Search the Community

Has anyone seen the debate that happened recently? What do you think of it? It makes me kinda sad that Michael Dyson gets applause. If you havent here is a link to it

I sent an e-mail expressing interest, received return interest in working together, and we made this; the internet is our Guttenburg Press. This is both me showing-off and an offer for anyone else whom would like to collaborate in combating political correctness and insanity from this contemporary culture war.

Originally Published on Medium. https://medium.com/@joelpatterson_52315/whataboutery-don-t-do-it-df00f8667578#.anospiwty There’s a tactic I’ve noticed my opponents use in disagreements I’ve had recently that I find really irritating. It goes like this: You bring up a criticism of something, like say Islamic terrorism, and instead of having your criticism evaluated, accepted, or rebutted, someone completely bypasses everything that you had just said with a, “what about” statement. Here are a few simplified examples. Islamic terrorism has resulted in x numbers of civilian deaths this year. “Yes, but what about American foreign policy!?!” The contains anti male themes and here are the instances from that film which support that thesis.“Yes, but what about when this character did this in the prequels?!?” People on the left use this manipulative argument quite often. “Yes, but what about the right. People on the right use manipulative arguments too?!” Studies show that females abuse in this way at this specific rate each year. “Yes, but what about the MEN?!?!” Little do people know that cats bite humans at a rate of x per year. “Yes, but what about Dogs?!?” I’ve been trying to articulate my frustrations about these kinds of responses for a few months now, so it was to my great delight that Richard Dawkins did just that while I was listening to his autobiography , “Brief Candle in The Dark.” Hopefully, by giving others the language to identify this response, it will save people from the frustration and confusion I’ve been experiencing from it for some time now.

Hey all! So I've been having discussions about issues such as government and taxation. I often hear a claim that governments cannot steal and taxation is not a theft. However, when I apply the exactly same reasoning to a different scenario, for example a person or a different organisation doing exactly the same as the government (enforcing taxation through the initiation of use of force) suddenly the reasoning reverses and such a thing becomes theft in the eyes of the person I am debating. I attempt to reason through rules of non contradiction (something cannot be and not be at the same time) but I usually get the following responses: "government is different" - Therefore theft only applies to individuals or private organisations. "the extraction of money is voluntary" - You don't have to work if you don't want to. You actually want the government to spend the money on roads, education etc. "money are extracted at source and if you do not receive the money in the first place, then they cannot be taken away from you, therefore not theft" - (This is the case in the UK where you don't do your own taxes but rather the employer pays them from your salary before you get a chance to sniff them). So if you don't get the money in the first place it isn't theft. "There is no right and wrong" or "There is no truth, it depends" - Therefore taxation is morally good and not theft, whereas extraction of property without consent by something or someone else than a government is theft. Is there a way of combating such claims or have I entered a realm of sophistry from which there is no return? What is the best way to argue from here and point out the contradiction?

Hello, Quite frequently we hear questions like "Is it fair that that women earn less than men?" as a response to valid arguments based on research and evidence. This is a clear attempt to dehumanise the person as well as to appeal to the emotions of the listeners. The way I see it we have two choices, either surrender and agree with the other person or stand our ground in which case we risk being called and labelled with all the nasty words. I understand that such emotional appeals should not be a part of any sort of reasonable debate, however, it is quite hard to avoid such questions especially when the debate takes place in a university. Let's face it, the moment we are being labelled as a racist or a misogynist, nobody will listen to us. Is there a way of avoiding agreeing and at the same time listeners not labelling you as a spawn of Satan?

The Introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=murvOaHB66A The Result: What the Hell IS This? There are two common trends within each video: a near-unintelligible speed of speech delivery, and a distinct absence in the presence of arguments. It's being called Policy Debate. And it’ll be impacting the American political landscape for years to come. From the Ivy League schools to rural high school classrooms, youths from around America of every color, class, creed, and religion are participating in a rational and coordinated debate feverishly incoherent mindslaughter of baseless assertions, indecipherable gibberish, and frantic hyperventilation in order to further the discussion with their original contributions towards important societal matters such as the impending fiscal cliff, prospects of nuclear war, and sociocultural / gender issues. I encourage you reader, to watch the first video through and through to become acquainted with the most benign and orthodox manifestation of debate strategy in the this strange paradigm of speed debating format. Professional organizations invoke the participation of thousands of teens in this hysterical conversation of political scope every year, with recognizable and reputable institutions such as Harvard University and the U.S. Military Academy sending their best and brightest to participate. You can watch another debate tactic in Oklahoma State University’s heated match against Harvard: RAPPING. If your time is short, I’ll do you a petty favor and transcribe one of the gentleman’s arguments: This debate was orchestrated by CEDA (Cross Examination Debate Association). I have ascertained through YouTube video evidence, that stretching AT LEAST as far back as 2004, national championship winners without exception has utilized “speed debate” tactics. It’s colloquially being referred to as “spreading”, or speed-reading. Contestants conduct research on their position for the topic assigned by the moderators with a healthy allotment of time ahead of the debate to prepare. Once called to the stand, a sentimental pre-speech of thank-you’s and praise to the organizers is given by the contender to warm the audience (and judges’) hearts. The debater then proceeds to place a stack of papers or laptop upon a table, physically braces his or herself for competition, often hunching low, as if instinctively, and the debate begins. An unrelenting and unintelligible spewing of related and unrelated facts, fiction, ad-hominem, logical fallacy, baseless assertions, unsubstantiated claims, references to undefined and ambiguous terms, fowl language, intermittent gasps for breath, and repetitive “UH-UH-UH” onomatopoeia all fired at a steady rapid pace ensue, with the occasional intervention of rap ethos now and then. At the opening team’s closure, a brief period of questioning follows from the opposition. Questioning includes: calling the other side racist, and asking them to defend it, making up things the other side didn’t say, and asking them to refute that, using the words “White Privilege”, and also rapping. The Problem: These are not debates. Debates are characterized by the use of logical arguments, based upon both reason and evidence to support their foundations. Contenders have their minds put to the test based upon how they can think on their feet, and at best are permitted notecards or single sheets from which they may record beforehand the general points which they wish to cover. Speed reading an infinite number of little factoids which lend credence to a particular position is not debating. The implications of this phenomenon propagating are unmeasurable: There is literally a massive and ever-growing cabal of politically-interested individuals around my age, +/- 5 years who genuinely believe that this practice is what ought to dictate government and social policy. They erroneously believe that the most effective strategy to win a debate is to spew ideology, weave a web of facts, and rap. I know not what to make of this. I will be conducting research into the organization responsible for this; I suspect a dark agenda is afoot behind the existence of “Policy Speed-Debating”, the chief aim of which is to eradicate rational discourse and supplant it with…. Idiocracy.

Why should big businesses like Apple pay income tax in a country where they sell their products but do not produce them there or have offices there? This is a question I have tried to ask many times recently, but the person I am debating this about is heavily on the left, so the answers are in the lines of "so you want poor people to starve to death" or "Apple is taking advantage of the poor helpless citizens of X". The question and the answer always make me loose my "balance" in the conversation and/or the red thread of my thought, and usually ends with the goal post moved 10 million miles away, so I turn to the educated folk here to help me out! In particular, I would appreciate if someone would explain these kind of taxes to me from a non-leftist point of view or refer to a source where I could read a more neutral explanation of this than the left/democrats are providing. Also, I do not see the logical sequence of thought behind these taxes, but I cannot completely point out the illogicality either. If someone can clarify either the logic or the lack of it, that would be highly appreciated! As to my thoughts around this issue, I am thinking and arguing that big businesses are already paying quite a lot in taxes in VAT, in employee salaries who then pay taxes and social security, and do not consume that much of the infrastructure. Thanks a ton for any help! -Tweety-

