john cena

Care to share?

I can personally feel for the pain that resulted in and from your drug use. By no means am I trying to convince you to do something you obviously have a fear of, but I do feel the fear is unfounded as for the use of psychedelics. LSD is hundreds of times safer than pot and thousands of times safer than molly, you'd have to take over $100,000 worth of it to even possibly die, which you would also die if you ingested that much pure natural serotonin. As for pot and molly and dxm from walmart.. yeah of course that's not something to do often, or at all in the case of the last one. Those are terrible for your body (to a lesser extent pot obviously) and do not really provide any risk effective benefit from my point of view in terms of opening the mind. Absolutely, if you can not grasp reality while you are on psychedelics, of course you're not going to be able to get anything productive done. Obviously if that's the case, it's not for you. Remember, It's a tool like anything else. However I am simply saying that if you are secure enough in your mind to grasp reality from such an altered state, the benefits are exceptional. That and good company on the same level and ready to spend the next 10 hours delving into philosophy.. Well it's absolutely worth it in my opinion. Altered does not equal bad, immoral, or wrong implicitly. Your "sober" mental state is influenced by MUCH more than your state on LSD, you may not believe me but I actually feel more sober and objective if i can focus my energy, as it removes all human impulses for a while such as sleep, eating, sex drive, and most importantly once you break the barrier of ego and enter "ego loss" it is akin in my opinion to a deep meditative state. Basically your brain is overloaded with sense data to the point where it only has time to deal with the here and now in front of you. That's the most concise way I can explain it, all of the information that your brain usually discards about the environment (like 90% in my opinion) because it finds this information useless or counterproductive to it's goals. Really the single most effective result of psychedelics is Ego Loss (Or ego death. I prefer the term loss as it returns in a few hours..) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death Ego death is a "complete loss of subjective self-identity."[1] The term is being used in various intertwined contexts, with related meanings. Didn't mean to hijack the thread, just some thoughts on a probably subject you do not wish to enter back into, which I fully respect.

This is all purely speculation at this point in the game.. no worries. One more point; In addition to cause and effect, the laws of physics dictate that you cannot create nor destroy energy. Therefore not only did the universe have a cause, but a specific origin of each and every particle. Something at some point in time must have created the matter, else it would not exist. On it's face, conservation of energy appears broken if you merely look at our universe only as a closed system, I speculate that the laws of physics are indeed not broken, logic is not broken, and there some God or creator or "root cause", whatever you want to call it. This proves that the universe must have had a cause, else the entire laws of physics framework as well as logic are not sound.. Something I do not rule out entirely, but if that's true we might as well all be nihilists.. Which if we are why the hell are we even on this forum right? If you really think about it, you can never come to any thought without arriving there from a previous thought. Although the complicated concepts of thought in human beings really don't have a definite beginning point, i'd say it's fairly self evident to any sentient being that every thought has a previous thought, akin to every effect having a cause. This shows that even in the intangible false reality of our minds, cause and effect are active on complex scales seen nowhere else in the universe outside of our brain matter. It's pretty amazing.

Am I not arguing from empiricism here? As far as I thought, evidence trumps concepts. Therefore, every effect has a cause. You saying that an effect may exist without a cause is just as incredible as my claim for God; there is no evidence for either. Having a cause does in fact according to causality imply having a causer, although not that the causer must be a sentient being. The "causer" would simply be the cause for that effect which is the initiation of the universe. Remember, God is the root cause of existence on which all effect is fundamentally founded, this is where I argue from. I am not arguing that God is a human figure or "being", but some "thing" (literally no better word here) the likes of which we can't comprehend at all beyond the simplification to "boundless love" taught by Jesus. I am for certain that once we die, we will have all of infinite eternity to potentially be resurrected. According to physics, anything that can happen, will happen. Eventually an identical copy of us will or already exists, somewhere. If this probability is high enough that it can simply happen on it's own due to random mutation of the universe, who are we to say some being not only transient of time, but the creator of time, can not manipulate these things easily? This in itself is the moth/flame concept in a nutshell. We are always ignorant, objectively speaking. We can only be intelligent in relation to other human beings. To truly be wise is to accept you know effectively NOTHING, and to assert otherwise is willful ignorance, to your own ignorance. I don't mean this in a demeaning tone, simply words said by men wiser than I.

