Will Torbald

I haven't gotten that impression from him. If you can show me a video where he promotes this, that would be great.

Nobody is saying IQ is all a person's mind is. The number is like the speed of a computer (I know it's not the same, just an analogy). It tells you how fast or far you can go, but not where you should go or what you can achieve. You can have success with something creative and a lot of hard work. You can can high IQ and be lazy or depressed, or traumatized. It doesn't mean IQ isn't true, which is what you asked in the OP.

That graph is the empirical data form of the Hot/Crazy Matrix theory.

No such habitable area available, and not enough people against already established military powers. A total pipe dream.

When IQ correlates almost identically to test scores, when IQ can be traced through heredity, when adopted children have the IQ range of their biological parents and not their adopted ones, when IQ correlates to the economic success of a country, when IQ correlates with criminality patterns, when - you get the idea - that's when IQ becomes a crucial measure for populations. Individually it is also helpful as most geniuses can be shown to be several standard deviations above average, and it also has consequences socially when low IQ and high IQ people meet and have incompatibilities.

Ok, so you don't have a solution. Then again, why would you have one if you think the State hasn't stopped any uninstitutional violence. Maybe we should tell the Chicago, Dallas, Ferguson, Detroit, police department to go home! What a waste! If the police stops working, everything will magically solve itself.

Because institutionalized violence is what holds back un-institutionalized violence like riots, terrorism, race wars, looting, savagery, barbarism, lynching, gang violence, and so on. What's your solution to these things without an institution of coercion? I mean a real solution. Not a philosophy.

Calculated terrorism. It won't stop, and it won't get better. During RNC they will protest as well, for sure. This is all in concert for darker times ahead by the people who both puppet BLM and the snipers.

If you're being chased and attacked that makes you a victim, even if you fight back or not. To me, it seems like your mind likes to reinforce a kind of victim mindset in you by regularly giving you visions of persecution. I would ask myself in what way do I benefit in my real life from victimhood and how can I reclaim responsibility of my situations instead of relying of the reinforcement of it. Since they seem to go as far back as childhood I would start there with the events before the dreams and how I felt victimized back then, but also how I never let go of that idealization. That's just a theory, but you can never be sure with analysis either way.

Would you consider yourself a masculine guy? What is masculinity to you? I'm sorry to be blunt, but I had to do a double take while reading your story because I thought I was reading a woman's thoughts the whole time. Not to say you don't have a man inside of you, but if it's there, it only comes out while driving.

1- ok... 2- not necessarily, if she says her stance is X but behaves according to Y then we can infer that the evidence that her stance is X doesn't hold 3- woah woah, back up - since when is believing in X enough to make X justified and true? This makes religions and fairy tales real. 4- yeah, but if she made the differentiation between belief and knowledge, then 4 is just a repetition of the initial case 5- doesn't follow from the objection I made in 3 6- doesn't follow from my objection in the post you're replying to when I say that holding information and holding knowledge are different things. She holds the information of her belief that she can't hold knowledge; not a problem.

I think it is possible to be rational and think of yourself as a hero while others see you as evil. I think it is possible to think of yourself as evil, while others think you're being irrational.

You use knowledge in the way that can be explained as "I have information in my mind". If you say that I need to know English to make an argument, what you mean is that "I have the information of English in my mind". But that is not the Knowledge being debated in the first place. I am not saying people are incapable of holding information in their minds. If I say "I know my position is X" I mean that "I hold the information of the position X as my basis for epistemology about Knowledge in the most abstract and completely philosophical way, containing the characteristics of justification, truth, and belief" - which when disected that way is not a contradiction. That is an issue with the English language for being so crude and basic with the words it has that require entire phrases to differentiate nuances within the same word.

I don't know how to do that, honestly. Either the entire world leaves governments at once, or those who do will be swarmed by those who don't. But my point about the government ballooning isn't so much as to say that it shouldn't exist, but that strong countermeasures against leftist statists who wish to grow the power of the state would have to be taken. Like what Hoppe says when democrats and communists would have to be physically removed in order to maintain a libertarian order since democracy will inevitably lead to people voting for free stuff from the guv'ment. In a sense, that would look like a fascist-libertarian country if it's not an oxymoron.

Where does it say it is knowledge? It's a funny quip, but saying "my stance" is different from saying "I know with fully justified belief". But maybe you didn't read after that and thought it was enough.

SJW's are a tiny minority, but they have the loudest voices, ans the angriest mobs. This leads publishers to appease them and force diversity, but the people who actually read and buy comics aren't buying it, literally. Marvel has always had diverse heroes, but the problem is when they replace white heroes with POC. Imagine if Marvel replaced Black Panther with a Japanese teenager. There would be pandemonium. Replace a white character (like they did with Spiderman, Captain America, the Human Torch, Thor, Ms Marvel) with a POC or a woman and it's great! Like Stef said, diversity is just code for anti white.

