me me me ???

[Erich vRundstedt]

  Hmm.. Well. All my life i easily understood that good was much more preferable than evil..I was hit by my mom once when i was like 5 and that was because one of the older kids in the neighborhood beat some one up and i was standing there and left after about 15 seconds.. I guess i got hit because i didnt at the age of 5 attack and mutilate this older kid who was like 10 and also he was the bully of the whole block back then.. So i did get hit by my mom. That really is the only time i recall getting physically attacked by the people that supposedly loved me the most ..There was so much trauma, physical and mental in both my parents life when they were children but they never got any help in resolving their issues so all the pain and disfunction just poured into my sisters and brothers life(and mine)..Oh yea.. getting back to being hit by my mom, the kid who gotten beat up by this bully told his parents the names of all the kids that were there and it was like 8 kids there or something.. I dont really remember exactly but his parents went to all the houses of the kids that were there at the time of his beating and in front of the parents my mom hit me on my backside in front of them.. I was shocked.I didnt know why she would turn on me like that...But now i know.. So. FDR has given me the information to make rational sense of all the child hood terror my family was put through and how all this morphs into society being an extremly violent place to live..Just me all by myself have talked to people about child abuse and have given them Stefs videos and i know for a fact this has helped at least a few people..If we create conditions where the good people know they can act morally (UPB) without the threat of violence or theft against them from a small handfull of people with a monopoly on the use of violence, then thats our chance for a peaceful world. Thats our only chance for the good moral people to stop allowing themselves to be preyed upon by these psychopaths and statists..So lets just take this one chance we have and try it.. The violence that starts in the family does continue with us into adulthood . Stef is so right about that.I dont mind that in 2 or 3 generations there might be the slightest chance for people to openly talk about exactly where all the violence is coming from.Thats better than never. I wish someone like Stef would of happened 50,000 years ago and we are just only reading about this insanity in books and never actually having to expeirence it first hand ..It never took much to convince me that stealing or hurting other people was wrong. I didnt need to be told that there was a gigantic pit of flaming sulfer awaiting me if i didnt accept my slavery.. FUCK THEM ! I own Myself now ! Thanks Stef.        erich

[STer]

 

  Hmm.. Well. All my life i easily understood that good was much more preferable than evil..I was hit by my mom once when i was like 5 and that was because one of the older kids in the neighborhood beat some one up and i was standing there and left after about 15 seconds.. I guess i got hit because i didnt at the age of 5 attack and mutilate this older kid who was like 10 and also he was the bully of the whole block back then.. So i did get hit by my mom. That really is the only time i recall getting physically attacked by the people that supposedly loved me the most ..There was so much trauma, physical and mental in both my parents life when they were children but they never got any help in resolving their issues so all the pain and disfunction just poured into my sisters and brothers life(and mine)..Oh yea.. getting back to being hit by my mom, the kid who gotten beat up by this bully told his parents the names of all the kids that were there and it was like 8 kids there or something.. I dont really remember exactly but his parents went to all the houses of the kids that were there at the time of his beating and in front of the parents my mom hit me on my backside in front of them.. I was shocked.I didnt know why she would turn on me like that...But now i know.. So. FDR has given me the information to make rational sense of all the child hood terror my family was put through and how all this morphs into society being an extremly violent place to live..Just me all by myself have talked to people about child abuse and have given them Stefs videos and i know for a fact this has helped at least a few people..If we create conditions where the good people know they can act morally (UPB) without the threat of violence or theft against them from a small handfull of people with a monopoly on the use of violence, then thats our chance for a peaceful world. Thats our only chance for the good moral people to stop allowing themselves to be preyed upon by these psychopaths and statists..So lets just take this one chance we have and try it.. The violence that starts in the family does continue with us into adulthood . Stef is so right about that.I dont mind that in 2 or 3 generations there might be the slightest chance for people to openly talk about exactly where all the violence is coming from.Thats better than never. I wish someone like Stef would of happened 50,000 years ago and we are just only reading about this insanity in books and never actually having to expeirence it first hand ..It never took much to convince me that stealing or hurting other people was wrong. I didnt need to be told that there was a gigantic pit of flaming sulfer awaiting me if i didnt accept my slavery.. FUCK THEM ! I own Myself now ! Thanks Stef.        erich

 

You were raised with the dysfunction that your parents experienced being passed down onto you, yet you say "it never took much to convince me that stealing or hurting other people was wrong."

