MarkIX

I believe there is not one kind of justification. There is NAP-justification and there is necessity-justification. Necessity is just what needs to be done to produce a desired outcome, so it rather weak but still essential. To survive it might be necessary to steal. The NAP-justification maybe can be defined like this: "would you approve of force against you in the same situation?" So if I were to be taken over body-snatchers-style and forced to rob a bank, and I had a say in the matter of what exactly the bank guard does, would I want to be shot by the bank guard? I would say no, because I could give the money back later or there are hopefully less permanent remedies. Now if I were forced by the body snatcher to attack somebody and risk their life, and I could (while my brain is on hold) control who I attacked and get them to punch me or stop my taken-over body from harming them, I would generally say yes even though it damages me when all is over with. So by that thought experiment, I am able to distinguish what aggression is considered responsive versus initiative. With regard to stealing and chain of ownership, I think it is difficult. I am confused when I hear news about a guy who buys stolen property (unknowingly), and it is discovered and returned to the "rightful" owner, because now all you have done is move the damage and loss from one honest guy to another. It does not seem right to me. The thief still gets away and the honest guy at the end is punished the worst. But that is what laws do, and from what I understand, that is what most anarchocapitalists advocate also based on theory that property "originates" somehow at the time of first claim. I am confused as to what your thought experiment proves as it seems to me impossible and therefore irrelevent. Do you think you could break it down for me?

If I remember the example correctly only one person on the committee had any idea of the type and requirements of the nuclear reactor in question, so anyone else commenting would have been doing so from a position of ignorance. Whereas everybody knew about the bicycle shed. The risk of being ridiculed is very much reduced when you have at least some expertise moreso in areas of opinion, where everybody is an expert.

My suggestion would be to begin with the end in mind. You need to make it easier or more pleasurable for them to help you rather than go with the default. Start with the attitude that these 13 people (don't call them assholes that's pre judging) are there to help facilitate your path through the regulations put in place by others. They are after all not the ones that put the regs in place they just oversee them. If you go in accusatory you will prompt them to be defensive that won't help you.

I'm a determinist, I wasn't always but when I heard Sam Harris' arguments on the subject I couldn't maintian my free will any longer. That doesn't mean I find the topic worth debating. In fact when You say Determinism you have to be sure that people understand what you mean. I would suggest to you based on the general culture of this board that when you say "Determinism" a lot of people here parse it as "You are always going to be the shit person your shit parents made you and there is nothing you can do about it", that's how I felt about it. Nobody wants to accept that. You can debate about determinism but what does it mean to be a determinist? I am one and I still don't know. He finds the Messageboard debating of complex topics like ethics and determinism to be rather fruitless for various reasons. This is his opinion based on his experience. He has strongly discouraged the discussion of such topics due to his experience of fruitlessness. What if other users don't find it fruitless? It doesn't matter. It seems only Stefan's opinion matters. I he where argumenting that the debating of complex topics on the board is fruitless, then where is the evidence for such claims? Note the inclusion of "Messageboard" in you passage. I don't think he is suggesting that debate in the normal congress of things is useless just that certain types of communications media and more suited to certain topics, or more precisely certain bredths of topics. Petty insecurities. All you people with social phobia that struggle with this phobia everyday for years that in many cases can bring on a panic attack just at the thought of talking to a stranger on the phone, it's all just petty insecurities and you are selfish and inmature to put them over your search for the truth. This is a very arrogant and abusive thing to say to those of us who suffer from social anxiety disorder. Do you want to be a victim or do you want to solve your problems? If you want to be a victim I can't help you, but if you want to solve you problems, should it matter to you what others people think of your problems, after all they aren't the ones who are going to try and solve them. Perhaps Stefan has just the disorder you talk of and has learned to cope better with it by trivialising the anxiety, are you going to tell him he can't do that because it doesn't suit you? Should I tell you that you shouldn't reply because any response that is not totally positive (and I do mean Totally) is going to cause me anxiety, or should I accept that my anxiety isn't your problem?