Hey everyone so I inadvertantly debated a guy who'd called on the show claiming that subjective is objective. Video - It started while watching Cantwell live and I kept getting timed out in the chat for posting too much so I decided to just join the after chat to continue the debate, I join around the 20 minute mark and for the most part Dale is speaking and he might be drunk, after 50 minutes Dale leaves and we're able to debate 1-on-1 for the most part, unfortunately the hangout stream got cut off halfway through but we still continued the debate for another hour/two. Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Cp5hGBJ1k I feel like I didn't force the issue enough and I kept getting hit with these random claims without evidence near the end, also it was 1-3am for me and I had to stay quiet so I couldn't really talk over anyone. Anyway feedback would be nice, where I went wrong, where he went wrong, etc. Thanks.

http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/gender-in-the-21st-century I haven't really come across feminists expressing their views before so it was interesting for me to see what they have to say. Yet it quickly became obvious that their views lack substance, their talking points were repetitive, boring and vacuous. And of course it's deeply ironic how both the pro and con sides of this ostensible debate are feminists and this is considered a proper medium to discuss the role of gender in the 21st century. For juxtaposition, a text of Stefan's speech about feminism: http://pdfsr.com/pdf/feminism-speech.pdf.

Here is a debate between Stephan Kinsella and Jan Helfeld on Limited Government (Helfeld) Vs No Government(Kinsella) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOf1qKk0r84&list=UUhAftdPvwp_dHsr0eSOwb_g

I've been recently having a long string of often exiting but rather frustrating debates about the objectivity of morality with a few friends of mine. One friend said that by defining morality as objective, i.e. defining it as universally preferable behaviors which, of course, are objective, it begs the question since objectivity is the claim being contested and it is included in the definition. I pointed out that by defining morality as subjective he is also begging the question if that is the standard but that didn't seem to go anywhere, and in fact it totally derailed the conversation (which is what I assume he meant to do). I guess this boils down to definitions, and since definitions are so crucial, how do you move forward when someone disagrees with a definition? It would be like trying to prove the earth is round, but the opposite party defines earth as a cardboard box that packages come in; how frustrating! How do I move forward in this argument since definitions cannot be proven as the meaning of words are subjective? For a bonus, what do you think the best way to approach objective morality is as nothing I have been trying seems to be landing emotionally with the people I debate with.

Just a quick poll I made. Feel free to look at the results and/or vote. Feel free to add you own comments or justifications below. http://strawpoll.me/1781053

So recently I got into a debate with a family member over taxation & welfare. I told him that taxation is theft & presented him with a comparison of a thief & government. He then kept saying that there is a difference between the two to which I replied no there isn't & he kept saying yes. While that family member has shown their highly irrational thought process what are some other approaches I could take in regards to convincing someone that taxation is theft.

http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/science-guy-ready-to-debate-founder-of-creation-museum/ That last link will take you here: http://debatelive.org/ Which will allow you to watch the debate for free, live (February 4 at 7 PM EST) Might be interesting to see.

When discussing politics or economics with a statist or Marxist what economic or political theories do you like to throw at them? Do you have a top 5 list?

From what I can tell this site has many talented debaters on it.I'm just putting this site out because I found it and it helped me a lot with my skills as a debater. If you find that it interests you join. Maybe this site could do something similar in the future. http://www.debate.org/

