A fresh (I Hope) perspective on the Zeitgiest Debate

[_LiveFree_]

He's been asked to do this for like every day this week in different threads. He's not going to start now. It's an exercise in futility.

Is it really worth it?

 

 

Does it make sense to continue to waste your time with someone who's mind you're not going to change? Before you engage with someone, you need to make sure they know how to think. If they don't, it doesn't matter what you say. It is not anyone's duty to convert the whole world to an-cap. If you were a professional opera singer, you don't just walk up to anyone and say "i know how to make you an opera singer. This is how." You'd wait for someone who is curious to come to you. You can help this happen by putting out feelers and being curious if a person can think. You don't put someone who hasn't even got a driver's license into a spaceship. 

 

What's sad is that all of you should know this already. The philosophy learned here is not like just another world view, or political perspective. It is not something you go to battle for. To treat it as such by fruitlessly going back and forth on a message board is, quite frankly, disgraceful. You either never understood this or have forgotten. It's one thing to engage like this for a short amount of time, but this has been going on for way over a week. 

 

While you're wasting your time on someone who will never hear you, there is someone else out there who will listen that is missing out on the wonderful things you might have said.

 

The only reason I've taken this tone is because those of you engaged here are not noobies. 

 

 

Also, the argument that this might be an exercise to get better at arguing your position is a bad one. To get better at something you need accurate feedback. You're not getting any here. You need to be able to succeed and fail. The only thing happening here is hitting your head on a brick wall. 

[Lians]

The only reason I've taken this tone is because those of you engaged here are not noobies. 

 

Nathan, I think you should be a little more empathetic with people precisely because they're not noobies. I brought up your concerns in a private conversation recently. The reasons behind the unproductive engaging with unreasonable people had very deep and painful roots.

[_LiveFree_]

Nathan, I think you should be a little more empathetic with people precisely because they're not noobies. I brought up your concerns in a private conversation recently. The reasons behind the unproductive engaging with unreasonable people had very deep and painful roots.

Lians, so I should be less empathetic with people who have very little idea what's going on?? That doesn't make any sense. Plus, please explain how I was showing a lack of empathy. I'm very interested to understand your point of view on that. You haven't pm'd me. How am I suppose to know the contents of a conversation you have with someone else?Well of course engaging in fruitless debate has deep and painful roots. That's why I'm vehemently encouraging everyone to stop. If someone is walking in front of a moving bus, I'm not going to be polite about getting them off the street. Lack of empathy is allowing someone to continue to abuse themselves and others. Even in a passive aggressive semi-anonymous manner.

[zippert]

In fact every mathematical operation  can be deconstructed in addition:

 

subrtraction = add a negative number

 

multiplication, i.e. 2*4 = 2+2+2+2

 

etc.

[Lians]

Lians, so I should be less empathetic with people who have very little idea what's going on?? That doesn't make any sense. Plus, please explain how I was showing a lack of empathy. I'm very interested to understand your point of view on that. You haven't pm'd me. How am I suppose to know the contents of a conversation you have with someone else?Well of course engaging in fruitless debate has deep and painful roots. That's why I'm vehemently encouraging everyone to stop. If someone is walking in front of a moving bus, I'm not going to be polite about getting them off the street.Lack of empathy is allowing someone to continue to abuse themselves and others. Even in a passive aggressive semi-anonymous manner.

 

If people genuinely didn't have the capacity to recognize when someone is beyond reason, it would be abusive to hold them to a standard of: "You should be able to identify people who can't think!" You can, of course, explain the logic behind your arguments and teach them how to put it in practice.

 

What if they did have the capacity, but for some reason weren't doing it? This is where you're coming from. Would you agree that it would be ridiculous to berate a skilled cityscape painter for being unable to use perspective in his drawings? It may be a stylistic choice. He may be fed up with painting cityscapes and expressing his frustration in that way. It could be a number of things. Surely, the best approach would be to ask him before jumping to conclusions.

