thebeardslastcall

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade A lack of precision doesn't mean your senses aren't essential for sanity or that they can't be used to rationally process your environment for intelligent behavior. A fuzzy picture of the world still tells you something useful and real and this is why many animals can do well with lower quality vision. A blind man given very rudimentary vision can drastically improve his quality of life.

Does troll spray clear up fog? If you take the divinity out of Christianity and reduce it to a culture and then claim someone who stands opposed to that culture and the divinity it claims, but admits they have some overlap in values, is objectively part of the group that is just purely nonsense. You share some genes with a virus, you must objectively be a virus. A virus must objectively be a human, because I'm disregarding what everyone else thinks of as humanity to use a definition which is in stark contrast to a sensible use of the word. Jewish ancestry and Jewish culture and Jewish religious belief in the old testament God are three different things. If you conflate them into one or talk about one part when clearly everyone else is talking about the other parts you're not going to have any sensible discussion. What I want to know is has anyone in this thread cleared up the fog at all or gotten anything useful out of this thread? Junglecat is clearly trolling people with fog and corrupted definitions turning this into a completely nonsensical discussion that has gone no where. If you wanted this to actually go anywhere instead of just screwing with people you wouldn't have used the word Christian, but you would have talked about what you actually mean. Objective is based in reality, so stop using the word Christian and use the base grounded meanings for what it is you are describing. If you want to say Stefan supports the tenet of peace then say he is objectively peaceful, but stop this bullshit of calling him objectively Christian because he supports peace. Let's break this down into pieces and call things as they are and stop using conflated, blobby, and foggy terms to describe what you mean. If you call him Christian one more time instead of just saying what you really see as the constitutes of overlap, then you are clearly and definitively just trying to confuse and troll people. You don't end cognitive dissonance by staying in the domain of foggy, emotional, and conflicted terms.

There you have it, Christians are objectively Muslim. The end.

"People should be governed" is "I govern my kids" or "my parents governed me as a kid" and they don't want to face the emotional implications of challenging the statement. They say peoples' will should be overridden, but if you try to not override, but merely challenge, their conclusion with the counter conclusion they flip out and won't have it. Nor will they usually entertain any principled discussion of where this right to override someone's will comes from or under what conditions it might be acceptable. They need to keep this area as grey as possible and avoid clarity, because any clarity would inevitably put them on the wrong side of the fence, which they know and this is why they fight such challenges. It is only a contradiction in that they are using their free will to make an assertion their free will should be negated by another and then reject negation of their will. This basically boils down to "Having a king is fine, so long as I'm the king".

In the end you realize religion doesn't say anything; people do. People claim whatever religious alignment they like, for themselves and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I didn't bother to read most of the thread, so this may have already been addressed, but did anyone question why he saw two similarities and chose the direction "Stefan is objectively Christian", instead of drawing the equally (il)logical conclusion, going the other way, that Rene Girard is objectively atheist? My first impression was "I see some similarities, maybe I can force him into my group and claim I'm right!" One of the necessities of philosophy is being able to parse your ideas. You might as well be saying "Christianity is about being good, therefore anyone doing good must objectively be a Christian!" How would you view the statement "Atheism is about truth, therefore anyone speaking the truth must objectively be an atheist!" Presidents have the power to destroy real lives. I don't want an entertaining president. I want a president no one knows or cares about because he's powerless. That is, a president in name only, like a relatively harmless crazy person.

The call in shows are already on a schedule. The true news series would be disrupted by a schedule as they're meant to be a timely response to current events. Strict and limited schedules work well for an entertainment show, but when you're doing a philosophy show and working to change the world I'm not sure I'd want content held back for a day or several days just to keep to a schedule. If there is a useful update to your car that would improve your life now, would you prefer to get immediately via a Tesla over the air update, which get released when done, or have to wait for a regular schedule of update releases? If you think they are mis-prioritizing their releases and can give reasons why they should prioritize differently that may be useful, but forcing them to keep to a schedule just seems like it's holding back for some notion of consistency or convenience, which doesn't apply to this podcast. People may miss a TV show or a standard youtube video release if not keeping to a schedule, but when you're seeking out philosophy you'll look for it and take it when you can get it. Likewise if you're getting release notifications for podcasts and youtube videos you'll know when new content is available, regardless of when it is released. I'd rather they just focus on getting good content out as soon as possible.

