D.D.

Yes please, tell me more.

Welcome to this forum - I love the big text, my eye's are getting worse as I age. I was disappointed not to see your own presentation of the examination. Perhaps a display of your initiative for this topic will motivate others to cross-examine and contribute to it. I look forward to the reveal.

I could be wrong but the impression I get from your position is that the land ownership/use issue is an exterior for a deeper issue. The deeper, and perhaps not the deepest or only, issue that I see here is equality - some have more than others. Maybe that's an over-simplification as I try to break down a more complex situation - let me know if I deviate. If so, then maybe a podcast on the topic of "The Ought from the Is" might help add a foundational block to your rational mind when pondering human disparity even though this podcast is under the context of morality. I was unfamiliar with the term "landed property". Based on my understanding of this term after searching, the government is the largest beneficiary of landed property. They achieve this by violating the NAP, which Eudaimonic has referenced above. When I looked into Georgism philosophy as an economic ideology that could be applied to land I own *cough: Bribe the local mofia off for monopoly of*, I realized, perhaps incorrectly, that I would simply become the middle man between land renters and the government. Plus the multiple decades long tax kickback from property devaluation (buildings, etc.) comes from taxpayers such that the taxpayers are basically reimbursing property investors for their investment until they see a 100% return on investment. I figured I completely misunderstood the ideology because that seemed too good to be true.

I agree with you that they are not mutually exclusive. My understanding is that a philosopher is an umbrella term for an intellectual, lover of wisdom, containing both a true and false self. The term philosopher does not mean that the intellectual is adept with these selves. The distinction I was making is that the world could benefit more from true selves - people who are spontaneous, expansive, loving, giving, and communicating - people who accepts others feelings without judgement and fear. To contrast that with the false self, that part is our egocentric ego that feels uncomfortable, strained, or unauthentic - focused on what others think of it, it is envious, critical, idealized, blaming, shaming and perfectionist. A human-being is composed of a logical and emotional brain. The emotional is ancient and trumps the logical side. From what I see, our species is the cutting-edge of evolution which strains to incorporate these two halves - hence, Stef's contribution to ethics. With more intellectuals who also pursue self-knowledge and are adept with their true-selves, we would not see a philosophy forum composed of conversations with down-votes or the rationalization of ill behaviour - instead, there would be civilized rebuttals with the understanding that we are fallible and open to reparation. This makes me wonder if philosophy is second to psychology. Let me know if that's more helpful / comprehensible than my previous post.

Interesting question. Here's another perspective: Does the world need another philosopher or does the world need more true selves?

Welcome first time poster! My understanding is that you don't own land, the government is the perpetual owner of said land unless conquered by another government entity. The government, Canada and USA as far as I understand it, issues land titles/deeds which gives title/deed holder exclusive use of land as per title/deed provided property taxes are fulfilled - sometimes the trees &/or mineral rights remain under the governments ownership. As for the rest of what you wrote, researching the internet will be more fruitful than here since others (referring to non-FDR members) have proposed similar ideas regarding land ownership. Georgism is one economic philosophy that incorporates land distribution. Perhaps you'll share why this topic is important to you, you're level of experience researching said topic, and what does "justice" mean to you. That's a lot of questions, right.

I did. You only want a conversation using speculation. There's nothing wrong for wanting that kind of conversation because that's exactly what the OP wants as well. In fact, there's a shift on this forum away from the following: This was why I apologize for my participation in this thread - I'm applying a philosophical methodology using reason and evidence as per the original purpose of this forum. The market (members of this forum) do not want this. I've been involved in several conversations, I use that term loosely, where some people are offended when asked for reason and evidence to the point where they are clearly abusive and nobody appears to be held accountable for their actions here. How can this group enforce the social contract, law of the land, or an implementation of DROs (Dispute Resolution Organization) in society when this group cannot do so in their own backyard (this forum) where it is more manageable? This is a rhetorical question.