 

Where exactly in your post do you show curiosity for people's experience of the situation? It's one conclusion after another. When you're trying to change people's behaviour without being curious about them, you're putting your preferences above their desires. "You should change because I want you to." That's not particularly empathetic, is it?

 

Now, I could have taken the approach of berating you for not knowing all this despite it being the topic of countless podcasts and an entire book. How productive would that be? I suggest you take the time to explore the feelings that prompted the reaction. I know it's not an easy thing to do, but it's definitely worth it.

 

There's an entire podcast about a listener's frustration with some board members that got troll baited. I looked for it, but couldn't find it. If anyone remembers which one it is, please post it here.

[_LiveFree_]

Lians,

 

I've thought about what you've said. I think there is merit to what you're saying. However, I believe you're applying RTR inappropriately in this situation. You presented two possibilities:

 

1. People can't be aware

2. People are aware and are using 10th degree black belt moves i'm unaware of

 

In my previous post, I had suggested a different scenario in that people had forgotten. In other words, they are capable of knowing, but have been caught up in the situation. I believe this to be the case. I don't think people engaged in this conversation are morons, nor do I believe they are total experts with secret moves i know nothing about. I believe they are human and have gotten sucked into an intellectual black hole.

 

Could I be wrong? Absolutely. And if you believe that I am, please explain why so that I can learn from the mistake.

 

Tomorrow is a day off for me. I will take the time to locate the podcast you're talking about. I will also locate some podcasts that support my position.

 

Thanks for the reply   

[Lians]

Lians,

 

I've thought about what you've said. I think there is merit to what you're saying. However, I believe you're applying RTR inappropriately in this situation. You presented two possibilities:

 

1. People can't be aware

2. People are aware and are using 10th degree black belt moves i'm unaware of

 

In my previous post, I had suggested a different scenario in that people had forgotten. In other words, they are capable of knowing, but have been caught up in the situation. I believe this to be the case. I don't think people engaged in this conversation are morons, nor do I believe they are total experts with secret moves i know nothing about. I believe they are human and have gotten sucked into an intellectual black hole.

 

Could I be wrong? Absolutely. And if you believe that I am, please explain why so that I can learn from the mistake.

 

Tomorrow is a day off for me. I will take the time to locate the podcast you're talking about. I will also locate some podcasts that support my position.

 

Thanks for the reply   

 

Thank you for taking the time to reflect on this.

 

You, yourself, were using 10th degree black belt moves that you are unaware of. Let me explain. Your initial reply to my post triggered anger, frustration and helplessness in me. I felt a desire to take apart the poor argumentation and lecture you on how, being an intelligent man with interests in philosophy, you shouldn't be making such basic mistakes. I became aware of these feelings and examined them more closely before replying.

 

If I was to engage you in an intellectual debate, you would have achieved your subconscious goal. We'd be talking about the arguments while ignoring the elephant in the room - your emotional experience. Both of us would end up feeling increasingly more angry, frustrated and helpless.

 

By lecturing you on how resorting to basic logical fallacies is far below your intellectual level, I'd be doing the exact same thing that I accused you of. You'd then be able to project your emotional experience on me by pointing out my hypocrisy. "This Lians guy is totally unreasonable. No wonder I felt this way. He's the one at fault."

 

You ignored your feelings and ended up provoking them in us. I'm guessing others felt that as well. This is very much an RTR thing.

 

Please understand that I'm not trying to tell you how wrong and inexperienced you are. I've been guilty of the same mistakes myself and I know how hard it is to self-RTR on the fly.

[Armitage]

Have you read any books on this? Any research you can show us?

Half the books I've read were about bad things that wouldn't happen in a sane and stable society with a reasonably high economic bottom, or where top is the bottom.But nevermind, I'm almost ashamed to point out that googling this stuff up is very easy. Here, money and stress correlation, down to the stress hormone measurement. The sumup can be read here. It is true that poverty and crime do not correlate directly, but that's because of many other factors. Most notably inflation. But stress does correlate. When there is nothing to steal, people sit at home and stress out themselves and their families. Or they sit in America's ubiquitous jails, much to the same effect.