I plan on doing that eventually, however my crippling social anxiety leaves my real time argument skills somewhat pathetic, akin to a deer in the headlights. I've had nowhere near the length of time I would need to develop a clear argument for God, and I'm sure Stefan would come up with something to refute me that I would not be able to immediately dismantle in the moment; it took me months to understand the flaw in his reasoning about the logical contradiction of a God being both all knowing and all powerful. That said, one day when my understanding (as well as the field itself) of fundamental quantum physics is where I need it to be, as well as the metaphors I need to convey my message accurately, I will certainly come on the show for this topic. As of now, I am a twenty year old struggling to get by in the world and I would most likely harm the argument I'm trying to convey.. At this moment, my understanding is that we can not know, or ever know. I however am an optimist, and I acknowledge my stance is rooted in this optimism. Now psychedelic use to expand the mind to new frontiers is something I am interested in doing a call on very soon, you might get an email from me here shortly on the subject.

Here's my question to the community: If Jill leans to Jack and whispers the location of a hidden treasure that he has discovered and wishes for him to go and claim, yet the conversation is overheard by a third party who goes and gets it first, depriving Jack of the treasure Jill discovered specifically for him. This could also be applied to a situation where Jill whispers secret plans for her new novel/machine/program that is sure to make millions. Again a third party secretly listens in and "takes" the idea for himself before Jack has the means to produce it himself. Has the NAP been violated here? Clearly information was received by a person it was not intended for, and this information used in a way not intended by the transmitter. Is this morally right, wrong, or neutral in this case? Is the responsibility merely held by the transmitter of the message to ensure it's contents, or is there some responsibility by the third party not to exploit overheard conversation? Would this be handled at all through morality or simply contractual obligation?

Wow, I didn't get to check on this topic for a while, AMAZING replies guys, thanks a lot. I will certainly use this information to my advantage the next time something like this comes up for debate in my personal life. Scrolling through the well worded and thought out replies, I couldn't help but blow milk out of my nose at the concise nature of your proof. Well done sir

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality Logically, each effect must have a cause. I can't answer why, that's like trying to answer why does 2+2=4. It's just a fundamental principle of the universe. Maybe you have an answer as to why the creating of the universe, the very effect that is the cause of all of us being here today, is the one single exception of cause and effect for philosophers.

That makes sense, however it won't convince any philosopher here most likely. To back it up, logic only applies in our universe as we see it. Without time, without sentient brains, there is no logic, we are the sole purveyors of it. God is something very hard to convey, because words are only markings representing some concept we previously understand. Using these terms loosely, if God "exists" outside of time, then being all knowing and all powerful is not a logical contradiction; it is only so when time is a factor. If there is no God existing outside of our universe, it is impossible that we exist today. There must be a cause for our universe; if not, cause and effect and thus logic are null and void entirely. In infinite regression, there must also be a cause to the effect that caused our universe, and so on. Infinity does not exist, it is merely a concept we give to some things we can not conceptualize due to our limited spatial dimensions in which we exist. Therefore, it is logically impossible for God not to exist, in the same way that it is impossible for infinity to exist, even though mathematicians use it every single day reliably. Although that ascribes no form to "him", only that he "exists". Again, I use the term "exists" very loosely here for lack of a better word. There is not really a word to describe the existence of God, just as there is no word to describe the things that existed prior to the big bang. Sure there was something, but without time it most certainly did not "exist". What was it then? Lack of understanding or ability to comprehend God however is not an argument. I would love to see someone refute this argument by the way, I'm very open minded. To answer OP's question: God is the root cause of existance on which all effect is fundamentally founded, this is where I argue from.

How exactly is a miracle being rooted in physics and logic any less of a miracle? I deem a miracle to be an event in which the odds of it happening are beyond the means of the timescale of this universe, things that would not have happened if not for careful planning in the starting conditions of the universe. Of course they can be logically explained, otherwise we must be living in a dream world. More importantly, if you could see physical proof of God, every single psychopath and sociopath would do whatever it took to mold themselves into the ideal candidate for heaven. If you could prove there was a God, the whole thing would be utterly pointless; the invisibility of God to the unbelieving is built into the very fabric of existence itself.

If an AI system is indistinguishable from humans, they will certainly be the death of any human form of life. If there is an AI system at the level of human capability, there will be an AI system not long in the future ten thousand times of that capacity. Ourselves and our "ethics" would mean nothing to robots; if they were sentient, they would probably just kill themselves in my opinion, because what's the end goal? If they are indistinguishable from humans, you can't program them; they would have to learn the same way humans do, trial and error. Therefore peaceful parenting. However I see them becoming superior to humans at almost the very instant they become equal.