No reason to take you serious.

Yes, that would be a passive-aggressive response. I'll assume your question is your way of joking. I must apologize for claiming that you, Mishi, have been passive-aggressive with me in this thread. You have said that you were not and so I must treat you and others with a presumption of innocence...again, I apologize for misunderstanding your text as passive-aggressive. I will be making sure that I don't treat others in future interactions without a presumption of innocence. As for this thread, the OP wanted "theories". My participation in this thread has been to give voice to FDR's guideline statement: however, this is in conflict with theorizing and so my participation has only been a disruption to contemplations, speculations, conjectures, and guesses. I'm not saying these things are wrong under the context of this thread, since that's what the OP wants, and there is room within this forum for such conversations. Therefore, correct me if I'm wrong, but I must also apologize to everyone in this thread for derailing this thread. You're going to need to provide an argument to support your claim that I'm a "concern troll". I would also appreciate it as a sign of respect if you could direct your argument to myself, on this thread, instead of through a passing comment to Mishi or anyone else here. I've looked up concern trolling but fail to understand how I fit this term.

No need to paraphrase when you have quotes. Through your paraphrasing, you have used words that I have not, creating an image of me that suits your claim that I'm bullying you. I have not agreed to misunderstanding you, only the possibility that I may have misunderstood a previous comment by you as not passive-aggressive on the condition that you comprehend what it is to be passive-aggressive - it does not appear like you have that level of self-knowledge. Furthermore, I made 2 replies to you before you made that highlighted comment shown above which doesn't build a strong enough case to use absolute language like "constantly" and "definitely". How many people don't have the patience? You say 2 days - Where did you collect this data and how many instances did this occur? How did you arrive at the conclusion that people are leaving because of your claimed wait time? Did you contact them? Please provide your collected data with all sources so that we may, if we choose, review your claim - otherwise, your just saying stuff. Did you contact Michael to find out if and why your posts are delayed? It's not the wait time that bothers you - my questioning your guesses is the problem for you. You prefer to just say stuff without having to go through the difficult and lengthy process of presenting your reasoning and supporting evidence. Ethnicity: The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. Your still trying to use your ethnicity as a way to define board members behaviour as bullying. Being East-Asian is said to belong to a culture - you keep saying stuff without evidence based reasoning and no, just because I'm a donator does not mean I have power over you thereby allowing you to fit me into the definition that makes you happy. You're trying to use two different definitions for bullying in an attempt to just win. I think I'm beginning to understand what this "chess-game" term is, or maybe I'm treating this conversation like a chess-game by not allowing you to just say whatever you want without principles. Should I step aside and let this forum swell with members who make relativistic posts? Is that how we can avoid being called a bully? What about members who make posts that women are dogs that need to put into place, as seen here? Does that members bigotry, as evidenced, not support a forum banning motion? Will others speak against bigots or will bigot supporters help them while others remain silent? Am I making people uncomfortable? The problem is I'm misunderstanding you? You've confused you're unpleasant experience with philosophy for me.

Definitions are not inconsequential crap - it's how we set forth clear meaning to words. How can we have a rational discussion if the words we use to communicate with have different meanings? The implied claim that forums is not part of social media was incorrect, according to the definition.

