mgggb

They're all immoral specifically because of their incestuous relationship with government. Lawyers only exist because of the state and finance is heavily heavily regulated, and the stock market is artificially buoyed with people's savings specifically to avoid inflation. I'll have no part in it. I think I'll have no choice. I absolutely hated high school but psychological topics are one of the few things that can actually hold my attention. If you are able to make money from writing, I envy you. Do you do freelance for a company?

Has anyone had success with treating add/adhd without some form of stimulant? There seems to be nothing written about the subject aside from basic things like meditation and diet. How does one stay modivated to follow through and focus? I'm asking because there are no long term studies on the effects of adderall and I fear it may be something I enjoy too much.

Kek I've been having the opposite problem. Fdr is making my life much more difficult. Been having a low key existential crisis. All the first things that come to mind that I'd be good at, enjoy, and make a decent wage doing are immoral: Lawyer, politician, soldier, investment banker, and teacher. All the secondary things I be good at, enjoy, and make a decent wage doing require a high degree of schooling and I'm not sure if I'd want to do any of them enough to go through the gauntlet that is the modern university: anything medical related. And all the tertiary things seem like they can only fulfill 2 of the 3 prerequisites (be good at, enjoy, and make a decent wage) at any given time: trades or unskilled work.

I feel the same way about atheism. Sure, I don't believe in a deity, but I would never want to be considered an atheist. But doesn't the left do that with everything though? No one cares if you're a vegan or whathaveyou, it's the militant ones that want to moral posture that give them a bad name. Is there a case to be made for the ethical treatment of animals or secular ethics? Sure, but trying to force people to believe what you believe is silly and counterproductive.

Reminded me of the end of Schindler's List. Edit: that was just my first reaction, I've thought about it some more and I think our first responsibility is to make sure our own house is in order. If people did that then I'm confident the atrocities of the nazis would not have happened. Likewise, if everyone was committed to peaceful parenting the need for charity in society would be almost nonexistent.

No it doesn't. If it is not a victimless crime, a la war on drugs, it is self defence extended to society. None of those things you listed are evil. At most they're aesthetically negative if you presume to know the best way for people to live their lives. You think if you waved a magic wand and Facebook et al. disappeared tomorrow people would start living virtuous and noble lives? Modern life isn't ruining people, it simply allows them to manifest more totally and visibly what they already are. People don't become obese by over eating, they over eat because they are obese and capable of manifesting as such. I'm highly ambivalent about this question and have spent a lot of time recently thinking about something similar. What it comes down to is do you think the world deserves to be saved or not. If it does, then to abandoning it would be the epitome of cowardice. If it does not, then not fleeing to a metaphorical galts gulch would not only be foolhardy but suicidal. On the one hand there are the people in the world, so saving it would nessisarily mean saving them. I can only speak for myself, but I have been done plenty of wrong so for their sake I would rather the world not be saved. Clemency to an unrepentant murderer only gives them another opportunity to stab you while your back is turned. Likewise, not letting people suffer the consequences of their actions will make them think actions have no consequences, in regards to welfare, social security, national debts, etc. And that if they try it again they'll get it right this time for sure. But then there is myself. I am a part of the world too, and the most important part to myself since without me perceiving it, the world does not exist for me. Should the world be saved for my sake? I think I would do quite well under both freedom and despotism. If you look at a system as a game instead of something moral or immoral then you just have to use different rules for different games, and smart people tend to do alright whatever game is being played. While I do prefer freedom to tyranny, if it means bringing all those unrepentant mentioned above along for the ride then I'd rather watch the train of civilization derail, since because I can see that the path we are headed on only leads to disaster if unchanged, I can prepare myself for a softer landing, and deal with the wreckage. And last there are those who have not been born, who have done nothing wrong to me or anyone, and will in fact have a great deal done wrong to them if the world is not saved. The way I look distainfully at boomers is the same way they will look at us if we do nothing. So, it is a violation of the NAP of the unborn to not do everything within our power to change course. So as it pertains to your question, "how do we live the good life in a wicked world?": stop associating with evil people, call them what they are, denounce them vociferously, live as freely as you can, raise healthy children, and teach them philosophy. Remember, all these superfluous ones do not have the moral highground. They are leaches that have been sucking your blood since before you were born and will continue to do so to your children and their children until something is done about it.

It does seem like a good reading list but I'm not sure if all of those old scientific works are really nessisary since most of them have been supplanted or overturned. Also I'm not sure why basically all of Shakespeare is listed but Orwell, Nietzsche, Tolstoy, and Dostoyevsky only have one work a piece. And no Bible? I'm not a Christian but come on, it probably the most influential text ever written. I've read say maybe a 10th, and by the looks of it, it does offer a solid base for understanding the history of western thought, but I wouldn't read it in its entirety just for its own sake because it's a massive time investment and there are many good works not included in favor of some that appear less significant. Edit: I missed the second link, it seems much more well rounded.