 

Clarence Darrow, the famous lawyer of the Scopes monkey trial in 1920's wrote a book on the causes of violence and crime, called Resist Not Evil. It is one of the source books of The Venus Project.

 

 

 

(page 38, chapter VII, Cause of crime) 

Observation as to so-called crime has gone much further. The

number of inmates of our jails is much larger in winter than in

summer, which ought to show that there is something in the air

that produces a wicked heart in the winter, or that many persons

directly or indirectly go to jail because in winter, food and warmth

are not easily obtained and work is hard to get. For many years it

has been observed that jails are very much more crowded in hard

times than in good times. If work were sufficiently plentiful or remunerative both jails and almshouses would be compelled to close their

doors. Long ago it was ascertained from statistics that the number

of crimes rose and fell in exact accord with the price of bread. All

new communities, where land is cheap or free and labor has ample

employment, or, beer still, a chance to employ itself, are very free

from crime. England made Australia its dumping ground for criminals for years, but these same criminals when turned upon the wide

plains with a chance to get their living from the soil, became peaceable, orderly citizens fully respecting one another’s rights. England,

too, used certain portions of her American colonies where she sent

men for her country’s good. These criminals, like all the criminals of

the world, were the exploited, homeless class. When they reached

the new country, when they had an opportunity to live, they became as good citizens as the pilgrim fathers who were likewise

criminals themselves. As civilization has swept westward through

the United States, jails have lagged behind. The jail and the penitentiary are not the first institutions planted by colonists in a new

country, or by pioneers in a new state. These pioneers go to work

to till the soil, to cut down the forests, to dig the ore; it is only when

the owning class has been established and the exploiting class grows

up, that the jail and the penitentiary become fixed institutions, to

be used for holding people in their place.

 

This is maybe too subtle evidence, but I have been taught by my Libertarian schoolmaster that the so-called "Wild West" towns had an extremely low crime rate, without army and police. Elsewhere, I have read that the worst year, the worst town of the "Wild West" had 3 people killed. 

It is obvious that if people see the potential of feedback in the system - the potential to improve their situation by honest means, they will do so. The American dream is a modest dream. The problem with capitalism is, it never seems to stay modest, it rewards the immodest and produces the poor. It is a simple principle positive feedback, resulting in resonance - rich getting richer, poor getting poorer. Historically it never got too bad, not as bad as Communists hoped, the exploiting class learned that they need the workers, especially skilled workers. But today? Today they can replace the workers with machines. Production goes up, but purchasing power goes down and so does the ability to sell the production to people who make up the bulk of society. The system is just not geared to support the American dream.

[_LiveFree_]

1369: Tricky Trollz!http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1369_Tricky_Trollz.mp3  1512: Troll Spotting - A Conversationhttp://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1512_troll_spotting_convo.mp3425: Anger and Evolutionhttp://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_425_Anger_And_Evolution.mp3537: Board Etiquettehttp://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_537_Board_Etiquette.mp3Bronze Level Podcast -> Troll Spotting: Part 1 and Part 2------I'm making my way through these podcasts today. When I read your posts, Lians, I felt anxiety, probably because I felt I had allowed my ego, once again, to provoke people who I thought were acting in a far from desirable manner. This could actually be the case. But the more I'm listening to these podcasts and reading through RTR this afternoon, the more comfortable I'm feeling with the actions I initially took and the tone that I struck.I find it interesting that in my original post I never used a "!" or all caps, cursing or name calling. Yet, when you quoted me back, you added a "!". Is it fair to assume that when you read my post you heard a raised voice? Maybe saw a finger pointing?I think that I do have a considerable amount of patience, but it is not infinite by any means. I went back to see when all this began for me...http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37523-why-is-peaceful-parenting-possible-but-peaceful-government-not-possible/?p=344397All of this trolling has been going on for over a month, not a week.Anyway, I'm still thinking through it. Again, thanks for your thoughtful replies, Lians.Edit: I'm still pondering it, but the "You Lack Empathy!" section of RTR is standing out for me. (pg 65 in the PDR, pg 79 in the printed book)