Greetings FDR Friends, This is my first official venture into the forums after spending a year absorbing this philosophy (really, philosophy in general) and reconciling it with my own life. It's a challenging journey as you all know, and I have a lot of growing I still need to do. I think it's important to improve my communication and debate skills so when people express interest in the NAP, UPB, FDR, or various other three letter acronyms, I can engage them critically and fairly. With that said, I'd like to show you guys a dialogue and just ask your opinion: what, if anything, could I have done differently in this discussion? I'm sorry if this may seem trivial, but I think an exchange like this could be a good opportunity for learning. Background: I posted a link to Dogecoin (http://dogecoin.com/) on Facebook, semi-jokingly recommending friends to pick some up after last night's crash in the dollar value of Bitcoin. An acquaintance responded and the discussion moved to anarchism. I'll call him "Acquaintance" and I'll call myself "Todd" because that's my name. Todd: While Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies suffer from China's regulatory environment, Dogecoin continues to appreciate! Acquaintance: "...there can be no de-politicised currency capable of ‘powering’ an advanced, industrial society."-Yanis Varoufakis T: I posted this in jest although I do have a (currently much smaller) stake in Bitcoin. Being an anarcho-capitalist, I've gotta put my money where my mouth is. Currencies evolve over time for a few select qualities that I do think Bitcoin embodies, although it certainly has fundamental flaws. I'll support exploration of any alternative to fiat, central-authority backed money. A: 'Anarcho-capitalism' doesn't even work on paper. It's really a right wing, pro-business propaganda word and has nothing to do with anarchism. T: I appreciate your perspective. I am pro-business, Alex. I also acknowledge self-ownership, the non-aggression principle, and property rights. If that makes me right-wing, then I'm willing to accept that as a consequence. I have yet to find a more rational and universally consistent moral framework although I'm always open to new ideas. It does seem that there are two main schools of anarchism, and it's interesting that they could not be further apart ideologically. However, I don't think the socialist school of anarchism has exclusive privilege to the term. A: Just don't pretend you are an anarchist by adhering to a far right wing pro business ideology. Capitalism has zero to do with anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is a propaganda word cooked up by right wing pro business think tanks to bamboozle people who might otherwise seek to organize the economy along sane principles. (my emphasis) T: Thanks for the discussion. If you have a rational argument or any essays that show the non-aggression principle to be morally inconsistent, I'll be happy to examine it and correct myself if I'm wrong. But I can't draw any conclusions whatsoever against your previous statement, which appears to be ad-hominem and false equivocation. A: Thanks for your sarcasm, which was not invited. You can hitch your wagon to any star you like. "In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance towards democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They -- the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism -- will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order." [Democracy: the God that Failed, p. 218] "Chomsky argued that right-wing "libertarianism" has "no objection to tyranny as long as it is private tyranny." In fact it (like other contemporary ideologies) "reduce to advocacy of one or another form of illegitimate authority, quite often real tyranny." [Chomsky on Anarchism, p. 235 and p. 181] As such, it is hard not to conclude that "anarcho"-capitalism is little more than a play with words. It is not anarchism but a cleverly designed and worded surrogate for elitist, autocratic conservatism. Nor is too difficult to conclude that genuine anarchists and libertarians (of all types) would not be tolerated in this so-called "libertarian social order."" So yeah, I'm attacking you, ad homimen if you like, because you are glibly advocating a dangerous and tyrannical economic order that would have anarchists expelled from society or worse. T: I'll read through the resource you provided and see what conclusions I can draw. I'm not sure where you found sarcasm in anything I wrote and there was none intended. I also don't intend to engage in a discussion where I am admittedly being attacked rather than approached with reason, so thank you for you time and thoughts. At this point, I pressed the dreaded "unfriend" button, which he responded to with a private message: A: See how it works? You have already excluded me. Anarcho capitalists are in the removal business. Are you the worst sort of hypocrite? Looks to be the case. T: I'm not going to engage in a futile conversation where I am called names. Sorry. A: You're a fool and that's a fact. When you crow in a public place that you're an anarcho capitalist you are doing worse than call people names. Get over yourself and grow up. Learn a damn thing about these ideologies before shitcanning people who might try and point to alternatives. Summarily executed symbolically on facebook. That's what an anarchocapitalist regime would do to real anarchists. Expell, correct, execute. Ugh. The End I feel myself getting emotional as I read through this. It's a mix of anger and sadness and I think it's making it more challenging for me to view the exchange objectively. If you've made it this far, congratulations and thank you! I'd love any thoughts in terms of the debate itself, his arguments, what I did right and wrong, and what I could do in the future. Cheers!

