John R

I’d like to talk about Stef’s version of The Cave. I’m messing up the view count because I’ve watched it at least 10 times. Beautiful stuff! That said, I think the story is incomplete. The most important parts are missing, such as the force that pulls, and the people working the shadow puppets. The philosopher realizes the key to his chains is in his hands. He gets up and looks around. He sees an enormous cage that houses the fire and the people working the shadow puppets (no guards). The shadows are ridiculous to him now. The only way to talk to his family and friends is to pretend what they see. He tries to convince them that they have the key in their hand, just so he can have someone to talk to. He could be doing this for years or decades. He might actually get some people to unlock their chains. And together they keep on fighting to unlock more chains. Then one day, the philosopher convinces a stranger to unlock his chains. The Stranger stands up, looks around and says, “Look! There is an exit”, and they walk out together. Bible speak again (sorry): A philosopher helps people unlock their chains; a Prophet shows the Philosopher the exit. A Prophet only works on a philosopher and a philosopher only works on the chained. A prophet can be a philosopher, but a philosopher can’t be a prophet until he has seen the sun. If you mess with the system you might get murdered. EDIT: I just thought of an epic Philosopher that helps take chains off though comedy...Ricky from trailer park boys! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO1RLnJBQzc EDIT 2: With the corruption (or mis-interpretation) of 'absolute forgiveness' Christianity fell like this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcTsxs-anU EDIT 3: Sorry, don't want to bump. I just wanted to comment on the '4 ways rules can be enforced' video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzY1D1flhT8 I think it was good, but over complicated. I think Newtons 3rd law works here too. There is one formula to enforce rules, but it can be stacked for multiple levels of rules. It goes like this: "I want the love of, and fear the punishment of ______________" It could be God or State, or for kids it could be Parents or Guardian...whoever you love, trust or envy (stack-able). To get the love, you need to love and obey. This will result in fearing the punishment less, because you are not going to break the rules. If you don't care about the love, you will fear the punishment more, because the punisher doesn't care about you. But, this also results in 'nobody to impress', so is the punishment worth it? With Fear, you have to deal with punishment, which means government and its Wack-A-Mole tactics...The downward spiral of Society I go to an Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and I can't recall my Pastor ever talking about Hell.

Sorry to divert slightly. I just heard a podcast to from Alanis Morissette. This podcast is the closest thing to implementing the plan, without the knowledge of what the plan actually is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMpRtNGVTK8

Nope. I'm saying the larger the government, the worse it gets. Zero government is best.

No. If you are truly trying to understand my argument (which I think you are), then it's my fault for not explaining it proper. And, don't worry about your english, its my first, and only, language and I can't seem to use it. My intent was not to get this deep into the plan (how to defend against aggressors), but let me try. Newtons 3rd law: for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. Another way to look at it, is in opposites (up/down, left/right, yes/no, good/evil). An army is just an organized group of fighters. What you do with that army is based on freewill (attack or defend). 'Attack' is by force and 'defend' is to stop the attacker (no more). And the army would be more like the militias of the revolutionary war. everyday citizens, not paid to fight, but defending their family, so they can live in peace.

Right on! The government has grown so large it has confused our moral thought process. This is a good way at looking at it.

I'm sorry, I can't show you the plan. I guess, I just can't get the right words out.

Please, don't confuse this plan with breeding an army of invaders by the use of force. In fact it's the opposite of that. It's breeding an army of defenders by the use of freewill. Protect your children. If you unleash them onto the world without reason, then you be damned; and let God have mercy on their soul (maybe they will find a guardian angel). And with natural evolution, the Low IQ people will be breed out.

I'm sorry, the 'governmental presence' I was talking about was love (or your soul). You are a guardian to your children. When they are young they have low reasoning skills. Your job is to be there and stop any altercation from happening, then tell them why it would be bad to do what they wanted to do. As they get older, they develop their reasoning with help from you. This lets them be able to start being unsupervised for short periods of time. Eventually, they have developed their reasoning enough that they can live on their own. One problem with this process is 'playdates' or babysitters. If the person guarding your child is not on your level (the 'do what you want' person), things start to fall apart. And people that unleash a person, with no reason or little reason onto the world, is equivalent to the devil unleashing a demon on earth. That demon might have all the good intentions in the world, but without guidance, he is doomed. I agree with you that all the other stuff sounds hard to handle. I don't know how it will all play out, but if we can get people on the right level, I believe it will be alot easier. A thought about the Languasites came to me this morning. They have already begun to adapt into their final form. I call it, 'the devils Hail-marry pass' (his first and last trick). Sarcasm = "you believe your reasoning over me?" If we look at the bible, the book of Genesis, there is a chapter called 'The fall of man', the serpent convinced Eve to take a bite of the apple with one sentence, "you will not certainly die". Now, read that sentence with sarcasm. Edit: HaHa! Get it? The devil is a serpent because he has no arms or legs to stand on (with his argument)!

