't speak of, they can't resolve their disagreement. Recognizing something as a contradiction is far from being able to rationally explain why it's contradictory. This requires additional intelligence and language abilities that may be absent. You can taste the distinct flavors, you're confident of the taste, but you haven't the words to describe them. Even well versed and intelligent philosophers can make deductive errors, because their logic is incomplete and they have no way to see that.

I listened to podcast 3015 last night. I didn't realize GuzzyBone had called in trying to argue the ideas he was saying here. It was an entertaining call.

Or perhaps they're just playing the long game and know that the state will collapse the market and the consumption causing a distinct drop in consumerism because most will be broke and in debt and overall wealth is spent inefficiently causing a disruption to overall long term consumption. Not a given of course as productivity isn't simple.

I hope they aren't advocating against the mass production of Dioxide and Glucose. My brain kind of needs them.

Relativism? I think that's giving what GuzzyBone is saying too much credit. Guzzybone seems to be skewing relativism into irrelativism and negating everything. Relativism is saying things are judged relatively. Irrelativism is saying nothing can be judged because relative to something else everything is relatively nothing or the opposite of what it means to the person making the point. This is a thread about downvoting and he's trying really hard to make a case for its use with this useless logic. So I can't exactly say GuzzyBone is off-topic. He's just on topic in a relatively obscure way you could say.

Yes, kind of hard to discuss or argue anything if someone is just going to obscure and devalue everything said into some meaningless relativity of interpretations. We can either use some clear and precise logic and interpretations of statements and have a chance of getting somewhere or you can just multi-interpret everything into irrelevance. And if you're going to do this there is no sense in calling some sound form of logic or worthwhile fallacy "bullshit" as that's just being dishonest. If you can't argue against something from a coherent and relevant perspective then you're not making any sound case against it.

I'm not "mindfucking" myself. You're calling something a paradox that isn't a paradox. This argument is about semantics. I accept that God exists and God doesn't exist. I just don't agree those are the same God and that I've just stated a paradox. I also don't get confused into thinking something a paradox when I state two things from different perspectives and imagine they are from the same perspective and thus contradictory. One person can believe "my eyes are blue" and another person can believe "my eyes are not blue", but I don't imagine this as a contradiction or paradox. All rocks being rocks doesn't mean all rocks are the same. Also in the statement "a rock is a rock is not a rock" can also be true and false, depending on how you read it, but whether or not the statement is true or false depends on the meanings of the words, not the words themselves. Meaning you can say the statement is true and false, but this isn't a paradox because it's true when read one way and false when read another way, but it's not both true and false when read or interpreted a single way. You still haven't introduced a paradox. You're just saying things can be read multiple ways and suggesting this negates the point or introduces a paradox, when it doesn't. If you don't agree to a particular understanding or meaning then you're just talking across someone and not arguing them. So you are both right and wrong, but all wrong.

They are both infinite, but they are not the same. The numerical distance between 1 and 5 is 4, not infinite. There are infinite numbers between 1 and 5, but only some of them are the same as 1 to 2. Thus they are distinctly different with some overlap. Being similar or related doesn't make things the same. Infinite doesn't mean all possibilities, just endless possibilities, they need not be the same or even similar. All you're doing for several of these examples is perverting the definition of same. You're not using the same definition for same. You can call one thing by two different names and it is still the same thing. You can also call two different things by one name, but this doesn't make them the same. Your whole assertion of a contradiction hinges on this misreading of meanings. Using the same words to say two different things and then pretending you are saying the same thing is creating a false contradiction. If God exists then you can't say God does not exist and be talking about the same thing, you must be talking about a different God, but using the same word to describe two things, and pretending this is a contradiction when it isn't. It's just using one symbol for two ideas and then pretending the ideas are the same or contradictory, when they aren't. Partially voluntary and fully voluntary are not the same thing. You're being imprecise in your assertion and then pretending precision in your claim for contradiction. Having a foot with only 4 toes and a foot with only 5 toes isn't a contradiction, it's having two feet with different numbers of toes. You haven't disproven The Law of Non-Contradiction logically. You've just argued against it with confused use of words.