They're both governed by Dogma. Someone should tell Sam Harris []

I think his statement of the AC position at the start was pretty much as I have been led to understand it. I don't think his critisisms are valid as any spectrum of rules is going to be generated by people and it has been demonstrated that interlocking rules spectra are possible even under the overpowering influence of the state, eg eBay industrial remediation services , club memberships etc. I believe that AC has other fundamental flaws relating to the posibility of perpetual and exclusive land claims.

@ Mick Bynes BTW what's the context of your sig quote?

So They have gone from a Whistleblower organisation to a back channel for leaking stuff nearly 4 decades old. Seems legit

The last I heard was that Wikileaks had a bunch of information on the operations of a major bank, and were planning on releasing it It seems that what happened to Julian Assange was effective in silencing him... or as some hold the whole Wikileaks operation was a trap for real whistleblowers set up by the intelligence agencies. This would explain the massive initial publicity, and the complete lack of mainstream attention since (for wikileaks not Julian Assange). What do you think is the situation?

Sorry for the delay in my reply. The point I was making is that it is very easy to judge a situation from imperfect knowledge but seldom helpful. Being in the position I am in it seems both from an emotional and logical angle that I have nothing to gain by talking to my sister ( and my mother incidentially) form where I stand it doesn't look like that much of a stretch to include a great deal more women in that equation. I think MGTOW has merit if looked at from certain environmental perspectives.

Statist sentiments?

Could you give me an example of what this might look like and what might be a likely outcome? If, for example, you were treated like you were disposable (male disposability) by your mother then you could RTR with her explaining that you have certain feelings about it and that you aren't wanting to have relationships where you are treated like you are disposable ("I feel frustrated when you simply expect me to do difficult or dangerous tasks, and/or praise me for it"). The likely outcome is probably denial if she's the type to treat you as disposable, or she could shut down and say that you are hurting her feelings, or maybe it will be a productive, positive and bonding experience, idk. In any event it will make it personal and (hopefully) cause actual change instead of what happens with most activists where they don't really accomplish anything. This way they actually do something about male disposability instead of just talk about it. Does that answer your question? Thank you for your considered reply Not that I'm a MGTOW, but I am going to give you an example from my own life. My sister complained that I had twice visited my dying father without telling her. Her claim was that my visits affected her because my father was harder to deal with after I visited (she lived near the Hospital). After this conversation I didn't visit my Father for two weeks, when I was finally decided to see my Father it was too late he died the day before I was going to visit him. From this example can you suggest what possible benefit there would be to interacting with my sister? I should point ou at my experience with my father was that he was barely able to move and couldn't hold a conversation for very long. It is definately my opinion that finding him hard to manage was simply anotherone of her lies.

Could you give me an example of what this might look like and what might be a likely outcome? If, for example, you were treated like you were disposable (male disposability) by your mother then you could RTR with her explaining that you have certain feelings about it and that you aren't wanting to have relationships where you are treated like you are disposable ("I feel frustrated when you simply expect me to do difficult or dangerous tasks, and/or praise me for it"). The likely outcome is probably denial if she's the type to treat you as disposable, or she could shut down and say that you are hurting her feelings, or maybe it will be a productive, positive and bonding experience, idk. In any event it will make it personal and (hopefully) cause actual change instead of what happens with most activists where they don't really accomplish anything. This way they actually do something about male disposability instead of just talk about it. Does that answer your question? Thank you for your considered reply Not that I'm a MGTOW, but I am going to give you an example from my own life. My sister complained that I had twice visited my dying father without telling her. Her claim was that my visits affected her because my father was harder to deal with after I visited (she lived near the Hospital). After this conversation I didn't visit my Father for two weeks, when I was finally decided to see my Father it was too late he died the day before I was going to visit him. From this example can you suggest what possible benefit there would be to interacting with my sister?

Could you give me an example of what this might look like and what might be a likely outcome?