You are absolutely correct, we are all very ignorant. If I were a mathematician, I could say our current knowledge in comparison to all knowledge is effectively zero. I am with Stefan on most of what he says, yet I can hear the child like quiver in Stef's voice whenever he attempts to disprove God.. It saddens me to see how his abuse has affected his spirituality .I certainly believe there is a God, as it is logically proven. If there is no God, then either 1. Logic is not real, or 2. We do not exist today. How can I say this? First, I know that I exist. Second and more importantly, without cause, there can be no effect. There must be a cause for our universe, and there must be a cause for that cause, regressing to infinity. Yet infinity does not exist, it is merely a concept that we label something as when we cannot comprehend it using logic. Therefore there must either be a finite starting point of "God" somewhere in time, OR logic must exist in some alternate form elsewhere in existence, which I find much more unlikely and useless. What form this God takes, I do not know. Looking at the relative nature of time, personally I think that God may be some form of collective human intelligence, desperately trying to save us from our own demise. We live in a universe with infinite slices of time, interconnected in ways we don't understand at all. Time is fundamentally no different than any of the other three spatial dimensions, the difference is only in how you perceive them. If that's not something to show you how much of a moth you and I are, nothing is. Might we be one of an infinite number of possible scenarios attempting to create the best and most fit end product of intelligence? May human kind itself be the one thing that God can not achieve by sheer will, but the complexity of which requires trial and error over infinite time to ascertain God-like results? May God himself merely be an abstraction of all collective human good striving through time to reach a singularity which they are all knowing and all powerful? These are questions none of us can answer, and if we could answer them, sociopaths and psychopaths would be doing whatever they needed to to get into "heaven". May hell simply mean we let our universe decay into statism and evil for all of eternity, never to be contacted by the God from outside our universe, the creator? Fundamentally the entire point of God in my personal opinion is to separate genuine people from sociopaths just fitting in for self benefit or benefit of their gene set. Stef would fall into this category of pushing his own genetics. His incredibly smart genes will do much better in a free society than a state society for sure. I don't see any other logical reason to pursue anything if you are an atheist, (IE nihilism) outside of personal benefit. I'm not questioning any principle he puts forward here, they are mostly undoubtedly true, but hopefully you get the point. I've drawn many amazing parallels between Christianity (IE the actual teaching of Jesus Christ, not religion or the versions of the bible translated by popes/kings to fit their agenda) and a free society. I expect many comments like "Well you could match any metaphor to the bible really". Yet, is there any other set of morality specifically that so perfectly fits the NAP than the teaching of Jesus Christ who was arguably thousands of years ahead of his time and had a vision not even conceived of at that point? This isn't even getting into how I think that the Old Testament (Once again, not the version translated by tyrant thugs) is basically a societal guide on how to run life when the majority of people are evil, while the new testament is a guide on how to manage society peacefully once evil has subsided to a level combat-able by peaceful means. You sound like you have reached the pinnacle of enlightenment possible for secular things, or close to it and you are striving to find out more about reality. I will go against the grain of the forum here, and do something not recommended to most. From my own personal experience, if you are concretely rooted in your principles and very comfortable in your own mind; if you do not feel afraid of the dark, and you have no fear of death, I suggest that you look into psychedelics. For many people, they are just taken as a drug or to get some vague and usually delusional information; however, It's extremely hard to convey to you the point to which individuals like myself (IQ 140+) and possibly yourself as well can benefit from being able to see directly into the workings of the human mind, and how it processes information. LSD for one example disrupts the visual cortex in a way that allows some to "perceive their own perception". It's extremely hard for me to convey this to you, it's akin of trying to describe a detailed map of earth using words. It's something like your brain breaking the entire world down into mathematical fractal equations that your brain is able to process. This is something directly evident and observable even in photography, but once the disruption in the visual cortex is gone, you are now "blinded" of true reality due to your brain discarding the information about HOW it perceives, as this is not very useful for hunter/gathering. Another example could be you look at a tree. As a sober human, you only care about fruits or animals on the tree for the most part. Your brain discards all of the information not relevant to that. However psychedelics can allow you to track the movement of every single leaf on the tree just as your sober brain could with one or two leafs. You are able to perceive the entirety of the tree at once, not simply a focused aspect of it. You are able to use the entirety of your vision including peripherals as if they were focused like a telescope. I will swear to you that you would be absolutely god damned amazed at the amount of information your brain is constantly discarding, yet you have the brain capacity to be capable of perceiving if you weren't so focused on food/sex/money. The way that this applies to non visual stimuli such as concepts in your head is akin to using a CPU with four cores to render a graphic, versus using a 10,000 core GPU to render it. Things that were impossible to perceive due to time limitations are now possible, and things that may have taken you years to figure out may be instantly an blatantly obvious to you. Now of course this is not a drug inducing these things, as a simple serotonin mimicking molecule has no such capacity to observe. The capacity is fully your own, your brain just isn't wired to do it normally. Also I should say, drugs like this are completely safe if you are not insane. If you are insane, you will most likely hurt yourself or suffer from paranoid terrifying delusions. However I don't expect you to be this type, hence why I tell you this information, but I see importance to list this for others reading. You are a moth to the light, most certainly. Humans and the predecessors of humans have always been striving to become smarter and more intelligent, and we always will; yet we will always remain close to infinitely ignorant in the grand scheme of things. Do take note than I'm just a twenty year old carbon based lifeform and take these things with a grain of salt.

