thebeardslastcall

Are you afraid he's giving aid and quarter to "the enemy"? I kind of see it as recognizing that they're not enemies, but allies, in many ways, and acknowledging a lot of the more dangerous elements of the non-theist religions (statism). I also kind of see it as him trying to keep himself humble and to keep exploring and acknowledging the good elements of groups who have some irrationality. In this way he's not being overly labeling of people into groups since he's allowing himself to parse out the good and bad elements of all groups and keeping himself honest to each groups benefits as to not discard them when pointing out their issues. In many ways it isn't really about promoting Christianity as a religion at all, but Christianity as a culture and the good community and honest elements within the culture, which happen to be tied to the religion. He's never changed or softened his position that God might be possible I don't think (and if you have a clip you think says otherwise, please share). Most people aren't very adept or at all good at parsing out these elements of groups and keep everything as an "us and them" type mentality for groups and this isn't a healthy or rational way to view groups when you're trying to achieve truth and rationality. That strategy works when you're in a violent war and you're just trying to survive, but when you're trying to promote rationality you need to break things up some to get to the truths and lies within. In that way I'm glad he's doing what he's doing, because it's beginning to show people how to parse things up more in ways that are foreign to most. He also intentionally brings on people from time to time he is fairly certain he disagrees with, just to keep himself and check and to show how to debunk them should they fail to change his mind as I'd guess he sometimes expects, so he kind of wins regardless of which direction the conversation goes.

From what I've heard Stefan isn't any more accepting of the religious aspects of Christianity. Christianity and other religions have a shitton of cultural and morality baked into their madness, which makes them quite effective in many ways and is how they've lasted this long and are so prominent in our lives. Not all of religions is madness, as they've built up lots of useful knowledge over the generations to keep themselves useful and relevant and offer some useful cohesion as well. Lots of atheists basically tossed the baby out with the bathwater when they left religion, which is why they're having trouble. They tossed out useful things they didn't yet know how or want to replace which are relevant for survival and sometimes take up foolishly contrarian positions, leading to low birth rates and other issues. Acknowledging the host doesn't invalidate criticisms of the parasite on the host. Basically he's acknowledging the irrational elements of many atheists and the rational elements of many Christians, is what it comes down to.

De-euphemize "trafficking".

Has anyone tried pointing someone to the Youtube channel with a list of videos and telling them to pick whichever video stands out to them, instead of suggesting a specific one, to see what they pick and where that leads them? I haven't, but if someone does something like that, I'd be curious to hear how that turns out. There are a metric crap-ton to choose from, finding the right puzzle piece can be tricky, if any may fit. I was already red-pilled long before I found FDR, so don't have any video to draw upon as having escaped me to point to, so curious what "converted" others who were still lost when they found FDR.

Philosophers come here to learn and enhance there understanding of the world and reality. Donnadogsoth is here to master dissonance and trolling.

God is "I don't know". The crazy people just don't realize that's what they're saying. I have faith that I don't know. I believe that I don't know. You can't explain that, but I don't know [what] can. I don't know [what] is the cause of causes. Why do causes exist? See?

I found flaws, but didn't have the time or inclination to detail them. Having just reread some of the post I think my book will address some of your points with arguments and am putting my efforts there to finish the book for more than just those on these forums to read. I was also observing the madness that followed as the thread got a bit derailed by the crazy guy. My post was to point out the insanity and then to question the relevancy of the point of the topic, questioning what exactly you think you've answered with your proof, if we assumed it wasn't flawed. Are you going to treat rocks differently? Are you God or a part of God? Is your God one consciousness or an infinite number of consciousnesses?

We don't, that's kind of the point. Change the people and the societal changes follow. Abuse is abuse and you can't change that, but if you teach people to stop being abusers, then you don't have to change abuse, because you don't need a cure for a disease you never cause. You don't need a cure for heart disease if everyone is eating and living a healthy lifestyle.

If your logic "proves" the illogical, then your logic is flawed. Suppose you had a "proof", where would this get you? There is still no evidence or relevance to our current existence for or of God. This can't go anywhere, because there is nothing to be proven or revealed by this conversation except bad logic for the insane people to try to fog people to feel they may have some ground to stand on in their irrational belief of a God.

Than I think you get some of my point in that whether they're Christian or not isn't the relevant delineating factor in whether or not they will be an acceptable match or not.

All paradoxes are theoretical and conceptual, not actual and real. There are no true paradoxes in reality. Thinking there are is insanity and why people believe in Gods. Saying evil is subjective is saying there are no objective ways to measure or judge an action as evil. Saying or thinking someone is evil doesn't make someone evil and is exactly what evil would think or say if the action or person wasn't evil. Thus saying evil is subjective I'd count wrong on two counts at the least.

Ron Paul gets him excited and the Johnson ironically makes him soft.

My new moto is: If you do vote, I don't want to hear you complain.