This is one of the questions that fascinates me. Why do you think it is that some, raised in such circumstances, pass on the dysfunction to yet another generation with hardly a second thought, while others, despite similar upbringings, feel viscerally, from a very young age, that the dysfunction is wrong and stand steadfastly against harming others?

There is a lot of focus here on how important it is to improve parenting so as to stop the cycle of violence being passed down. But I think it's also important we learn more about why certain people, even in the face of lots of dysfunction growing up, nonetheless have a strong resistance to following in those footsteps. Is it something inborn? Something different in the brain? What is it? This is a question for further research, but your story raises it for me once again.

[B-64]

This is one of the questions that fascinates me. Why do you think it is that some, raised in such circumstances, pass on the dysfunction to yet another generation with hardly a second thought, while others, despite similar upbringings, feel viscerally, from a very young age, that the dysfunction is wrong and stand steadfastly against harming others?

This question does not fascinate me. Because it is a priori obvious that you can find the answer only after eliminating aggression and establishing long lasting peaceful relationsips in society. So, first things first.

This is a question for further research

I would not spend a dime on that research.

To Eric: be proud, be absolutely proud of your choice.

[STer]

 

This is one of the questions that fascinates me. Why do you think it is that some, raised in such circumstances, pass on the dysfunction to yet another generation with hardly a second thought, while others, despite similar upbringings, feel viscerally, from a very young age, that the dysfunction is wrong and stand steadfastly against harming others?

This question does not fascinate me. Because it is a priori obvious that you can find the answer only after eliminating aggression and establishing long lasting peaceful relationsips in society. So, first things first.

This is a question for further research

I would not spend a dime on that research.

To Eric: be proud, be absolutely proud of your choice.

 

I'm not sure where you get that logic from. We discovered critical information about biological aspects of many conditions without coming even close to eliminating the environmental aspects that were also involved first. Did we have to eliminate the high sugar foods that exacerbate pre-existing tendencies for diabetes before we were able to learn a great deal about the biological aspects of that condition and how it works? No. And millions of diabetics are thankful we didn't wait to do that research.

You want to wait to do research on why some respond to dysfunctional upbringings with violence and others with moral fortitude until after all violence and aggression is eliminated? I think that would be a massive mistake.

[STer]

 

Because it is a priori obvious

 

Also I was talking about scientific research. Science does not take things like this as "a priori obvious." It requires invesgiation and evidence. Nothing of this type of complexity is just accepted as "a priori obvious" by anyone practicing actual science. In fact many of the most important scientific discoveries in history flew in the face of what most would have considered "a priori obvious."

[B-64]

 

 

Also I was talking about scientific research. Science does not take things like this as "a priori obvious." It requires invesgiation and evidence. Nothing of this type of complexity is just accepted as "a priori obvious" by anyone practicing actual science. In fact many of the most important scientific discoveries in history flew in the face of what most would have considered "a priori obvious."

 

I speak for myself and for that part of this community that consider themelves Misesian or Hoppean in terms of epistemology. I cant speak for Stefan but his philosophical approach is basically the same as that of Mises and especially Hoppe: "reasoning from first principles", "self-detonating statements", UPB. They all take from Aristotle, Aquinas and Kant.

So, there is a fundamental difference to how-we-know-things between your positivist approach and the approach of non-mainstream thinkers who assert things can be known a priori, by deduction from simple facts of human nature like an axiom of human action.

The topic is very important. Please, read three chapters of Mises' Human Action (free pdf: http://mises.org/Books/humanaction.pdf) and listen to some videos by Hans Hoppe. I can't explain it better than them.

 

[STer]

 

 

 

Also I was talking about scientific research. Science does not take things like this as "a priori obvious." It requires invesgiation and evidence. Nothing of this type of complexity is just accepted as "a priori obvious" by anyone practicing actual science. In fact many of the most important scientific discoveries in history flew in the face of what most would have considered "a priori obvious."

 

I speak for myself and for that part of this community that consider themelves Misesian or Hoppean in terms of epistemology. I cant speak for Stefan but his philosophical approach is basically the same as that of Mises and especially Hoppe: "reasoning from first principles", "self-detonating statements", UPB. They all take from Aristotle, Aquinas and Kant.