[PatrickC]

We can only look forward to the great RBE/Armitage debate with Stefan on Dec 1st... But great catches all the same Nathan

[aeonicentity]

this is a pretty good description of the problem between both parties and fine example of stefan's truncation. 2+2=4 is fine on it's own... but how is it at all relevant when the equation you're trying to solve has to factor in methods of division, subtraction, muliplication etc?and that is pretty much how the debate carried out. stefan stated things which were mostly true, peter agreed with stefan that these things were true, but then also pointed out that they were not always true when given the relevant context (in this case, the context of the reality).

Because in mathematics, pretty much all proofs come back to the fact that you can prove two numbers add together. In fact, multiplication is merely a property of addition. Subtraction, the inversion of addition, Division a property of subtraction. Powers are an itterative form of multiplication, and square roots, merely the property of dividing a thing by a special number.

 

Fundamentally ALL mathematics is proven by 2+2 = 4. I think where steph is coming from is the logical method of problem solving. This is a very programmatical way of looking at a problem. You find the simplest problem, solve then test. Then you find the next most complex one, and so on, until you have an abstract concept of solutions to specific problems. Then you create something to manage the abstract solutions into a concrete problem solution. Peter Joseph goes about it in an entirely illogical and problematic method. He starts with the solution, and works backwards to prove it right. In this way he comes up with a monstrosity of an idea: Some kind of horrible statist blob that is controled by a 'benevolent dictator' (this idea isn't new by the way, someone's been playing too much Deus Ex. TZM is pretty much a direct ripoff of that plotline, right down to Universal Constructors).

 

The problem with this of course is the same issue you get when you use any videogame for inspiration about your future society: It's total bullshit. What steph says is true. the best and most reasonable idea is to find something that is true, and stick with it until you can move on to the next true thing, building on what was known before. This works because of a few very important things:

 

1) There is univeral truth (the opposite of this being a contradiction, therefore being false).

2) Reason is the only method by which you can definatevly discern the truth (the root assumption)

3) If truth is universal, every aspect of life must have truth which can be reasoned out of it.

4) If that is true, then it is concievable that you could reason the truth in any particular aspect of life, and by living by it, more closely approximate the Universal Truth.

 

But this process doesn't work backwards. You can't derive from a statement like "A society founded on Universal Truth would be Just" and figure out what that looks like. Just to whom? Just how? For that matter, what the hell is Justice? This is where PJ screws the pooch (Rand did this too for that matter). he makes broad sweeping statements about the future, makes plans, and says 'this will work' and 'that will work' but fails to solve these key problems. As a result he creates schewed ideals of justice. He would think its moral to deny people rights to their labor if they produced more than they needed. He decided that we're incapable of managing ourselves, therefore we need some benevolent dictator.

 

What steph says is true: if we let people be free to decide what they want to do, liberated the markets, and unleashed humanity from the shackles of imposed social order, we would create our own systems. Manage our own problems. Most importantly, we would choose what's best for ourselves as individuals, and that process would make us truely free. That is universally moral. But you can't work backwards. You can't make a free and just society by starting with some kind of framework and archetecture that comes prebuilt from a website into your mind. You need to organically build the experiment through reason and free application.

[june]

Because in mathematics, pretty much all proofs come back to the fact that you can prove two numbers add together. In fact, multiplication is merely a property of addition. Subtraction, the inversion of addition, Division a property of subtraction. Powers are an itterative form of multiplication, and square roots, merely the property of dividing a thing by a special number.