Here's a conversation from facebook I had about the conceivable value of bitcoin vs. gold with a fellow FDR member. I wonder what sort of general thoughts or criticism yous udder guise might have for either Christoph or me. Excuse me for the poor formatting. Facebook does not copy/paste over very well. Below is a direct link to the conversation if you find it to difficult to follow on this page. . https://www.facebook.com/ChristophDollis/posts/10151994643083548?comment_id=27932048&offset=0&total_comments=19¬if_t=share_reply ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Christoph Dollis [*] Per Bitcoin's recent plunge: some wise people (or at least astute sharks) took profits*. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-01/bitcoin-plunges-bear-market (*As in cashed the hell out of Bitcoin and moved their money to dollars or another government currency like yen or Canadian dollars.) [*] Claire Haus I was quite fortunate and lucky to sell at 990$. If I didn't need it dearly in cash, I would probably kept it intact. [*] Joshua Stebell It's back up to 1090 now. [*] Christoph Dollis It's highly volatile. [*] Joshua Stebell We must keep in mind it is such a very small market relative to the usd and gold. Extreme fluctuations can be expected in btc's infancy before it becomes more widely adopted (if it does). [*] Christoph Dollis There is no reason to believe this is true. As Peter Schiff pointed out during the debate with Stefan Molyneux over Bitcoin, and as I remember at the time, market cap rose with a highly volatile series of minibubbles, punctured during the dot com tech bubble - then the whole thing crashed with a resounding thud. This is what I expect to happen with Bitcoin. [*] Joshua Stebell I do see the faint correlation here, because these are both instances of new technologies influencing the economy, but I don't believe it's a proper comparison. This is just my amateur idea of how these markets both function, and I may very well be mistaken, but let me make my case. Dot com's are essentially businesses that must return a profit from their website in order to pay their shareholders. That where their value as an investment comes from. But btc is in part alternative currency that's market value is based upon the value of utility that offers as a medium for exchange to those who wish to deal in it. I can buy btc to trade for something and then that other person I traded with can cash that btc back out for usd to buy whatever else they wish. This is a form of utility in that the btc is being recognized by both parties as a unit of value. I believe as more businesses begin to accept bitcoins as a form of payment in exchange for goods and services it will hold even more utility (be more valuable), because the second party will not require as often to trade their btc back out for usd to buy whatever it is they wish. [*] Christoph Dollis Did you watch this? If not, do. http://youtu.be/0L7SOPDOvvI [*] Pilar Cooke Isn't that how everything works in the malets? The numbers rise and fall at will and there is no hold in which one person can tell it otherwise. I feel your argument has no volume at this moment. I can careless about Bitcoin...I never had anything to do with it to begin with. I once said that it may be a "building block" to independent currency...yet it isn't Bitcoin [*] Joshua Stebell Okay. I'll check it out. [*] Joshua Stebell Oh yeah. I had seen this. I really do like Peter as an austrian economist, and I believe he's highly intelligent. However, I believe his view on "intrinsic value" is flawed. I don't believe that aesthetics, perceived value, can be objective. So when he says that gold has an "intrinsic value" I however don't believe anything does. I haven't had to write out my argument for this before, so I may make a mistake, but again, I'll give it go. If something, an item or action, is intrinsic to any form of status of market or moral value, that item or action must universally, under all circumstances, retain that status. If you can imagine any type of situation that could make that item or action not equal to that status then that status must not be objective or intrinsic to that thing, but is instead subjective. This is where the aesthetic market value, price, of gold fails to this requirement of having intrinsic value. Imagine I'm lost in the desert and find a bar of gold and a loaf of bread. I pick them up. Later I am getting dehydrated and need water soon or I'll die. I then cross paths with a man who owns access to an oasis. He just so happens to be starving. When I approach him, he'd more than likely be willing to trade my temporary access to his oasis for the loaf a bread for an entire brick of gold. Now, we both know that in the middle of a city a bar of gold is worth much more than a loaf of bread. More than thousands even. Now if the value of the gold was intrinsic to it's nature a bar of gold would always, under every conceivable circumstance, be worth the same in relation x-number loafs of bread. So, we both see that the value of gold can vary from 0 to whatever the circumstances call for. This does not coincide with the definition of something that retains some sort of intrinsic value, like how the moral value of the threat of or initiation of the use of force or fraud, by definition, is always in the negative as I know we both already agree to as the rational type folk we are who accept the non-aggression principle. Unfortunately though for Peter's case there's no irrefutable principle for the intrinsic value of gold as any type of commodity or medium of exchange, so as he makes his case that gold has a definite intrinsic value while bitcoin does not is incorrect. Neither of them retains the objective quality of price. They are both subjectively valuable in their own respects. [*] Christoph Dollis "I really do like Peter as an austrian economist, and I