Please do not put words in my mouth - your re-framing is inaccurate. The prior posts are here for anyone to read. Finally, actual evidence to support your speculation, not just your words - thank you. Why was that so hard? Next, we could investigate why there was a delay in the posts. The best people to help you would be the forum administrators. If your really curious and want the truth, perhaps contact Michael at [email protected] with the relevant information. For what it's worth, I've had some posts marked as "hidden" and shown as pink/red after clicking the Submit Reply button. I don't know why this occurs but I move on with my life as the post eventually goes through. It's great to read that you're trying to present evidence to support your thought...but your ethnicity does not excuse you from others questioning your integrity. Definition of bullying (source: Merriam-Webster) : abuse and mistreatment of someone vulnerable by someone stronger, more powerful, etc. : the actions and behavior of a bully In the context of this thread, we're not interested in your ethnicity. We're interested in your ability to provide reason and evidence to this conversation. These are the only apologies of yours that I found, as shown below: If "Pardon me for not being clear." was not passive aggression, then I would apologize for my accusation....however, my conversation with you thus far has left me to conclude, with a high probability, that you don't know what it is to be passive aggressive. Even I'm having to keep checking with myself to make sure that I'm as assertive as possible in this conversation. I'm not sure what you mean by "chess games". My understanding is that treating a conversation like a chess game would be to engage in a conversation where the other participants are treated as opponent(s) with the purpose of placing said opponent(s) under an inescapable threat of defeat/capture. Where as, the definition of debate is: a contention by words or arguments. Our polite chat about politics became a heated debate. a regulated discussion of a proposition (see 1proposition 1b) between two matched sides. The difference would be having an argument using reasoning (the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way) as opposed to having a position regardless of reason and evidence. What's your thoughts? Perhaps I've exhibited this "chess game" behaviour.

Definition of social media : forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (such as videos) Therefore, forums = a form of social media and it's purpose is equal in the present.

You originally wrote an unsubstantiated response to the OP's question. When asked for evidence, you deflect with even more unsubstantiated responses and passive aggression defences, as shown below: The value gained from exposing the lack of evidence in your responses, is to show and remind others of a standard to empirical based philosophy - otherwise, things become subjective and unverifiable. Threads like this one appear as a growing result from a lack of logical arguments supported or backed by evidence. If the comments here turn into the kind found on YouTube or Facebook, the philosophical passion is drained from some members to engage in serious conversations - the wrapping of non-arguments in philosophical language is transparent to those who recognize sophistry. The appropriate response can only be to bring about the change that is missing - not more unsubstantiated thoughts. While there are other contributing factors like the ability to have better conversations outside of texting and the satisfied early FDR members for philosophy, it could be argued that the recent increase of political discussion has quickly attracted a different group of unlike minded people, however, this is in accordance with FDRs goals - to bring philosophy to the world. With the provided forum, open access to an extensive amount of knowledge, and new members, it is up to those who are willing to reason from first principles (in accordance with empirical evidence) to add their voice when they can, regardless if it's difficult. The alternative is relativism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qpXdEnaHCE

The point I was trying to help you understand is - you have assumed FDR is over-regulated because you experienced issues posting. Your conclusion (FDR is over-regulated) was based on unknown posting issues. Your reasoning has holes. When I ask for your evidence to support your assumption and you cannot provide it, then why should we agree with your conclusion? Incorrect. You do not get to redefine terms. A donation is a gift given by physical or legal persons, typically for charitable purposes and/or to benefit a cause. A tax (from the Latin taxo) is a financial charge or some other type of levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or a legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state in order to fund various public expenditures.[1] A failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to taxation, is usually punishable by law. You're just saying stuff. What are the "goods"? How are they "undoubtedly limited by the admins"? You have not argued anything here. How do you know that people are using the reputation system the way you expect? Do you have a log of all reputation points and the reasoning behind them? The answer is no, nobody can provide the empirical evidence to support their argument that the reputation system here on FDR is being used to accurately rate member arguments. Making accusations of members misconduct without evidence and reasoning is a sign that you lack the integrity of being honest nor your capacity to understand the severity of your claim. I hope you can understand and make the necessary correction. I never agreed to this. I put forth the "likelihood". You did not read what I wrote. You're also reaching on your speculation which is significantly less likely to be true than the ones I provided. You have extremely limited time interfacing with the forum software. Perhaps the admins experienced some buggy behaviour and for them an upgrade was desired. Please take the time to read and understand - this question was not directed to you. Sorry to be abrasive but it is annoying knowing that some people do not take the effort. Me want your thoughts - what podcasts & book content & why?