 

Fundamentally ALL mathematics is proven by 2+2 = 4. I think where steph is coming from is the logical method of problem solving. This is a very programmatical way of looking at a problem. You find the simplest problem, solve then test. Then you find the next most complex one, and so on, until you have an abstract concept of solutions to specific problems. Then you create something to manage the abstract solutions into a concrete problem solution.

 

i was merely trying to make a simple analogy about how stefan's argument was taking place within a vacuum and didn't allow for the influence of other factors. for example, you cannot state that "killing + person = wrong. therefore thou shall not kill", because that is trying to claim empiricism from limited factors, and it is clear that there can in fact be circumstances in which killing is 'right', or least acceptable. so when you add another influencing factor both the question and answer change altogether, ie. "killing + person + self-defense = right" -- it becomes an entirely different equation.peter joseph explained this quite well in the debate: "in pure vacuum and in the void of space these theories hold true, in other words you can have perfect circles when there is nothing else drawing influence. the fact of the matter is we live in a constant continuum of pressures."in response to the rest of your post, could you please provide just one source of your claim that peter joseph promotes, "Some kind of horrible statist blob that is controled by a 'benevolent dictator'". i have never heard tzm advocate anything like this and it would surprise me if this happened to be true, so i would appreciate it if you are able to back up this claim with evidence.

[Armitage]

We can only look forward to the great RBE/Armitage debate with Stefan on Dec 1st... But great catches all the same Nathan

I just hope I get the hour right. My time zone is GMT+1, so 10 AM EDT should be 4 PM here. Checked multiple times, I just hope there's no trick with daylight saving time.

 

Looks like Stefan will have a talk with my another favorite guy, Seth Andrews from The Thinking Atheist show. Which gave me an idea...Seth is the most friendly atheist I know of and he really has a way with people. So I prepared some notes and I tried to keep them as friendly and positive as I can. The notes are a long rant, but it should be a good rant, in case words get stuck in my throat, I never called in on any show.

[PoopMeat]

@Nathan Diehl

 

Bronze Level Podcast -> Troll Spotting: Part 1 and Part 2

 

 

I listened to all the podcasts you had in the post above but couldn't find these ones. What's a Bronze level podcast mean?

[Kevin Beal]

@Nathan Diehl

 

 

I listened to all the podcasts you had in the post above but couldn't find these ones. What's a Bronze level podcast mean?

It means that you need to have donated money to the show. The full breakdown of donation levels and associated badges is here.

 

There are hundreds of premium podcasts for each donation level. Me being a philosopher king means I donated at the top tier and thus get access to all the premium content.

 

*edit

Not hundreds for each, but there are hundreds and each donation level has premium content. There are a couple hundred or so in total, I think.

[_LiveFree_]

^what he said 

[aeonicentity]

peter joseph explained this quite well in the debate: "in pure vacuum and in the void of space these theories hold true, in other words you can have perfect circles when there is nothing else drawing influence. the fact of the matter is we live in a constant continuum of pressures."in response to the rest of your post, could you please provide just one source of your claim that peter joseph promotes, "Some kind of horrible statist blob that is controled by a 'benevolent dictator'". i have never heard tzm advocate anything like this and it would surprise me if this happened to be true, so i would appreciate it if you are able to back up this claim with evidence.

"Constant continum of pressures" is not an argument for why a top down illogical approach is the best solution to a problem.

 

TZM doesn't come out and say that they want a statist blob with a beneveloent dictator, but the reality is taht is what they are asking for. this is an idea in philosophy as old as aristotle, who first wrote this idea down. He wanted society to be ruled by infinately wise, and just philosopher kings. PJ has modernized this and stated that he wants society to be ruled by an infinitely wise, and just computer that will some how assure equal resource distribution.