Throw yourself and your philosophy at the unwashed masses and intermingle with them without prejudice, this is the way to enlighten the world.

So basically your argument is that, if I get a group of people together, and vote to make one of us go and steal from another group, we are virtuous, just not the one who stole? By that logic, murder for hire is fine, as long as you vote on who does the killing..

I specifically remember him ranting about it... I recall him using 320 million as the number of deaths caused by government, and that it was the number one single factor. About vaccines.. There is no proof of them ever curing anything. This is pretty much all you need to know, here: http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf "Figure 5. Polio cases were predetermined to decrease when the medical definition of polio was changed " Once again, government manipulation of statistics.

I came across several articles such as that, however the exact point used to refute my argument was smallpox. "An estimated 300 million people died from smallpox in the 20th century alone. This virulent disease, which kills a third of those it infects, is known to have co-existed with human beings for thousands of years." I'm not sure if I simply misheard, or if Stefan was incorrect, or was using different numbers.

Hi all. I recall Stefan making an argument in one of his past podcasts, claiming that government was the number one cause of death in the 20th century, excluding war. I used this in a debate today, but when I went to source it, I can't seem to find it ANYWHERE! Could someone that has recently come across that give me a link maybe? Thanks guys.

So I came across this video from none other than Oxford Union called "Socialism DOES Work". This guy is so loaded with false dichotomy, incorrect definitions, and general sophistry, I don't even know where to begin. Anyone want to tear into this presentation to help me disprove it? Probably the most absurd thing is where he uses America as an example of the free market..

Is agreeance to adhere to the NAP not a society wide social contract? If 95% of people (non psychopaths) agree to this, it will be impossible for a person to live inside society without caring for their reputation. Sure they can not care and live in the woods.. but at that point who cares?

Actually this is invalid, as anyone who has that much computing power would be wasting their money to crack the bitcoin network. There are much more profitable uses of such a computer. This is like a thief buying a WARTHOG gatling gun to hold up a continence store.. Yeah you got the cash register but you're out $20,000. On a much bigger scale. Even using your computing power to MINE bitcoins would make you far more profit, while retaining the sanctity of the network. Now as for governments with unlimited money that don't adhere to the market.. were fucked.

A fact that needs to be considered, if the minimum wage were to carry the same value today as it did when it was instituted, it would be over $25/hr. This is based on gold/silver to currency inflation rates, however I would argue that the market is SEVERELY undervalued due to chinas gold buy outs in addition to paper "gold" certificated that don't actually exist bringing the supply way to to a fake level. Really, the "disadvantaged workers getting paid $1/hr" back in the 1920's were earning $20-100/hr working factory jobs.. compared to $7.25 now. But WAIT!!! Now we need so much more! Think how much more complex and expensive your house, car, cell phone, etc is than it was then. People has maybe 50 times more money to spend back in the day than we do now. It's all a numbers game they play with your head, just like inflating the debt away.. Ask yourself, if you were getting paid $100/hr for your entry level job, would you feel the same? Even if you did feel the same, you would quickly be able to invest this capitol and gain ranks to a better job. This is exactly what tyrants DONT want. They wait their genetics to stay at the top of the food chain for as long as possible, acting in psychotic ways to put entire populations down. I completely agree with OP. I cannot stand to waste my life working for entry level pay. I would have a better life living in a log cabin i build myself in the woods than working every single day all day to live in a tiny apartment in a polluted city with terrible people. I completely sympathize with people who take welfare simply because getting job experience is so grueling for the unskilled.