Personally I like messing around with ersatz intellectuals that use new speak terms because they're so predictable and watching their cognitive dissonance get triggered is hilarious. I try to do it only if there's an audience because their foolishness is a great object lesson for anyone not too far gone. Exposing people for the imbeciles they are is the only way to combat newspeak.

Stefans presentation on the book with Mike Cernovich got me interested in reading it. I had heard of it before but put off reading it because I don't generally like historical works and it is an enormous tome. I've just finished it and these are my initial thoughts: 1. There is no such thing as an innocent leftist. You are either willingly ignorant or knowingly complicit. 2. Leftism intrinsically violates the NAP 3. The only thing keeping people in power is our will to do something about it 4. Horizontal enforcement is the true evil of the Soviet Union Thoughts?

What do you define as the ideal form of monarchy?

It seems like most of your arguments for monarchy is based on consequentalism. Is that an accurate assessment?

Literally every one that walks and breathes. I'm game

Why not? If the monarch is put into power by the divine will of the almighty God as you claim then why would you want to limit their power? There is no such thing as a god. Even if there were, that is entirely self serving. How do you know if the king was chosen by God? The church tells you. Why does the church tell you that? Because they are allowed to be the official religion by the state. Further, every dynastic monarchy that I'm aware of came to power by taking it by force. Government is inherently immoral because it relies on the initiation of force. If by glory days you mean their colonial empires then you're absolutely wrong. The white mans burden is nonsense, if third worlders want to stop living in mud huts, playing in their own feces, its up to them to develop a society thats worth living in. As for every country in Europe being worse off, in terms of human development that is patently false. There is literally no better time period to be living in than the present if not only for the advent of heating and air conditioning. People used to just starve to death and those who didn't were generally suffering from malnutrition, now the biggest problem of our poor is obesity, at least in the first world. Are you larping? No its not a lazy argument. If you advocate a system that has the potential to allow such abuse to occur then its probably a pretty shitty system.

It's innate privilege I don't mean to insult you personally but the belief you subscribe to is silly. Monarchy is a fundamentally corrupt system by concentrating absolute power into a single person. As far as I'm aware there is no monarchy that exists today that isn't limited in power and thus vestigial. For instance, the English have a monarch but she has basically no power and only exists as a figurehead to attract tourists, more or less, so functionally the English are monarchists in name only. When monarchists get actual authority you get crap like this.

Its their privilege to do so. An unironic monarchist? Whew lad, that sure is super edgy of you.

Well the best word is cis white males

I disagree. I would have never found 99% of the content I regularly consume if not for youtube recommending new things. I envision a decentralized youtube on the blockchain.

I've been looking to move recently. Are there any places you would recommend that are not just miles of farm land? Not cities per se but I'm living in suburban hell in NJ. Literally nothing to do besides bars and diners. What might attract a 20-something to Utah?

How to talk to anyone, By Leil Lowndes The power of habit, By Charles Duhigg How to stop worrying and start living, By Dale Carnegie Thus spoke Zarathustra, By Friedrich Nietzsche In my experience, those four books are probably the ones that helped me the most. That'll do it. Our brains are extrapolation machines. Why did you not feel comfortable going to your parents for help with the girl telling lies about you? I'm not saying you should have, but what did you expect would happen if you did that prevented you from doing so? This. Having high standards is super important, so long as you strive to attain them yourself.

Work from principles, rather than effect.

I think I said the gist of it quite well here. I guess it depends on whether or no you think a 13 year old can comprehend the basics of sex and relationships. You said you think they can, but do you really think someone that age would make a competent parent while still being a child themselves? After all that is the entire purpose of sexuality. Do you think two 13 year olds would be able to provide for a child of their own and provide a stable environment for it to grow in?

The definition of racist is "a straight, white male".

Consent is possible in a power structure but it has to be informed consent. ie surgeons explain the risks associated with surgery before they operate on you. You can comprehend the basics of medical treatment and can consent to treatment even though the surgeon is an expert and therefore has power over you. Likewise, a good parent would explain the rudiments of nutrition to a child so they would want to eat broccoli. My parents never forced me to eat anything I didn't want to but they did say things like "you've got to drink your milk and eat your broccoli if you want to grow up big and strong like daddy". Thats a highly simplistic view of nutrition, but its pretty much correct and can be easily understood by someone with an underdeveloped brain. It's not as black and white as all consent or no consent. You can only consent to something you can comprehend.

Actually what I said was "A child cannot comprehend the physical and emotional ramifications of being in a sexual relationship and thus cannot consent." I never claimed a child could not understand the basics of a biological function. My claim is that the physical and emotional consequences of being in a sexual relationship are beyond their range of comprehension because of the undeveloped nature of their brain. Unless you argue otherwise? http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

Nice strawman. Being better than someone =/= having power over someone What you are advocating is reprehensible.