God damn zoos. Gorilla was in a bad situation before it got killed. Gorilla obviously didn't intend harm, as if it did it could very easily kill the child, since they're super strong, but being super strong is also what makes it dangerous even if the gorilla doesn't intend harm. The kid however was a sort of prisoner to their parent as well and the parent paid to go to the zoo where the zoo keeps caged animals. Ugly situation really. Once I became a bit more aware and conscience the idea of going to a zoo became increasingly unpalatable. I remember being at a state fair several years ago and I didn't want to go near the animal section and felt bad for indirectly supporting that part by buying a ticket to attend the other parts. Figured the least I could do was not add attention to the area as popularity of a section is how they would internally measure the value of the section. Makes me wonder if I should even ever have a pet again, like a dog, due to my mixed feelings about caging and controlling animals. May be the best life available to many dogs, but with gorillas we should be able to do better, like instead of visiting a zoo and entertaining ourselves with animal slaves, send money to support a natural habitat for gorillas.

Phobia is a fear disproportionally excessive to the danger posed. Sad incidents like this will help a few of integrity realize the danger is real and having a sort of reverse-phobia of not acknowledging actual threats is suicidally dangerous. Tolerance for people who want to destroy you isn't a virtue, it's idiotic. If I'm not murdering people I don't want a diversity of murder rates with the people around me. These equality and diversity people are insane, stupid, and spineless. with t Also let us remember that the people who died weren't necessarily in support of any of this insanity. Let us not group the idiots in with the victims as if they were necessarily the same group. Being gay or transgendered doesn't mean you're in solidarity with all other gay people. The people who claim to represent the collective, however, do it no favors with their pretend solidarity and pressure of such social agendas.

If someone expects a non-existence to be 'proven' scientifically they fundamentally misunderstand what science does. Sciences measures things that exist only and trying to apply a scientific standard against the non-existent makes no sense. This is asking to measure the distance of something which doesn't exist and saying it hasn't been proven or disproven what the length of this non-existent entity is, when it has no length and by its non-existence can't be measured to any distance. Then there is the theorizing the length of this non-existent entity. Theorizing the length based on what and if the thing has no existence there is no way to evaluate the theories of length of this non-existent entity. All you can do when dealing with the non-existent is to check the idea against rational and logical standards to see if the idea even holds of logically and could theoretically be true, but that still gives no reason to think the thing actually exists, merely that based on current understanding it may theoretically be possible. Believing something to be true based on this extremely flimsy standard isn't useful. If this is your flimsy standard and you use it to reject the logic and reasoning someone has provided as to why these things don't or can't exist then you're in the realm of anti-intelligence or anti-philosophy and there's no point in having a discussion with such a person because there is nothing to argue as the person is in an untouchable region of beliefs untouchable by reality or reason. Since science doesn't apply to the non-existent, saying something hasn't been disproven doesn't mean it isn't complete non-sense or a disingenuous belief. The mere question tends to put forward a false non-applicable standard to confuse the less intelligent. This tactic is dishonest and unkind and generally gives people an excuse to believe in non-sense as if it is, might be, or is at all likely to be true. This notion tends to turn an impossible or extremely unlikely idea into an idea that should be given serious consideration as if the person can reasonably take the position that it's probably true when such a belief has not been earned by reason and evidence.

