Magnetic Synthesizer

3 people: B G X G intiates force against B. X engages in violent action to defend B from G's initiation of force. Is X initiating force? I say yes without thinking.

There is no clear frontier between a statement of reality pertaining to a state of mind and a statement of reality pertaining to the truth of the statement outside the fact that it is a declaration of one's own state of mind (unless you claim something true you don't believe in). This makes clarity difficult. ex: Bob thinks he saw an orange with the corner of his eye = statement of reality pertaining to a state of mind There is no orange: statement of reality pertaining to the truth of the statement. There is an orange: statement of reality pertaining to the truth of the statement outside the fact that it is a declaration of one's own state of mind I will use my definition of the word belief: Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, Examples where there are no clear frontieres. Knowledge. The primary definition is: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. in my words: A state of mind describing a reality accuratly and held as truthful by the mind. 1. If I am unsure about something and if that something is true, is it knowledge even wihtout me holding it as true? 2. Is a book, who's contents are unknown to everyone living presently, knowledge? I would hold that knowledge is the intersection of belief and truth as displayed on wikipedia (image in first google search result of belief) Knowledge cannot exist without being believed by a mind or without being true. Is the process of a fire, science before humans have done science? Secondary definition of science. Science=body of scientific knowledge. Therefore knowledge is present regardless of humans. hop hop hop we just extended knowledge to completely fill the word truth and be able to exist without being in someone's mind. I wish this was settled in schools. Those basic vocabularies. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Belief_Venn_diagram.svg/2000px-Belief_Venn_diagram.svg.png This would include words to describe states of mind that intersect with falsehood. (if opinion is always wrong by some people's definition, then it could be that). I would keep belief as is: neutral to truth and falsehood. Maybe put myth as intersection of belief and falsehood. Proceed to move opinion to something else.

Relevant to what? Do you mean relevant to its truth value? Do people really do that? Thats like 2 year olds closing their eyes in attempt to hide from you. The brain is supposed to figure that out at around 3 years old (if I remember correctly). I see this. This really shows that this erea of language and of philosophy is unsettled in our society. I understand your model has a different process than mine. I will illustrate the different stages in order and my model. My objection to your usage of the language is: There is no easy way to describe the ensemble of mental connections which bob holds as truthful after he has garnered satisfactory evidence. When you say truth, it is not known to be describing a state in someone's mind. Altough, knowledge works. So nevermind, I will leave part of the reasoning here ( I discovered I had no objection directly towards your thinking). I discovered a problem with belief, knowledge and the rest of those words. There is no clear frontier between a statement of reality pertaining to a state of mind and a statement of reality pertaining to the truth of the statement outside the fact that it is a declaration of one's own state of mind (unless you claim something true you don't believe in). This makes clarity difficult. ex: Bob thinks he saw an orange with the corner of his eye = statement of reality pertaining to a state of mind There is no orange: statement of reality pertaining to the truth of the statement. There is an orange: statement of reality pertaining to the truth of the statement outside the fact that it is a declaration of one's own state of mind A theory of reality forms in bob's head -> Bob verifies his theory -> with new evidence, bob considers his theory true. His theory is also accurate in reality; It is also knowledge. It also happens to be an eternal truth. My position: the reality of what bob's theory describes was always true and would be so regardless of what bob considered true or false. Bob can consider his theory to be true to a certain degree. The degree can change throughout the process (0 being100% false). In my model there are 2 values. The belief in the mind, and the truthfulness of the belief's description. Do you hold that only statements of preference should be considered opinions? What if it is a statement of reality where I say honestly '' In my opinion, my ice-cream is chocolate ice-cream'' 1. Since it is honest, it expresses true state of mind. If it was a lie it would be a false expression of my state of mind. 2. The ice-cream might or might not be chocolate ice-cream. There could also be no ice-cream at all.

I would maintain the google definition: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. So if it is based on fact or knowledge, it can still be an opinion. The remaining issue, besides scruing up with communication, is it gives entrenched beliefs another weapon. For example the state can call everything it disagrees with an opinion from the start. anyone who comes up with corrections deals with a hierarchy where the entrenched belief is simply stated and his is labbeled ''opinion''. You want to bring something new? great. opinion. Now all the masses under propaganda can use it as a defense mechanism and chant ''lalalalala'' anytime you talk. What if you came to a debate and talked about how you think global warning theories need some corrections [...] and the audience immediatly dismises you thanks to 'opinion' vs 'fact'. Without the new definition of opinion (not mine), it can still happen but it is reinforced with it. If you want to hijack the word opinion, I would like my humanities teacher, stef and others to get the definitions changed in dictionaries to include their added logical components. You (whoever is doing this) are creating a divide in the usage of a word. Now when someone says ''thats an opinion'' I have no idea if he means to state I am wrong.