 

The question must ineveitably arise: Who will pay for this computer? Who will maintain it? Who will ensure that resource harvesting is properly distributed? Who will ensure that no organization, individual, or collective is taking more than their share? The state of course! Even if PJ doesn't actively come out and suport some statist outgrowth, that is PRECEICELY what he's talking about. All through that debate even he always came back to how the government handled the problem of wealth distribution. 

 

But that's not even the core of my point: my point is this, PJ comes to eronious conclusions by hypothisizing exactly what some idealistic state should look like, then backtracking to the base assuptions. Stephan is right in his approach, by starting with the basic principals, that all people have a right to their property and so on, you can only THEN discover how to build a just and fair society.

[june]

"Constant continum of pressures" is not an argument for why a top down illogical approach is the best solution to a problem.

 

i know. it's a rebuttal to stefan's truncated arguments, which is what we're talking about. 

 

 

TZM doesn't come out and say that they want a statist blob with a beneveloent dictator, but the reality is taht is what they are asking for.

so you have no proof and are merely projecting your own prejudices. until you can validate your claims (which if true, really shouldn't be hard to do at all; even if they don't "come out and say that they want a statist blob" surely you can provide a source which at least hints towards this?) then it's best if this subject is put to a halt for now.

[PoopMeat]

i know. it's a rebuttal to stefan's truncated arguments, which is what we're talking about. 

so you have no proof and are merely projecting your own prejudices. until you can validate your claims (which if true, really shouldn't be hard to do at all; even if they don't "come out and say that they want a statist blob" surely you can provide a source which at least hints towards this?) then it's best if this subject is put to a halt for now.

 

June are you apart of TVP or TZM? Do you beleive in a RBE or RBEM?

[june]

June are you apart of TVP or TZM? Do you beleive in a RBE or RBEM?

 

i certainly align with their general principles of sustainability (which is basically common sense more than anything) and how the world today is a 'systems' problem rather than an ethical problem (ancaps belief?), i.e. the world and everything related to it works in synergy and intertwine constantly, therefore everything of relevance needs to be altered for true change, rather than just abiding by the nap and hoping other people will also abide by the nap, as that method basically cuts off the entire spectrum of pressures and just hones in on people, as if people are somehow separate from the pressures of the world and everything around themas for the rbe specifically, i'm undecided at this stage, mostly due to a lack of education. i will be reading their "zeitgeist movement defined" book when it releases to gain a better understanding of this topic

[PoopMeat]

i certainly align with their general principles of sustainability (which is basically common sense more than anything) and how the world today is a 'systems' problem rather than an ethical problem (ancaps belief?), i.e. the world and everything related to it works in synergy and intertwine constantly, therefore everything of relevance needs to be altered for true change, rather than just abiding by the nap and hoping other people will also abide by the nap, as that method basically cuts off the entire spectrum of pressures and just hones in on people, as if people are somehow separate from the pressures of the world and everything around themas for the rbe specifically, i'm undecided at this stage, mostly due to a lack of education. i will be reading their "zeitgeist movement defined" book when it releases to gain a better understanding of this topic

 

@June

 

a RBE has nothing to do with the zeitgeist movement. I did not know TZm was writing a book about their RBEM but just so you understand TZM has nothing to do with TVP's term called RBE. Therefore you sound like you align yourself with TZM's resource based economic model, than TVP's resource based economy ideology. Than again you can clarify if I'm wrong about that.

[june]

@June

 

a RBE has nothing to do with the zeitgeist movement. I did not know TZm was writing a book about their RBEM but just so you understand TZM has nothing to do with TVP's term called RBE. Therefore you sound like you align yourself with TZM's resource based economic model, than TVP's resource based economy ideology. Than again you can clarify if I'm wrong about that.

all i can say is that i align with their general outlook on the world in terms of sustainability on a finite planet and using technology to help keep us in balance with nature as best as needed. i dont mind whether that is tzm or tvp, it's the information/viewpoint that is important.as for "the zeitgeist movement defined" book, peter mentioned it in his new interview with breakingtheset. he said it releases in jan 2014, if i recall correctly. hopefully it can lock me onto some specifics behind this viewpoint/outlook