I think you are still over complicating the argument. I think the problem is we need to get government out of your reasoning. Like, in the 'murder person C or I'll kill you' arguement, Person C is irrelevant. I don't know too much about IQ, but it sounds like the Flynn Effect is related to society's ability to reason. There is an infinite amount of situations to reason on. The more of those situations that you have trained on, the better chance you have with ones you haven't. The Government is taking away your need to reason, so the Flynn Effect is dropping. Stef, lit the fuse yesterday... www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kler8K4tIPM While Stef is taking on the world solution, we can help with making a small change to our own Peaceful Parenting. We need to remove any notion of a government in our teaching of reason: Don't hit, you'll get in trouble (NO) Don't hit, he might hit you back (Yes) Don't steal, you could go to jail (NO) Don't Steal, you wouldn't want someone to steal from your family (YES) The only purpose for government is 'Self Government'; to protect children and people with little or no reason (Watch them, so they don't get hurt).

I agree here too, except you are confusing global state with global society (global state is by force)

Thank you, I think I'm clear about your argument. I don't believe mother nature has changed, only human morals. We can try to use human history to find the answer, but if we step back we can see that nothing in history ever worked (our morals are changing too fast), while nature hasn't changed. I do agree that there will be different free states across the globe, do to slightly different principles. But, eventually we could all be under one free society.

I'm sorry. I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. Both those statements can go both ways (except it goes with mother nature, not against).

Sorry. It just came to me. If this Proof is true then we now have a definition of 'God's Plan' - A global free society, through the democracy of Freewill (Heaven on Earth). Look at that! The Ark of the Covenant is a ballot box!

I think he agreeing with you. Because you used 'murder' and 'not immoral' he reasoned your idea.

You got it man! You are right on the brink! Smash those 2 people together with Newton's Third Law. If people Morally believed 'an eye for an eye', They would never gouge anyone's eye out, therefore no punishment. And, people can be reprogramed through reason (freewill). We are just at odds with this, because of our language (More on this later). My closing argument The fact that you believe or don’t believe in God is irrelevant in this argument. That argument is on a higher level. How we have reason is irrelevant as well (Maybe they’re linked?). The current point is that the Plan maximizes the 'happiness-to-life expectancy' ratio of the individual and, in turn, the society. With that being said, I’m Christian, so I’m going to riddle the rest of my closing statement with religious undertones to show how close the plan is linked to Christianity (The corrupt version of Gods Plan). I believe I’ve found the Ark of the Covenant (a proof for “Absolute Morals”). This Ark only speaks God’s language. Any Corrupted actions will give false positives. So, in order to get a Good reading, we need to tear down the Tower of Babel and Baptize the action. So, we must first ask this question: Do I believe this action is accepted by my society? (It can be global acceptance, but let’s stick with country for now). If not, you need to cleanse the corruption and try again. If you can’t cleanse it, the moral is not accepted in your society. There are two types of corrupt ‘actions’ in society: 1. An action with a purpose attached to it: Vote – to trade for a promise 2. An action with multiple meanings or actions a. Abortion – medical surgery - Surgery with the purpose to better my health b. Abortion – non medical surgery - Surgery without any purpose to better my health Once you cleanse your action down to the lowest common denominator, we can drop it in the Ark and see what it tells us. 2 part proof for an ‘Absolute Moral’: Both answers need to be answered correct. 1. Happiness (answered “yes”) a. Would you want this action performed on you? b. Or If the action is being performed on you: would you want this action performed on your family? 2. Life Expectancy a. Is there any threat to my health? (if answered “yes”, go to b.) b. If so, because of freewill, is this threat worth the risk? (answered “yes”) (Moving is not moral, but worth the risk – Original Sin) Funny… Freewill is only involved with your life expectancy (“Hold my beer while I try this!”) Stef, On March 29th you sent out a call to arms. We need to find a plan soon, or we are going to fall into chaos. I started with trying to fix the government. But, I realize government is irrelevant when it comes to religion. I believe I found that plan. I think you were looking for God’s ‘Uncorrupted’ Plan all along. www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcS-NglyU3M

Beautiful!

I think we are on topic and thank you for your participation So, I’m saying that everyone starts with a blank slate. We need to be programmed to reason and through reason, choose our beliefs. That’s crazy! I could choose that drugs and prostitutes are moral? Yep, but using religious speak, those morals would be a sin. But in today's language, they would be bad for us. So, how do we find a balance that we can survive and be happy? We need Newton and his third law. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (as long as it’s not corrupted) gives us these ‘Absolute Morals’. As long as we stay on that line, our survival/happiness ratio is maximized. Ofcourse, we are human, so to stay on the path is impossible, but as long as we know where the path is, we can find our way back. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist. With the help of a religion of ‘absolute morals’ we found the bastard and revealed his trick. He told us he was corruption instead of deceit. We pulled the curtain away on The Wizard of Oz and said, “LOOK! It’s not the lie that is the cause, it’s the liar!” Now that we have found him, we can stop him. And we can also look back at the damage he did…and it is enormous! He is in Government, Religion and even language. He is in the Bible and the Dictionary. How can religion be defined as “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects” and “an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods”? IT CAN’T! Life’s only desire is not to die (the Soul). With this argument, we can’t think in terms of 'how good we want to live, because it can give false positives and corruption. We need to look at it by ‘how not to die’. In other words, finding what is bad for you makes it easier. Here are some good ones, with the corruption underlined: Non-medical Surgery is bad for me, except for abortion. Suicide is bad for me but not others (besides being the complete contradiction of life)

