thebeardslastcall

You say they aren't producing anything as if that doesn't make the situation even worse. How much worse would "child labor" be if they were going to work in factories and whatever horrible conditions these people imagine, but they weren't actually producing anything either on top of all the "horror" of being young and working in harsh conditions. If you're quibbling over what they are producing to qualify it as "labor", you're missing the point of the "immorality" being assigned to what children are having to go through. A lack of productivity makes it worse and the productivity wasn't the relevant complaint, but the poor living conditions of children.

Child labor - it's now called "public schools". They get high stress work for no pay and learn few, if any, skills for future work and are prevented from getting real work or training. It's not America's future, it's America's present. They just 84'd it with the words.

I'd be curious to know if they saw a bump in downloads of older episodes and which ones, from the presumed influx of new eyeballs garnered due to the election.

How do you know it isn't the opposite, the coworker asking you why you'll fallen behind on some of your projects and the parents saying they're busy spending extra time with their kids during a critical period in their life when they have extra and special demands requiring such attention? What is a philosophy show when it ignores the external demands and events of the external world for more words without actions? Not like all his other content is disappearing and taking advantage of the unprecedented election to draw in new eyeballs towards all the content he's already got stashed up over the many years that can help people without any new shows on "just philosophy" would have probably been a huge missed opportunity and loss for the people who would otherwise have taken much longer or never have found his show.

Well, if the argument is he didn't achieve a goal or could have achieved another or a better outcome with the same time and energy spent on something else instead I think Michael and Stefan would expect you to make that case. With his knowledge and wisdom this is how they chose to spend there time and they made their case as to why, but if you see flaws in their arguments, make the case. I think one thing he's always been consistent about is the "compared to what" argument of what the alternate possibilities really were and could have achieved. Also if you had something better to say, you could be doing your own show to provide what you think he was lacking and could be sharing that instead. Just trying to share probably how they see it from their perspective as to you complaining about what they are doing and in line with what you were doing during the same time period and hence forth. If you do find a better recipient for your money I'd be curious to know what for and why. Or was it the case you felt he was doing a negative and his arguments for why what he did was harmful as opposed to merely not helpful in the way you wanted? I'd be open to hearing that argument as well, which I'd guess would need to address their arguments for why they were doing what they were doing, so much as they gave them.

Not sure how that counters me exactly. My statement was made also in the context with the following statement of consciousness. You could say consciousness is popping into and out of existence in basically the same way you can say so for particles. But that's just because people mistakenly think of particles as units. I have a different theory that seems to explain what people are observing without energy randomly being created or destroyed. Ball goes up and then falls down. The energy is changing form in a manner, but calling that " 'Ball going up' popping out of existence" and then " 'ball going down' popping into existence" isn't an accurate way to describe the situation, and that's basically what people seem to be saying from my interpretation.

Space isn't empty. Things aren't popping into existence. They're coming into and out of perception. What exactly are you anxious about? Are you worried you'll pop out existence or does it make you feel insane with people proposing insane views of reality? You will eventually die and at that point, consciously, you'll no longer exist, just as you didn't consciously exist before your were conceived.

I think some uncertainty about Trump was a given and part of the deal. Still prefer him to Hillary even if he doesn't follow through on all or some of what he said on the campaign. I'd be a bit surprised if he ended up being worse than Hillary, which luckily we'll never get to see the other side of that. Part of my desire of a Trump presidency was to see what he would and could do in office compared too all the establishment candidates that preceded him and would have continued if he hadn't run.

Nicely done list. I'd be curious to see who the author was for each of those (and how many authors they have that didn't make the list, with a count for each).

Topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/590wi9/i_am_elon_musk_ask_me_anything_about_becoming_a/ Elon's posts/answers: https://www.reddit.com/user/ElonMuskOfficial Edit: Hit the "context" button below each answer to see the question.

Both candidates have declared each other unqualified. Probably more-so than any election ever before and yet they will both be on the ballot, so doesn't really mean much of anything except for a way to denigrate one's opponent with the voter base who decides (if that's not too generous a term to use for the action) on who will be president. If Trump wins we'll see the limits of what that type of person can do in office and if Clinton wins... we'll likely speed up our descent down the rabbit hole into even more harsh economic times and less liberty and also prove corruption doesn't mean much anymore. This election reveals the sad state of America right now. Lefties care more about affirmative-action candidates and false ceilings than electing a good or semi-legitimate candidate.