believe he's highly intelligent. However, I believe his view on "intrinsic value" is flawed. I don't believe that aesthetics, perceived value, can be objective." No it isn't objective. It's actually subjective second and third-order value, but I explain, including using a colourful analogy, how certain libertarians and anarchists go way wrong here (and cause people to roll their eyes) in this conversation, starting with this comment: "I think a gold-backed digital currency could be a good idea, or backed by another commodity. Other than that, barring government order, I don't see how you give a currency any kind of stable value. It will always depend on psychological popularity in a free market unless it has some kind of "intrinsic value" in the financial sense. Now you don't believe in it, but I think those arguments are silly. Of course gold doesn't have value itself, nor does a man floating in space alone with no one else ever to be reached, but it has second-order value. So if you don't use it to buy something, it still has other uses. It can be bartered away if nothing else. Good luck doing that with a blockchain, but I digress." You'd need to read from there. I won't retype it all. https://www.facebook.com/stefa.../posts/10152379827421679... Stefan Molyneux The Sunday Freedomain Radio Call In Show is now live! Listen live at fdrurl.com/stream or fdrurl.com/chat [*] Joshua Stebell Alright, I will. Thanks. [*] Christoph Dollis You're welcome. [*] Joshua Stebell Okay. So, I'm still failing to see how Peter's and your argument makes sense. He says bitcoin is an attempt to replicate a digital version of gold, but fails, because it's missing a property that gold is. "Intrinsic value." If we both agree that nothing has an objective market value than how does Peter's argument back you in opposition to my case that BTC, a tool for the measure and exchange of subjective value (money), is not analogous to what happened to DOT COM's, businesses that failed to profit and reimburse their stockholders. [*] Christoph Dollis It doesn't have to have an objective market value, whatever that could mean. It has other uses. This creates, as I've said, second and third order value. Basically, you can use it to barter with. Somehow anarchist libertarians get themselves trapped in really black and white literal definitions of things in a statistical world. [*] Joshua Stebell Is that not also a function of bitcoins though? Also, I don't think that by implying my being trapped in a psychological world of using definitions as evidence in order to reason towards a conclusion being a negative thing is all that of a clinching argument against the one's I've put forward. [*] Christoph Dollis "Is that not also a function of bitcoins though?" No, it's all tied to its use as a currency/speculative investment. [*] Joshua Stebell Gold is also seen as a currency and a speculative investment. Is it not? I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two for the reason why you believe bitcoin is such a malinvestment. Bitcoin is digital, and gold is physical. Gold has additional properties of being used in technology, as jewelry, as decoration, and more that may add to it's subjective value. Bitcoin is anonymous, open source, can be used as a contract, and other things that adds to it's subjective value. If we both agree these qualities of both gold and bitcoin are subject to the unpredictable nature of aggregating individuals in a market, then I do not see your case. [*] Christoph Dollis "Gold is also seen as a currency and a speculative investment. Is it not?" Do people wear Bitcoin necklaces? Us it in industrial processes? Put them in their teeth? "I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two...." Indeed. [*] Christoph Dollis "Bitcoin is anonymous, open source, can be used as a contract, and other things that adds to it's subjective value." All of which are completely and utterly worthless except as regards to the specific transaction. Whereas gold can be traded to others who value it. A piece of paper works as a contract. [*] Joshua Stebell I don't believe you read my last comment thoroughly. "Gold has additional properties of being used in technology, as jewelry, as decoration, and more that may add to it's subjective value." -Me. "Do people wear Bitcoin necklaces? Us it in industrial processes? Put them in their teeth?" -You. I clearly pointed that out. Also, I do not appreciate you using a quote of mine out of context as well. I said, "I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two... for the reason why you believe bitcoin is such a malinvestment." I already pointed out that there is a distinction between the two in that one is digital and the other is physical, and we've already agreed these distinctions that have the potential to add to the subjective value of each of these commodities. If you do not believe bitcoin is a good investment for the lone reason that it is not physical than make that claim outright, but remember we've already established the physical quality of gold and everything that entails is in the same category of value as the bitcoin's quality being digital an everything that also entails in that their values are both purely subjective. This means that your argument for bitcoin being a bad investment on the ground that it is conceivably worthless applies equally to gold. If you think that gold's physical properties of utility are more subjectively valuable than bitcoins' digital properties of utility which also retain a subjective value know that this is purely your opinion. If the properties of each these things only retain a subjective value than any case made in reference to their properties is just your opinion, an argument you're perfectly free to make. Please acknowledge you're only advocating your opinion, and not making any universal claim about the value of a commodity.