I think I see your argument now. I think you are confusing 'morals' with 'socially acceptable'. Society greatly influences a person, but only the person can decides their morals, and an Absolute Moral is hard to shake.

I'm think we are on the same page in the definition of moral(s), but let me make sure... A moral is what you believe. like, back in the day, slavery was moral. I don't believe we are talking about this moral. I think we are talking about 'Absolute Morals', like NAP. A moral, until un-corrupted, can change (for better or worse) until you hit the 'absolute moral' or chaos. The 'absolute moral' is the point were the punishment is equal to the crime. For 'absolute Morals', if your argument has a clause or exception you haven't hit the 'absolute moral', because clauses and exceptions are corruption. If we use your latest argument as an 'absolute moral' then: A sick mofo threatens to kill your family if you don't kill someone should be equal to The current government threatens to kill your family if you don't pay taxes. We do it, but it's not moral. Slavery (in the west) is an excellent example of an accepted 'absolute moral'. Slavery is morally wrong because no one wants to be enslaved. The government enforcement on slavery is extremely low in comparison to the enforcement of taxes.

I think you are correct. I see now that we where thinking the same all along. I was confusing your above statement for that of whom threatened you. As you can see in my argument above, what the threat actually is, is irrelevant. You can always weight the' threat claim' against the options. Like, I'm going to kill you if you don't give me $100. you can kill the guy (or attempt to kill the guy), but i would give him the $100. That is one sick mofo. Because he is sick, doesn't mean you can be morally clear of murder. You can do it, just not morally.

People are so afraid of the consequences of individual NAP moral beliefs that they forget about freewill (reason) when using it as a religion. If you could type every single infinite motal belief of NAP into a computer, using reason (freewill), there is only 1 common outcome into being happy...DO NOT DECEIVE. So, in using the terms of todays religions it goes like this: Because of freewill, Gods only purpose is to show you the devil.

If you truly believe you are being threatened it would mean you believe there are only 2 outcomes. Option 1: they fulfill the action against you Option 2: they tricked you into believing they were going to act against you. If option 2 happens, then the actual action against you was merely a trick (a simple deceit). But while in the process of threatening it is a deceit to make you believe option 1.

I think you are over complicating my argument. I'm using the definition of Religion as 'adhering to a particular set of moral beliefs'. You are right, "he might hit back" as written is not a moral belief, but it leads to a moral belief, through reason, that hitting only gets me hurt...which is not good. NAP only works on people that can reason. The punishment in NAP is to vindicate the victim, by applying the same loss to the criminal. Punishing a person that can't reason is not punishment in their eyes, only hate. Therefore, applying the same loss of the victim to a person that can't reason is not the same. The punishment would have to be altered to make it equal. And in regards to a child, they are learning reason, so you also need to inform them of the true possible consequence, so they can reason their own mortal beliefs. I don't get your argument for going into profound disorder. You would rather die off then to let some other countries die off when they are going to die off anyway? I didn't say it was going to be pretty. I would just like to get the largest population I can to survive. I would love to help everyone. I don't think it's mathematically possible, but we can try. And we wouldn't NAP against Terror attacks because they wouldn't share our belief in it.

How about this... The threat of anything, is a deceit-in-progress. as long as the threat looms, it counts as the actual deed.

I didn’t watch the pod cast, but from what you wrote about it, it sounds correct to me. It also agrees with my previous post. And peaceful parenting is the perfect example to link the two. There are 3 levels of peaceful parenting: Level 1 example: “Don’t hit” - This added zero morality to the child so the child will find virtues elsewhere. Level 2 example: “Don’t hit. Because it’s wrong” Or “Don’t hit. Apologize”. – Once the parents are gone, it’s not longer wrong or has to apologize. Level 3 example: “Don’t hit. Apologize or he might hit you back.” – This gives the child the ability to reason. You are showing the child how to act if they are found in a similar situation. Level 3 is what we are talking about when referring to peaceful parenting, so let’s break down the example: “Don’t hit (the action). Apologize (the government), or he might hit you back (the moral belief). Now if we look back at all 3 examples we see that we can’t have true peaceful parenting without moral beliefs. And if the ‘action/moral belief’ is consistent then you have religion. This template works for all religions. Let’s look at a current State run religious example: “Don’t hit. Pay a fine or go to jail.” So, Nap works by not only making the ‘action/moral belief’ consistent, but absolute equals as well.