Compare this with a police officer assaulting you and also blaming you for all the harm caused by their excessive use of force to stop you from doing something trivial or not even breaking a law, but simply not submitting to their inquiry demands. In a free society you'd agree to how these situations would be handled and then you'd avoid places that had rules you didn't like where you were worried you'd be liable for something you didn't think you should be liable for. With free association you set your own punishments and liability rules and then if you break a rule you're subject to your own justice. If you invade someone else's land without such an agreement then you've denied property rights of others and thus forfeit them for yourself (including your life). People are more likely to rob a bank if they won't be liable for all the crap that befalls the situation, but if you make them liable for people's attempts to defend themselves they'll not so easily do something egregious like that. What violates UPB tends to universal, but how you handle violations, what you might call justice, is not universal in the same way. You could say the base reality is that, in the absence of agreement and thus morality in a sense, any justice is fair game, because you can't claim rights while denying them for others. When you agree to respect other people's properties then you come to agreements on justice, which is locally specific. So the underlying rules have some universality to them, but the specifics of what is allowed on someone's property and how to handle various violations is person dependent.

Was he suggesting disagreement with the show that needed an argument or to have an error pointed out to back up the statement? Sounded like he was just using a roundabout way of agreeing with Stephen's position of not voting. Perhaps the problem with his post is he's using the fear of feeling or being called an idiot to backup his suggestion of action instead of making an actual argument towards the position of not voting? Or maybe more so that he's calling people idiots without pointing out and backing up why their behavior is idiotic with arguments to support the claim. I can see why that would garner down votes. Also a bit odd that he'd call 'support' stupid, while also not even having a definition of 'support', without which it's a blanket insult towards anything that might be perceived as support in some way. Calling people stupid doesn't make them smarter. Is it ironic that he says people make a bad decision because they're 'scared stupid' so his strategy is to 'scare them smart' with insults?

This is out of date, but should give an idea of what I'm writing my book on: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0GQN_nG55kXVXczVlpnODVxZHM My Wordpress page, linked in signature (assuming it's working now, was linking to above Google Drive file for some reason before), also has some (also) out of date rough drafts of a few chapters. https://thebeardslastcall.wordpress.com/about/

Congrats on finishing your book! I've resumed work on mine and progress is a lot of work. Not easy to 'finish' a book, which I'm sure makes completing one all the more satisfying. Did you make any attempt to get it published or did you just assume the book due to its nature wouldn't get one or were you just more interested in getting it out there for free? I'd like mine to get a publisher, but will probably not be able to and will be forced to self-publish and release in digital form.

They prove democracy is shitty?

An elbow to the face is a step up from shooting a hostile invader. Progress? He invaded in a hostile fashion because he thought they were more pacified towards retaliatory violence and in some ways, if their aim was to trash Trump or his supporters, may have actually liked that he got elbowed due to the potentially bad press after the fact. Not judging the situation, but just saying if we were in a free society he wouldn't have had the state created gray area to pull off something like that without high fear of a serious and possibly fatal response. The denial of free association created by the state's fuzzy rules make creating proper rules impossible and thus make such situations much harder to judge. If you go onto someone else's property with intent to harm I'd generally be inclined to default against the invader.

There was a time when I could tolerate hearing some of her show (not that I ever tuned into her show). That time is not now. She's just another worthless entertainer and opinion pusher that uses 'news' for her skits. Best not to give her traffic.

People who desire peaceful negotiations over violence are very threatening to statists indeed! How dare we try to get by without them! Goodness terrorizes and scares the crap out of evil.

That sounds like you are just accusing me of being a coward as if I don't have good reasons for not supporting the issues. My desire to not be associated with the ideas is because I think they're unproductive and not a good philosophical position. I'm against both women and men voting. They both vote for immoral and harmful policies. Separating out one as being 'worse' seems to be the same error the feminists make with their anti-male talk. Your thesis, so much as you seemed to possibly have one, is that getting rid of the female vote is the only, or a practical, way of getting to the end goal of freedom. A necessary step in the direction. To me it seems totally impractical and not a needed or useful step. You think you can shock people into philosophy instead of just repulsing them and shutting down their reasoning? Where is the evidence your strategy works and won't just make it all the more easy for people to write off 'philosophers', 'anarchists', or others? I think this line of action will drive people away more than towards a rational and philosophical approach to the state and freedom. I want to tell people they can be part of the solution and come together for the cause. I don't want to cause an unnecessary and unproductive sexual divide. Men and women are not equal. That fact is basically axiomatic to me. You seem like you want to insult women while also setting the bar higher and expecting them to join you. I'll set the bar high and encourage them to meet the higher demands for the benefit of all without simultaneously calling them crippled as if they can't meet the high expectations we need of them and men to get to a better place.