I agree, but that's what arguing from a position does. It doesn't mean I ascribe to it. However, if your Sovereignty ethos requires a government to be enforced, you are also arguing basically for what the original founding fathers wanted with America. The problem is that we know how that turned out and governments grow like a balloon once they're set off. But it's true, I also think that an ancap society would be temporary until someone conquers you again.

I think this is correct and it shouldn't be controversial. However, I also think that another component is required, which is success. It's a way of justifying theories a posteriori in the absence of a priori justification of the assumptions. You can believe anything, but only a few ideas will actually succeed when put in action. The purpose of knowledge, I believe, is to bridge the mind with the outer world (if you assume there is one). So you can say that science can't obtain full knowledge, but you can also point out that it has the highest rate of success in bridging the mind with the world, predicting natural events, and taking control of the elements and forces. You may believe prayer will heal your infection, but scientific medicine has more success, thus more justification even if the justification can only be near perfection and never perfect.

For any real anarcho-capitalist society to be truly free from collective government, the rule of absolute property rights has to be enacted. If people demand a list of "human rights" to be shared among property owners, that is, in itself, a government or a minarchy at least. It doesn't change the fact that the realistic outcome of people owning land would turn them into kings within it. And it worked that way for a long time in history, if I think correctly. It doesn't mean I will kill you, since if I am already so tyrannical, I would have gates and control over who comes in and out. Why would anyone want to come in if I am so immoral? Maybe I want, and they want, the company of such people. Those services would be provided given the demand for debauchery is unlimited.

My comment was refuting your "competing desires" argument, and others are doing the same. Not a fraud there. You also make no effort in refuting my "can't create desires from nothing" argument, although I wonder if it's because you have no idea what to say about it. If you want a rebuttal of your "illusion" argument, there's the actual fraud. An illusion is defined by that which is not real. Therefore asking for evidence of illusions is asking for negative evidence, which you can't do. What is real is what is evident, as in, it is real that biology, through brain chemistry and neural pathways, affects people's desires and behavior - and that is provable. I can't "prove an illusion" anymore I can prove Allah isn't real with evidence. When you ask people to prove that free will is an illusion, it is you who have to prove that your concept of free will is real since where the evidence actually is leads to forces that determine to some degree if not all of people's behavior out of their choice. I argue those forces are not absolute since I am not speaking about physical determinism (predictable billiard balls from the big bang leading to funny strawman comments about fate) but brain and physiological forces that define your mind without your input.

I apreciate the reply, but the part you ignored is the best part. If you claim that you can choose between pre existing desires you omit the part where one can ask where did those desires come from. Since those competing desires are not equal, one will win over the other by weight of needs, resources, and availability. What you cut from my post is how a desire is generated. I proposed a scenario where their new desires are biologically non chosen. I also proposed a different method through free will in which someone without a desire can create one on purpose. Verily ignored by everyone else in later posts, too. If you can't create desires, where's the will? As far as free will goes, my idea is that pre existing desires can be resisted with enough training and maturity in order to reach a point where a desire is not a command, but only a suggestion. If that point of self knowledge is not reached, then man is only a puppet of its instincts.

He explained the difference between short term tactics and long term strategy. He still believes in a free society - however, that path can't be travelled if you are swarmed with third world child abusing religious fanatic welfare consuming possible terrorist low IQ civilization destroying women enslaving people. Hope that helps.

Nobody lives independent of time. If your logic doesn't apply within time, it is of no use in the real world.

That people don't choose what they desire is the lynchpin of the argument in the first place. Positive claims like "people do choose what they desire" is what requires the extraordinary positive evidence that you so boldly asked for - there is no negative evidence to prove people don't do something. It is on you to prove or show that what you desire was/is chosen. That, say, a pregnant woman with cravings chose to have a desire for eating ice cubes purely by her conscious volition. Or that a pubescent boy chose to one day desire boobs after he got bored of being a kid for fourteen years. They would have to be in a state of no desire, notice they have no desire X, consciously make a change in their mind to reach a state of desire, and then proclaim they could have not desired X if they wanted.

Whatever happened to "emotions are not tools of cognition"? If there are two flavors in front of you, objectively speaking there are two choices. But subjectively speaking, in your mind, one is more tasteful to you than the other. You didn't choose your tastes, so how would you have freedom to choose if you're going to choose the one you like more? This is similar to the OP's problem with the boy she liked. She couldn't help to avoid her emotional troubles because she had no will in what she liked or not. The last part of your argument is a more verbose "I feel therefore I know". Again, Rand would have words with you.