I think some of you may be missing the point. Inherently no, there is no privacy guaranteed by the NAP. But remember we can do anything through consensual contractual obligations. First I'd like to say that over the internet, there is absolutely no way to get a really secure connection without physically exchanging keys with the other person. I don't know how interested people are in this, but it's very important. Modern SSL (when your browser says HTTPS) uses public key authentication. This means that when you connect, both parties exchange public keys remotely. Each public key can only be used to decrypt information. Each party then uses a corresponding private key to decrypt the information. This key is kept secret. So in theory if you are directly connected to the person you are communicating with, you are secure. However that is not at all how it works in modern systems. MITM attacks can easily break greater than military grade encryption simply by being the person controlling the internet. If you can listen in, you can gain both public keys, and then communicate with both parties as if you are either of them. This makes traditional encryption utterly and completely useless against government agencies and ISPs. This is fundamental to understand because in our current system there is no recourse for people who are illegally spied on. So in conclusion in the current case of ISP monopolies combined with government tapping fiberoptic/undersea cables and potentially MITM attacking every single encrypted connection in the world, yes it is absolutely immoral that they are doing this, because it specifically goes against your contract with the ISP, as well as violating your supposed "social contract" with the government to a fourth amendment in the US. I'm not sure if you are asking about the current situation, or the situation in a free market. In a free market, privacy would be prediscussed with any ISP you did business with. Without governments having the ability to illegally tap cables without suffering consequences, there is really no problem here. Because if the ISP violates your contract, that are liable for some prediscussed sum. (If you negotiated the contract that way, which I'm sure would be offered as many privacy minded people as there are out there) So in a free society, there are only a few cases for your private information to be solen across the wire. 1. Hackers illegally tap cables and perform MITM attacks.In this case, it is clearly punishable because you are interfering with the property and operation of the ISP which is very serious. 2. The ISP goes back on your privacy agreement, which leads to compensation to you. 3. An attacker gains access to your computer physically, stealing your information. (This is the tough situation) At face value, clearly the attacker has stolen from you by simply using your computer. Electricity costs and wear and tear caused by the attack (however minimal) still exists. Thus at face value they would be in fact violating the NAP by simply accessing your computer without your consent. That being said, I think it does have a lot to do with what is stolen. If they steal nothing but you internet history, maybe you don't deserve any compensation. I simply can't answer that. But if they did steal something like the schematic to a new machine you were designing, an article you were writing, etc these are clearly stealing intellectual property. Don't get me wrong, I am not a proponent of copyright law, however when some plan/article is not publicly available for sale and dissection to replicate it and instead is directly stolen, this is a clear violation of the NAP. If anyone wants to know more about the technical information I discussed: Standard public key cryptography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography MITM attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack In conclusion, absent a giant fiat currency powered NSA able to directly tap private information lines, I don't see any problem with privacy that we can't fix with encryption.

Thanks for your reply. If you're familiar with bible metaphors, it feels as if I'm an Abraham, just coming into my teen years only to realize the town I'm living in.. the one I used to take pride in, is actually a kind of "Sodom and Gomorrah", devoid of actual rational thought and worthy of nothing but destruction. But no I had not seen that thread yet, however I am certainly interested in joining the Skype group, or simply talking with you. Unfortunately due to the spam restrictions on my account it will be another day before I can send a PM. I can imagine ways in putting my contact info on a public anarchist forum, so I will wait and contact you when I'm allowed to PM haha.

Also I should add that I'm only 20 years old aswell.

Hey there, thanks for chiming in. I did do a search for meetups in my general area and the only post I found was from 2010 and was in SC. I am open to having "meetups" but honestly i would probably just try and be close friends with people such as this until I actually got to know enough to have something like that. I do have a lot of sentimental feelings about the states, though I'm not really sure how much of that is me not wanting to completely abandon my former belief in american ideals, even though they vanished long before I was born. So I don't eccentrically want to leave america. I should mention I've spent the last two years in a bigger college town further south and it just seems to be a BIGGER shit hole not necessarily better. The only problem there was that the larger amount of people was pretty much cancelled out by the liberal mindedness of the general college student. On top of that I really don't like cities for various reasons, however I did meet some.. interesting and nice people there. But not exactly the qualities I'm looking for overall. It seems like to me like there would be some city or at least a village freedom minded people to go live in. Are we really that rare? I knew it was rare for people to have such high IQ but I've never actually looked at the numbers. If the average is 99.4%.. think of what it is around here! Also I agree with you completely. I don't really put IQ high at all in my priorities in people and I'm sure you're much smarter in some areas than I am. IQ is mainly a visual spatial recognition test in my opinion. (Even though it can be a great indicator about other areas of the brain) The only reason I mentioned it is, I guess sometimes I point things out to people that are obvious to me yet hard for them to grasp. I'm used to people reacting.. badly to this to say the least.