So, there is a fundamental difference to how-we-know-things between your positivist approach and the approach of non-mainstream thinkers who assert things can be known a priori, by deduction from simple facts of human nature like an axiom of human action.

The topic is very important. Please, read three chapters of Mises' Human Action (free pdf: http://mises.org/Books/humanaction.pdf) and listen to some videos by Hans Hoppe. I can't explain it better than them.

 

 

Well you're right then, we have a serious difference in epistemology. Had your epistemology been used in the past, we may have missed out on many counterintuitive and surprising discoveries that science has made. I don't think Stefan shares your view as he quotes scientific studies all the time and so clearly sees merit in them. I've even heard him confront guests who try to avoid scientifically demonstrated facts by just using ideological reasoning instead.

Even if you want to assert that some things can just be reasoned out by principle, I find it a huge reach to claim that applies to this topic. We have a fascinating discrepancy. Some people subjected to dysfunctional upbringings respond with violence. Others with the same upbringing respond with deep caring and compassion. This can be seen sometimes even within the same family. So what is the difference?

You aren't even asserting that you can reason out a difference. You're saying nobody could possibly even usefully investigate this unless we were in a society with no violence. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It's within a society like ours that we have access to the various factors to help find out what the difference is. If we had a society with no violence and aggression, we wouldn't even be able to see what I'm pointing out - that different people respond to it differently. We'd have to manufacture those conditions to see the different responses, which would be highly unethical. In fact, one of the only silver linings of the violent world we live in is that, for the time being, we can study these types of differences to find out why they exist.

 

[Erich vRundstedt]

 Sure.. When i said i always knew that hurting other people was wrong and immoral i didnt say that at the age of 5 i was a philosophically aware atheist.It wasnt until i got much older that i was able to acquire the knowledge of philosophy.But when i was young its true that my parents were dysfuctional and did pass this on to us but they didnt know or care to be bothered if what they were teaching us was good or bad they just said that what they were doin was good..I knew they didnt want to hurt anyone but there just wasnt much thought put into it by them at the time.There was always the over all feeling that my parents were good and wanted to be good moral people .

[STer]

 

 Sure.. When i said i always knew that hurting other people was wrong and immoral i didnt say that at the age of 5 i was a philosophically aware atheist.It wasnt until i got much older that i was able to acquire the knowledge of philosophy.But when i was young its true that my parents were dysfuctional and did pass this on to us but they didnt know or care to be bothered if what they were teaching us was good or bad they just said that what they were doin was good..I knew they didnt want to hurt anyone but there just wasnt much thought put into it by them at the time.There was always the over all feeling that my parents were good and wanted to be good moral people .

 

So do you think back then you picked up on the distinction that even though they were harming you it wasn't intentional and they didn't realize it and that that is part of why you were able to maintain your own compassion and not become more dysfunctional yourself?

[B-64]

Even if you want to assert that some things can just be reasoned out by principle, I find it a huge reach to claim that applies to this topic.

This is how it applies. Let's take natural phenomena which have a potential to be disastrous: earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, viruses etc. Imagine mainstream economists, sociologists, lawyers, physicians who try to find a way to make the phenomena less disastrous or eliminate effects of them. They will lounch massive research programs and come up with the whole spectrum of solutions in all sorts of settings and situations: dams, embankments, high building regulations, deep basement regulations, vaccinations, isolation wards, special relief agencies, price controls, prohibitions, special law enforcement, federal funding etc.

An apriorist will tell that all these solutions are misguided (yes, unscientific) because of one fundamental reason: one huge factor is not taken into mainstream equations which is state intervention/aggression. We can only know how much disastrous natural phenomena are if we know how much disaster is caused by state intervention/aggression.

Let's take Katrina. How much damage was caused by the hurricane and how much by state intervention/aggression such as taxes, subsidies, inflation, tarrifs, regulations, price control, prohibitions, welfare, law enforcement, state education? How many building were built there by cheap credit; how many people lived there supported by welfare, how many miles of subsidized roads were build there, why state education did not teach people not to live in floodplains, why the price mechanism of heavily regulated insurance companies was blocked so it would be too expensive to live there? You can only know if you eliminate state intervention/aggression. You can't eliminate hurricanes.