I'd agree here. People without honesty or self-awareness are incapable of accurately self-reporting their true morality with words directly. You have to judge their actions and ask them indirectly to see what the real foundations are for their beliefs. How someone got to where they are matters more than where they are, because this tells you far more about where they're going and willing to go and gives you a truer sense of their beliefs than whatever categorical or grouping label they stumbled into.

You can't date a theory. If you want to weigh two options, you need two women.

How can anyone answer for free trade if the question is restricted to anti-free trade people? Do you go to a Clinton rally to conduct a poll on who will vote for Trump or Clinton?

Welcome! Anarcho-capitalists get the impression people have a blue sky idea of how things will work out with governments.

Brain dead people don't act good, check.

In some states using "exempt" is illegal for state W-4 tax forms, but they may still allow for federal taxes, but if you use this you may expose yourself to an audit.

"Female designated bathrooms" Isn't that the real issue, the ambiguity of the designation? Clarify the designation, problem solved. If they have ambiguous designations than they can expect people to interpret the designations however they feel appropriate. Having harsh laws that punish people for not being able to decipher an ambiguous sign is pretty crazy and mean and destroys lives. As for how people designate their own bathrooms, that's their decision. Are any of those transgender men capable of having a baby? If not, then they're more asexual/non-sexual than male/female. Male/female designations are reproductive designations, which don't apply to people who don't have any capacity for reproduction, technically, though naturally we still call people by sexual labels appropriate to what they were even if they are no longer (in regards older people), as that makes the most sense. For bathrooms if we want to decide which bathroom someone should use we should perhaps start by asking why we bother to separate them to begin with, and thus the reasons for separating the bathrooms can help us answer the question regardless of what sex/gender someone is or considers themselves to be.

It points out the size differential, but in a very aggressive and violent way I think. It's suggesting bullying someone is okay if it's a "fair fight". I don't think bullying someone is okay regardless of their ability to defend themselves. Bullying is merely much worse against a defenseless person, but wrong regardless, and seeing as the abuser has a problem with being overly violent, stoking their violent tendencies further would I think make things worse, not better. As someone who is adept at avoiding fights and tempering down people, I would never say anything of the kind, to imply a fight is okay or desired or to suggest beating them up would teach them anything. They've been getting in fights their whole lives and such behaviors are only inflaming their violent tendencies. I want to put out the fires, not redirect and embolden them.

If someone tries to kill me and I have to kill him or neutralize him to defend myself, am I judging him? Grace or anti-grace, to not acknowledge who people are and act appropriately is suicidal. Are you asking not to be judged for your lack of grace as displayed by your posts on these forums? What is judgement in the real world to you? Five paragraphs and I have little idea what you're talking about or suggesting or denying. You sound like you're arguing a brand of Determinism, denying responsibility for people, but also suggesting God should judge them (finally) for something he did and something they had no control over. Do you not see any contradictions or oddities in what you are saying? Can I not judge you for continuing to post nonsense on these boards? Do you have and know the principle of trollism?

Also has more dislikes than likes. They're debunking their own credibility with such videos.

Not too. I'm not even sure what book you are talking about, but I haven't read, or listened to, any of Stefan's books. You can't really fully privatize a border without eliminating the government, otherwise you haven't changed much except possibly given the property to someone who would have no particular reason to build a wall for land they had no need or point to guard. Who would buy this land and why? I mean how much is this "border" space you're selling. Yes a wall makes a real border, but you still need a nation for that to be relevant, otherwise it's not a national border, but just a property line, and one of many. Have you ever been to one of those places called a mall? How about just about any business ever really. Or you know a neighborhood gathering. Businesses welcome in as many people as they can because they want to sell stuff. In a free society people will have common and shared spaces to enhance quality of life and trade. Doesn't become some permanent martial law like state where no one can interact with others. You are acting like no one will ever give permission which seems ridiculous and your conclusions follow from these inaccurate deductions of how a free society will function and thus aren't worth addressing at this point.

Congratulations, you successfully bribed and raided your way into a single plot of land. You failed to understand when land is privatized every piece of land is another border. If you invade one piece of land and people see what you've done you've just pissed off the hornets nest to gain an inch past the "border". In a free society you don't get in and then have free reign. You get half an inch in and then realize you can't travel around freely because everything is owned and you can no longer travel around anonymously, because there are no public roads or spaces. Bribing your way into one piece of land grants you no further access because there is no government to bribe to get yourself free access over everyone. Trying to cross any border by force in a free and prosperous society like America would be risky as all hell and you'd probably get some serious backlash unless the people in the area decided to take mercy on you for your extreme stupidity, but if you were brutal or murderous you're probably just fucked. With the government you have to give quarter to any if you run a hotel or apartment building and can't discriminate against buyers, by threat of force, but without a government you lose the national borders, but gain hundreds of millions of private borders that can suddenly possess their own land previously dominated by governments denying their free association rights. The land border paradigm and how travel and trade occur would change drastically with a free society compared to a government society. With a government you are denied personal borders and free association, while they create an illusory national border, that they don't even guard in many cases. With a free society the illusory borders vanish and countless real ones emerge.