So you think you shouldn't think and you think this is the way you should think to achieve the thinking you need to be... irrationally effective? Perhaps you are better off leaving the thinking to people who can think, while you go on thinking about not thinking as a means to rationally be irrational.

Debunked yourself. You rationally concluded rationality isn't the way to go. The alternative is irrationality, which is basically by definition to be unintelligent and dysfunctional, leading to failure.

Clinton went on this rant about influencing the election and I was like and I was like, oh come on! Trump totally failed to smack her in the face with that one. Wanted him to point out they have so much power to "influence" the election because she's got unprecedented levels of corruption they can expose. Also if he'd hit her with suggesting a conspiracy theory to rig the election, as a possible alternative interpretation, that would have been icing on the cake. But he failed to do either, which was really disappointing.

So basically what you're saying Jesse... is that she is qualified simply by virtue of not having dropped dead yet.

3) This year's E.D.

Loved it, but saw it as deeply flawed? Perhaps they're living the contradiction you just gave. They love the social life, but fail to value the aspects that are required for the continuation of life. Like the person in the west who loves playing video games more-so than having kids and starting a family. Also they probably do have financial issues causing them to have insufficient funds for starting a family. Just because they don't have some of the "socialist" programs doesn't mean they don't still have many government mis-allocations of resources corrupting their survival abilities and life-styles. Do they not have public schools or other public services that could be causing some of their current ills?

Can't say I liked that, but makes people easier to identify when you know they're doing it, which is kind of nice.

Are you calling yourself racist? Or are you saying the studies are false? Or are you just calling people racist while denying any coherent position? Why don't you own a coherent position.

Lefties who think facts are bigoted .... ugh Really, you see no problem with calling someone a racist... because you're unwilling to listen to them speak and think calling someone a racist is an acceptable default position to throw someone into? If you have no problem with that, then you have no problem with me calling you racist, sexist, homophobic, dumb, idiotic, bigoted, and deplorable, because I don't know you and you might be all those things... Maybe Sam Harris is avoiding him because he's scared of what the confrontation will reveal him as, not because of what he's afraid Stefan Molyneux will meet his low expectations. How does this guy vet people I wonder, to find them acceptable and to alleviate his fears of the person being a grand master in the KKK, as if that's at all really likely. Sounds like instead of just listening to a little bit of the podcast for himself he took to other people's opinions of Stefan, knowing where he was going to get those opinions would influence the result towards what he was looking to see (based on your transcription, haven't listened to Sam's podcast).

Are you looking for a reason to abuse a child and call it justified? What are you doing?

Yes, dragging is force. You sort of answered that yourself. I don't think that's really the question to ask. The question is how do you avoid these situations and I think I've heard Stefan say he talks with the child ahead of time and gets them to agree to a set amount of time to be at a place where they may like to stay longer, such that the child has agreed to leave after a certain amount of time. Then he also said he may give warnings ahead of time when the leaving time approached so the child would be prepared and ready to leave when the time arrived to avoid short notice issues, since the child won't be keeping track of time. Why is the child refusing to leave? I think this type of thing generally occurs when the parent hasn't built up any negotiation with their child and thus the child is rightly fighting for what they want since the parent is always forcing what they want. Basically by harshly refusing to leave the child is basically just mirroring the forceful attitude of the forceful parent who gets their way by dragging their kid around instead of talking and negotiating with them to get a balance of needs and desires.

Donald Trump lost a billion of his own money, once. Obama and Hillary lost over a trillion dollars of your money, every year, and continue to do so. He gamed the tax avoidance system. They gamed the tax spending and collection systems. Clinton is telling you to jump out of the way of a bee, into the path of a train.

I don't think a Libertarian is a libertarian, or that a minarchist is really a libertarian either, despite how many classify themselves to the contrary. I think the people who group libertarian with minarchist are holding a contradiction of terms. I think libertarians are anarchists when they get what they're saying. A position your statement helps clarify I think.

Not currently viable? Does he think it will ever be viable? Otherwise, that's not a fair way to characterize his position. Haven't listened to the video and don't know enough about him to say what his opinions are on libertarianism and such, but from what I've seen I never got the sense he was a libertarian. Feel free to share your thoughts on the matter and to share whatever arguments of his you agree with, if you agree with his conclusion, or were you sharing to make him look bad? I mean, do you have a preference of Clinton over Trump or vice versa and if so, why?