Let's take Spanish flu. Was it a virus or massive troop movements after the war which killed 20-50 million people? You can only know if you eliminate masive troop movements. You cant eliminate a virus.

And now let's take bad genes. How do you know how much damage in human life is caused by a natural phenomenon, a gene, and how much by human aggression?. You can only know if you eliminate aggression. You cant eliminate a gene.

 

 

[STer]

 

Even if you want to assert that some things can just be reasoned out by principle, I find it a huge reach to claim that applies to this topic.

This is how it applies. Let's take natural phenomena which have a potential to be disastrous: earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, viruses etc. Imagine mainstream economists, sociologists, lawyers, physicians who try to find a way to make the phenomena less disastrous or eliminate effects of them. They will lounch massive research programs and come up with the whole spectrum of solutions in all sorts of settings and situations: dams, embankments, high building regulations, deep basement regulations, vaccinations, isolation wards, special relief agencies, price controls, prohibitions, special law enforcement, federal funding etc.

An apriorist will tell that all these solutions are misguided (yes, unscientific) because of one fundamental reason: one huge factor is not taken into mainstream equations which is state intervention/aggression. We can only know how much disastrous natural phenomena are if we know how much disaster is caused by state intervention/aggression.

Let's take Katrina. How much damage was caused by the hurricane and how much by state intervention/aggression such as taxes, subsidies, inflation, tarrifs, regulations, price control, prohibitions, welfare, law enforcement, state education? How many building were built there by cheap credit; how many people lived there supported by welfare, how many miles of subsidized roads were build there, why state education did not teach people not to live in floodplains, why the price mechanism of heavily regulated insurance companies was blocked so it would be too expensive to live there? You can only know if you eliminate state intervention/aggression. You can't eliminate hurricanes.

Let's take Spanish flu. Was it a virus or massive troop movements after the war which killed 20-50 million people? You can only know if you eliminate masive troop movements. You cant eliminate a virus.

And now let's take bad genes. How do you know how much damage in human life is caused by a natural phenomenon, a gene, and how much by human aggression?. You can only know if you eliminate aggression. You cant eliminate a gene.

 

 

 

All you've done is point out that scientists need to be scientific. If you feel they are not doing actual science in some case, then you are free to point that out and you may be right. That is not a critique of science. It's a critique of some (perhaps even many) scientists. It doesn't really have much bearing on whether the scientific method is our best means of seeking truth. It just bears on whether some people are actually doing science or not.

The only really relevant question here seems to be this:

Must you eliminate all environmental factors to do useful research on biological factors?

I think we have enormous amounts of evidence that you do not have to do so. I gave the example of diabetes as one of countless. You may not be able to zero in completely on everything going on. But that's not a reason not to make great strides in understanding the biological side.

Also, as I've written about several times on this forum, scientific research often has unforeseen consequences. One study opens up insight that leads to another that could not have been conceived before. Thus, in fits and starts, we learn more about the world.

So we simply seem to disagree because you appear to have an all-or-nothing approach to this.

[B-64]

Must you eliminate all environmental factors to do useful research on biological factors?

Yes, even in diabetes. And I understand that it's not in the interest of mainstream scientists. Their goal is not to find the truth. Their goal is to research.

 

[STer]

 

Must you eliminate all environmental factors to do useful research on biological factors?

Yes, even in diabetes. And I understand that it's not in the interest of mainstream scientists. Their goal is not to find the truth. Their goal is to research.

 

 

Useful does not mean "providing every possible answer." It means providing some answers that help us manage better. Any diabetic will tell you they are very grateful we didn't use your logic and ignore the biological factors until all environmental factors were eliminated. Because if we had, they may not even be alive. I hope we don't follow your logic when it comes to studying violence and aggression either.

I also think your statement about scientists is a stereotype. It may be true of many. But there are some scientists who seek truth. Some have done so at great sacrifice to themselves and even when other work would have been far more lucrative. 

[marius]

Myself i never truly believed the so called culture, i used to argue about lots of things including religion. Probably helped a bit that i was in a private school.

And the recent changes in my opinion of the world started to happen with the so called bin laden death, after that a train of subjects and themes led to anarchy.

The main reason is that i feel that the current system has been tried for so much time, moreover its not right from a moral point.