You think women aren't going to fight this tooth and nail and push their men to fight it as well? In order to repeal the 19th amendment, you would have to first disallow women from voting and even then you'd probably still fail. I don't see how this is possible. That's trying to put the worms back in the can so to speak. So you have a goal, which is nearly impossible to do and not clearly desirable and you want to fight this hard fight instead of a more worthwhile fight why? Seems like a bad way to spend your efforts for minimal gain. Still going to have an unjust state and a horde of issues even if this were presumably desirable and achieved. I'd advise you pick another fight. High risk, low chance of success, and questionable/low benefits (if any) if successful. Bad deal in my opinion. Women clearly should get a 'vote' in a free society, via peaceful negotiation and free association. I wouldn't want to be associated with such a fight and think it would interfere with the end goals and make anarchists look worse if you claim to be one and propose throwing yourself into such a cause and trying to make such a case.

What is a person if not a collection of their actions? If you can't define and judge people by their actions then how can you define or judge people? People's actions and decisions are how they define themselves to others. Thus a person is a 'dishonest' person when they choose to be dishonest. An 'accidental' lie that is intentionally not corrected is a choice to lie. A person is a killer person when they choose to kill. To say there are no 'dishonest' people is to separate the action from the person. This disowning of actions is a dangerous precedent and is commonly put forth by people with a conscience problem. People who do not want to be judged for their actions, but wish to disown some part of their past, be forgiven, and move on. Sounds like you're trying to excuse some level of dishonesty as acceptable. That doesn't mean the person isn't dishonest or that there aren't dishonest people. Saying that means you've got a 'more lenient' bar for what level of honesty is okay and which you wish to communicate and be judged at. "We agreed to 90% honesty."

How are narcissists and psychopaths your friends? How is hanging out with completely unavailable people, that is people who having nothing to connect with, considered to be really 'with' anyone? Instead of being with an emotionally present person or alone to reflect you are choosing to be with anti-emotional people and say you are working on being emotionally available? Does that not seem like a collection of contradictions to you? You're supporting narcissists and psychopaths, but you are also saying you can be emotionally conscious and present for someone else instead? Why not seek out other people who can be emotionally present as well and support each other to build towards a true connection and emotional presence by an honest relationship? How do you think hanging out with these psychopaths affects your ability to be with non-psychopaths? I can't see how such relationships help you towards a goal of emotional consciousness and healthy relationships. Having emotional issues doesn't make you dishonest, if you are with someone you can be honest about your state to and actually share yourself versus having to hide yourself and having a null relationship. Don't feel you can do it? So what, you're not getting anywhere by giving up and making yourself less available to conscious or honest people by hanging out with psychos. Quitting is the only way to truly and completely fail. You want a real relationship you have to try. You're almost certain to be better of than hanging out with destructive people. I'd rather be alone, a net zero, than with negative people, bringing me down and completely emotionally unavailable who offer nothing real. Fight for your life. Is there such a thing as a person, per se?

You are what you support. Supporting dishonesty makes you dishonest. Aiding murder makes you a killer. Charge: Accessory to lie. That's why a person of integrity can't hang out with and support immoral and dishonest people, but must challenge them to fix their ways or leave them should they fail to change.

Agreed. Lines like these at the end give it away: "Asked to comment, Dr. Ben Carson said that as a pediatric neurosurgeon he often had to make life-and-death decisions. He said something else, but it wasn’t audible to reporters standing close by." (Bold mine) Uses a bunch of common quotes and memes for candidates to create fake responses.