The rock exists. You see the rock. You think the rock exists. There should at the very least be a word to describe a state of mind where the mind believes something is true. First of all there are issues with hijacking opinion since most people do not think opinion are ineherently untruthful as statements of reality and it is not defined so in any dictionary I've ever seen. Therefore belief and the action of believing, should have absolutly no meaning as to wether the belief or believed object is true outside the subject's mind. By hyjacking belief you have practically removed such a word and further spread doubt on the verb 'believing'. This is a gross error. Spreading it is wrong. Believing it is wrong. Opinion, apparently, is ''wrong by definition. Because if it's a fact, it's not an opinion. In other words, if it's true its not an opinion.'' Well atleast I have the word belief left. Who knows, maybe even thinking something that is true to be true is wrong! Atleast, its wrong to say it. According to some people including Stefan Molyneux. https://youtu.be/Fq6Z_B8RdrU?t=3m32s Great, so nothing but lies can be in the man's mind. Reminds me of agnosticism. In terms of practicality of language there are two ways. 1. Most efficient: You speak in the affirmative. the listener with half a brain recognizes that it's a statement of belief. The fact that someone says it doesn't make it true or wrong. It's just that. *belief in the actual useful definition. 2.You talk more to avoid unsettling other's feelings. Either some people are practicing linguistic ethnocentrism by imposing definitions which are not established or online definitions are all lying. Simply, google opinion or belief. Do I have to do an objectivist syllogism that the following is perfectly consistent: ``The rock exists. You see the rock. You think the rock exists.`` Stop destroying language!

Can someone point me towrads the article regarding feminist bomb threats against men's right activists? Something in this article makes no sense: http://www.rawstory.com/2014/06/mens-rights-activists-blame-feminists-for-alleged-threats-against-detroit-confab/ ''The hotel also required organizers to pay for $2 million in commercial general liability insurance and additional insurance for the police officers, Elam said. Esmay told The Raw Story the insurance policies would cost the group about $1,000 altogether.'' Aren't the group and orgniazers the same people? did they have to pay 2 million or 1000$? I case I have an opportunity to reference it.

Closest I found on google play store was 'Hormone Horoscope'

so lovely

I'm glad I didn't experience that. *back into my mind* intrsopection > noob environement

That is my question, wether they were violent first.

I wouldn't expect your case.

Would business be the first to initiate force? or as a reactionary retribution to the violent unionists?

How can your economy grow under superior foreign competition? https://youtu.be/HGERS905pPk?t=26m11s My draft: People buy cheaper products from foreigners. You can barely sell anything You can barely afford ot buy anything. How does this kickstart? Do you sell your speicality of indu rocks?

On the side, my econ instructor said the french are brown nosers. The meaning he used was deferance to authority. Seeing some of their videos, seems legit.

If you want to help be effective. If you can't win, you are wasting the asset you are. Move out of the worse countries into better ones. Let the worse countries have their dream state, don't worry. They chose it. Let some states fall apart as quicik as possible so they cna serve as an example. Meanwhie, lets try to keep some 'heavens' working.

You can sue gov for not taxing competitors. Ahem, I meant. you can sue gov for not supporting your products through regulation. I guess you could sue gov for not letting you make proper use of their natural ressources.

TEXT: http://anarchiststandard.com/2015/10/how-will-we-get-there-three-potential-paths-to-a-free-society/ Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/3nmdwc/how_will_we_get_there_three_potential_paths_to_a/ Strategy, I love strategy !

I could only find the series of 3 parts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged_%28film_series%29 Stefan talked about an older version made before the year 2000. Can someone help me find it. Knowing the name of the release would help. *triggers filter*

Awesome, plus the more succesful tend to get more profits and vote more. Supposing the succesful have better judgement.

Demo-Cracy and the state make no sense. Since the state is against the power of the people. Anarchy is democracy.

My thought. Also a fun post: http://www.theonion.com/article/marxists-apartment-a-microcosm-of-why-marxism-does-1382

Did you do it yourself?

I might, but I do not have full knowledge to guarantee it. So far there's the quantum woohoo. It's for each singular event. I edited the post to reduce confusion. If no outcome is guaranteed by reality => random

determinists have the empirical high-ground. Souls have more empirical evidence than non-determinism. I hope there will be some direct replies to my questionings and my answer.

Can there be infinity in a system with limitations? I just disentigrated to the bottom hole of a circular reasoning, the kind that determines what is reality and logic starting with nothing but senses and cognition (or just coginition)