I thought this was a very good discussion, even though I think Peter (Schiff) and Stefan were talking past each other a little bit. It seems clear to me that Peter doesn't have a very good understanding of Bitcoin, but I think he has a very good understanding of economics and is right on the money (no pun intended) when he claims that Bitcoins are currently inflated and will likely see a sort of implosion. However, this does not preclude Bitcoins from becoming a real good functional currency. I think Stefan is right on that point. People just shouldn't get in on the hopes of getting rich quick. In fact, maybe they shouldn't get in right now at all, or for small amounts based on an ideological commitment to Bitcoin.

Peter Joseph on Stefan Molyneux: "The Art of Nonsense" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cnuRRWZxSE Warning: fanaticism included Hey guys, this is my first topic. I really didn't want it to be about this but I think people should see. (So the more important topics come later ) Peter Joseph has let his Ego show in a pretty horrendous response to Stefan's review of the debate. This looks to be the start of a nice big flame war and the comment section is hot with abuse. Just a warning for people it contains obscene language if that's the kind of thing you like the avoid. You will get a clear picture of how the video continues purely from the first 120 seconds. I just want to know what did you think of: - The "debate" - Stephan's review - Peter Joseph's responses - Should Stefan reply to this, if so why/Why not? Or is it just the start of a useless flame war? Personally I don't like to see anybody going at it over anything, so I will not pressure anyone especially Stefan to reply to something like this. I don't think there's much to gain from it, as you pretty much can't use reason and logic with this type of emotional flaming. Take care all I hope to have some productive discussions soon. Cheers. PS. If this topic isn't permitted due to the whole flame war thing, I will gladly delete it.

I wrote an article on online civility and how to handle debates/commenting. You can read it here. Tell me what you think.

I have an interesting theory for you guys, and it makes sense to me, I just wanted to get some feedback for it. I'm an atheist, and have been for pretty much my whole life. I think that organized religion is destructive to society and corrupts people's minds with magical thinking that prevents them from thinking objectively about reality. However, the other day I was thinking, would it be possible for people to know there is no god, know there is no mysticism in real life, think with 100% clear headed objectivism, and still enjoy the ritual and the practice of religion. Who knows what their motivation might be, maybe they are a cultural enthusiast and just want to experience the ritual, maybe they are just drawn to the symbolism and find the poetry beautiful and inspiring, what have you. If they understood that it was all pretend, that it was just a 'for fun' kind of thing, would it still be as destructive or even negatively impact people at all? In my sociology class, we were reading a few excerpts form Emile Durkheim, and he discussed that human beings like to gather together in groups and that it gives them a rush of creative energy, the likes of which would be impossible individually... without copious amounts of drug use that is. Maybe these gatherings and rituals would be benign if people understood it was all fantasy; roll playing akin to civil war reenacting and regular everyday theater. The only problem I could find would be the susceptibility of humans to do destructive things while in a state of group think. If these meetings or rituals were being preformed, the people involved would be in a state of group think, with all the juicy deindividuation that goes along with it. If someone wanted to corrupt a group it would be pretty easy, like an instant cult, "just add water!" Let me know what you guys think!