I always really appreciate how obvious they are in their deception when they name the Act or Bill in a way that tells you most prominently what the bill is not.PATRIOT Act, well that does unpatriotic things for sure! Affordable Care Act, makes care unaffordable of course! No Child Left Behind, well that leaves behind entire schools of children! If they tell you the bill is to help farmers or the poor then it likely does the opposite. Orwell called it. I bet some of them read his book as a guide book on how to do it.

Nice one Makes me wonder if there is a door or if the window is the only way out. But that damn politician closed it, crikey! Then all the people inside get forced to do work and over half of them want to keep the window closed so people can't escape leaving them with a larger share of work to do. The window surely says "Terrorists outside, window closed for your protection!" Must keep the windows closed to keep the terrorists out as well, it's a dangerous world! Then they spend all their time arguing over the distribution of the work load while a measure passes in the middle of the night to have the window shaded to prevent them from seeing outside. Then after they unfairly settle on a distribution of work they give everyone a vote on the meal of the day to appease them. Overstuffed or non-overstuffed canned ravioli.

Because it discourages participation from others and helps them to see and question the validity of the state. They can't see who you are voting for or why. If I eat junk food at McDonalds all the time and it's always busy I'm not going to think too much about my behavior, especially if I can't see what they are ordering or why they are here versus somewhere else. Now if I go into a McDonalds and it is empty repeatedly I'm much more likely to reconsider my action and so too will the employees (or the people running the polling sites). You aren't voting in a vacuum, what you do is visible and effects other people's behavior and perceptions of what is okay and what is not okay. The most effective movements to get people to change their power use behavior was not by telling them what is "right or wrong", but by comparing them to their neighbors "average electrical power usage" and making them feel "behind". Then they were more motivated to "compete" with their neighbors to use less power. Posters that tell you littering is wrong, but also tell you a majority of the people are doing it, will actually make most people more likely to litter, not less. Likewise if they feel their peers are abandoning voting and the statist viewpoint they're going to feel pressured to change their position, as generally the statist position is forced onto them and accepted because of social pressures to begin with. Thus when you remove or alter these pressures they are free to, and possibly even pressured or encouraged to, consider a non-voting way of doing things. Calling it "no action" or "inaction" is a framing used by people trying to trick people into voting mentalities to make them feel like they are accomplishing or doing nothing and are just lazy. Tricking people into a voting mentality is how they keep getting people to vote successfully. By making voting the "default" position and making it hard to get out of that position by giving you poor logic that you will use to keep voting. They're heavily influencing how you talk about, frame, and argue the conversation. That is all part of the propaganda to get people to keep voting despite the problems and ineffectiveness (to the true goals) of voting. They're telling you that you have to fight, so you best fight to win, and denying your ability to avoid the fight. Then they get you to spend your time learning how to fight and tell you best how to fight and how to learn to fight all the while keeping you from the true victory of learning how to avoid the fight. Then if you don't train they tell you that you'll get beat up and mugged if you play the game that way, that their way is the only way. Play to win, not to avoid being last, or you'll never win.

I wasn't assuming either person was further along than the other. I was comparing myself to my former self for the purposes of showing how to unfairly judge someone. I also wasn't talking about or suggesting therapy for anyone, you might note I actually challenged MMD on his therapy assertions. I was merely suggesting judgemental restraint for people in a different position than you, which you may view as "below you" or "before you", in some specific category; to be considerate and not unkind to them, simply because they don't agree with you on a particular point. IE, if a vegan, who ate meat for most of their life, suddenly gets super harsh critical on all non-vegans for eating meat that wouldn't be fair, since they'd be hostile to their former self before they changed to a vegan diet, and thus this type of attitude can lead to a sort of "murder of self", in that some people practically advocate they should have been killed, but aren't willing to kill themselves now once they're past the "offensive period" of their life, which I was classifying as unfair. This also applies to me in that I don't want to be judged too harshly for being in an "inferior" position, when I can still learn why what I'm saying is wrong. I also think, in agreement with you I think, that people who call in to Stefan's show have a distinct disadvantage since he controls and frames all the conversations, as it is his show. He's also highly experienced at debating and dealing with callers, which even someone with a more truthful stance and a reasonable ability to explain the topic would have difficulty going up against. MMX has a great many posts on this board, including some specifically with me, which I can use to judge him for myself and for him to judge me. I've made no comment specifically on his call in show with Stefan. Also I was trying to defend MMX from others, not talk down to him. Meaning that message was more for everyone else. If you think I have said anything to humiliate anyone I'd appreciate it if you pointed it out to me.

Given that some will give answers like this one, perhaps they need to be asked to define "contract" as well and ask if it's okay for me to enslave or sign a contract for another person. Can I sell my son into slavery? Perhaps worded as something like "Can one person sign a contract obligating another person not signing the contract to service, labor, or debt?"

Are they prisoners or are they there voluntarily? This question gives me a "A Beautiful Mind" flashback, if you remember the scene. Are we assuming their preferences are fixed and can't be altered by changing some variable? If their preferences are arbitrary and fairly irrelevant to them, then they won't care too much if they don't get their preference, or don't get it for most of the time. They can share the time and alternate based on how many prefer it each way or could alter their preferences based on the non-arbitrariness of the preferences. If one person is going to die if the window is closed then many might generally prefer it closed, but would prefer the window open to the person dying. One preference can override another preference or they could get the guy a breather and then everyone might generally be okay with the window being closed. Maybe add a plant to the room for better air recycling. Without more details the simple time split is a pretty good way to do it. With more details there could be a great many different ways to solve the situation. Also, even in a voluntary society, you can't pretend to appease everyone all the time fully, you can only agree upon the method to resolve the situation and then there is inevitably a "loser", whether it be for a portion of the time, or all of the time. They may "lose" this time to win more other times. So I would suggest the simple time split method unless there were greater considerations or alternate solutions to be had, which weren't detailed.

The way I tend to think about it is sympathizing with my former self. When I come into a new life habit I try to remember I used to have different ways that weren't up to the same standards and it took time and learning to get where I am today. I try to remember that we are all in different places in our learning and development on various paths and we should always be considerate to our younger selves to give ourselves a chance to learn and grow and not discount all those "below" ourselves simply because we've gotten here now. If others had treated us with the same disdain or disregard we wouldn't have grown to our current levels. When we decide how to act to ourselves we have to be sympathetic to our future selves, but when interacting with ourselves we must remember to be kind to our less wise selves (assuming we are wiser in some particular or specific category). For example I eat much healthier than I used to, but I have to remember I had to learn and accept healthier choices first and I ate quite unhealthy at times before. So I need to be considerate of people who still eat unhealthy and not disregard or disrespect people who still eat unhealthy, as many of them can still learn and are willing to learn to live healthier life styles if they're just shown kindness and a good example of how to do it. Everyone has their own levels of resistance to new information in various categories for various reasons. Some accept some changes quite readily while being heavily resistant to others. Sometimes that's a good thing when the changes aren't really going to help, but many times it's harmful as most people come from unhealthy and unhappy life styles. Not just food wise, but behavioral and psychological habits as well, given the high level of abuse and unkindness in today's society.

Well that's certainly different from calling them "funny bits".

Whether or not you like the taste of pizza or apple more is subjective. But it also has an objective reality to it on more than one level. For one, which one you eat matters, whether you subjectively like one more than the other or not, it's going to impact your health which you choose. Saying your taste is subjective doesn't erase the objective reality of eating the pizza over the apple. Also doesn't erase the objective reality of the mental and chemical processes that occur with the consumption and desire for each one. Second, you could say you like one more than the other, but that doesn't mean it is the one you actually like better, even if the person believes you. We may not be able to tell whether or not you're being honest about your preference, but that doesn't change whether or not you are lying. Which one you prefer and whether or not you're honest about your preference or not is also irrelevant as to which is healthier for your body to consume. You're saying "But you don't know what my preference is and you don't know whether or not I'm being honest about my preference and you don't know if the other person believes if I'm being honest about my preference and you don't know which one the other person prefers I'd prefer", but I'm saying I don't care about all that crap. The apple is still generally the healthier choice, like it or not, whether or not you're eating for nutrition or to enjoy the pleasure of eating, it still makes a difference which you eat. It makes a difference which you smell, which you say you like to others, which you buy at the store, and in other ways too. It makes a great difference and the fact that there are some subjective elements to the equation don't detract from all those interconnected impacts and realities. Whether or not you realize or know what those realities are or can measure or judge them also doesn't mean they don't matter. You're getting dangerously close to saying subjective things don't matter and don't impact things outside of a small subjective sphere. If life were that simple I doubt many people would care what you do with others. It's because life is complicated that we feel the need or desire to judge each other and carry on talking in these topics to try to influence each other (and ourselves) about these activities and their potential impact and how other people feel about them. If two people are having a "nice little moment of mutual pleasure" that doesn't mean it's healthy or good or that it doesn't disgust someone else. Can someone else be disgusted by what two people are doing, sure, doesn't mean what they are doing is right or wrong, but it says they don't like something about the activity. Maybe that comes from personal greed or maybe it comes from a recognition that something ugly is going on whether they realize it or not or maybe the person who is displeased is just some morally pretentious idiot getting all in a bind over nothing bad making more of the situation than can fairly or kindly be made. Whether there is manipulation or not also or whether or not either party is okay with it or not, I will say again, doesn't change all the related facts of the situation. Also just because we can't know or observe all the facts of the situation doesn't mean all those facts don't exist. Subjective does have an objective reality that creates the subjective feelings. They're just more intangible, but still very real and objective if only for a moment, and their effects ripple outward onto the world around them giving people a desire to accept or reject them. And yes I realize this can apply in reverse and people who 'reject PUA' could be doing themselves a disservice by rejecting potential happiness that you think it can bring. Which is why I was suggesting a repacking and re-branding deal, to deliver the good parts without those viewed as bad by people who reject PUA, but this stuff wasn't really addressed. I'm not even sure what this thread is talking about any more. Are you trying to defend yourself from hostilities for using "PUA" techniques or are you trying to get people to accept some parts of PUA to help themselves in their interactions and lives? I'll direct this to the original poster too. Perhaps if we're more clear about our objectives here we can talk across each other a bit less.

I've released the current version of "Chapter 3 - On Nothing, Space, and Matter" of my book, "The Beard's Last Call: For a New Hope"! Wordpress.com site: https://thebeardslastcall.wordpress.com/ Title Pages: https://thebeardslastcall.wordpress.com/2015/06/08/title-pages/ Table of Contents: https://thebeardslastcall.wordpress.com/2015/06/08/table-of-contents/ Chapter 1 - On Language and Words: https://thebeardslastcall.wordpress.com/2015/06/08/on-language-and-words/ Chapter 2 - On Truth and Understanding: https://thebeardslastcall.wordpress.com/2015/06/08/on-truth-and-understanding/ Chapter 3 - On Nothing, Space, and Matter: https://thebeardslastcall.wordpress.com/2015/06/08/on-nothing-space-and-matter/ This represents about 6-7% of the total current book content. Share if you like it and let me know what you think, good or bad! Thanks for your interest. Donate to help - Bitcoin: 1NBA1GQiVZ73W2FyzHeTAffywbYx66PeH8 Edit: You can contact me by email at [email protected]

Let me try putting it another way. You didn't just convince yourself of PUA, you also convinced yourself of how to measure, judge, and justify PUA. Whenever someone does something morally questionable they also come up with a way to justify it to themselves and others and how to measure and judge the actions as okay. Now you're telling me I should ask the women how they feel about PUA as if that's a valid way to measure and judge PUA and then to base whether or not I'm right or wrong off of what they say. You haven't explained why I should do this and why this makes any difference to what I've been saying. You do it because you like the answers you get and it allows you to feel okay about what you are doing and you can somehow say this makes it okay. This redirection has also spared you from addressing what I've said more directly since you're just directing me to someone else and disregarding my opinion to ask someone else how they feel about the topic. Should I listen to this girl and then go "Okay, I was wrong, it's okay to be beaten by a guy" ? :

I can see the end of the FDR board. It's going to come when someone here displays aggressive passiveness and someone points it out and everyone's head explodes. Massive joint mind blow, that's how a philosophy board ends. "Here lies FDR, they wanted to blow the minds of the world, instead they turned on each other and blew their own minds." Then philosophy forums will be considered dangerous and get added to the blacklist as a forbidden genjitsu, a dangerous mind art. Logic and reason will be banned as leading to dangerous mind blows and we'll enter a new dark era. Let us avoid these dangerous times... Don't educate yourself today about this dangerous topic! Especially don't aggressively not do something. Calmly don't educate yourself, relax, and go back to your standard ignorance and passive aggressive behaviors.