[PoopMeat]

all i can say is that i align with their general outlook on the world in terms of sustainability on a finite planet and using technology to help keep us in balance with nature as best as needed. i dont mind whether that is tzm or tvp, it's the information/viewpoint that is important.as for "the zeitgeist movement defined" book, peter mentioned it in his new interview with breakingtheset. he said it releases in jan 2014, if i recall correctly. hopefully it can lock me onto some specifics behind this viewpoint/outlook

 

 

I think you should mind. It shows you do not know enough about a RBE ideology to really be believing in it let alone be promoting it. [1]

 

[1]  Threats towards TVP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX2IfjZXJZg#t=23m10s

[PatrickC]

as for "the zeitgeist movement defined" book, peter mentioned it in his new interview with breakingtheset. he said it releases in jan 2014, if i recall correctly. hopefully it can lock me onto some specifics behind this viewpoint/outlook

 

We can only look forward to this with bated breath.. Perhaps some vinaigrette for the (word) salad perhaps..

[Mike Fleming]

Well, religious books have a history of being popular so it should make some good money.   

[june]

I think you should mind. It shows you do not know enough about a RBE ideology to really be believing in it let alone be promoting it. [1]

 

[1]  Threats towards TVP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX2IfjZXJZg#t=23m10s

i literally just told you that i am uneducated when it comes to RBE. i do not claim otherwise. i am not actually that interested in the topic either because (as far as im aware) RBE is more about specific design (TVP), whereas i am more interested in the logic which allowed that design to be, ie. sustainability, technology, focus on public health etc (TZM)

[PoopMeat]

i literally just told you that i am uneducated when it comes to RBE. i do not claim otherwise. i am not actually that interested in the topic either because (as far as im aware) RBE is more about specific design (TVP),

 

You don't have to make such a claim I already know it. Just because you self admit your not educated on a concept you actively promote doesn't add any substance to what you say or any legitimacy towards a RBE but in fact makes you look a bit foolish for believing and promoting something you don't even understand as you have said.

 

whereas i am more interested in the logic which allowed that design to be, ie. sustainability, technology, focus on public health etc (TZM)

 

 

Well  I'd say in my opinion this may not be a site to be on if you want to learn about a RBE, you need to join up on TVP and or TZM and ask them. When it comes to TVP's RBE or TZM's RBEM I do not see the logic behind it their promoting socialism. To use an analogy it's like if you were to walk into a gun club and say that you are against guns because you believe in something else that's against guns yet you do not really understand that particular ideology and therefore expect gun rights owners to get you to understand the logic in the ideology that you clearly do not understand yourself.

 

Why would a gun club see logic in something they clearly do not agree with? Why would you expect a gun club to help you in your quest to find out why it's logicalyl not to own guns?

[june]

You don't have to make such a claim I already know it. Just because you self admit your not educated on a concept you actively promote doesn't add any substance to what you say or any legitimacy towards a RBE but in fact makes you look a bit foolish for believing and promoting something you don't even understand as you have said.

 

 

Well  I'd say in my opinion this may not be a site to be on if you want to learn about a RBE, you need to join up on TVP and or TZM and ask them. When it comes to TVP's RBE or TZM's RBEM I do not see the logic behind it their promoting socialism. To use an analogy it's like if you were to walk into a gun club and say that you are against guns because you believe in something else that's against guns yet you do not really understand that particular ideology and therefore expect gun rights owners to get you to understand the logic in the ideology that you clearly do not understand yourself.

 

Why would a gun club see logic in something they clearly do not agree with? Why would you expect a gun club to help you in your quest to find out why it's logicalyl not to own guns?

i find this post intellectually offensive. are you really suggesting i have no place on this forum because i have a different world view? i came to this forum to discuss and explore the ancap disposition, to learn it, ask questions on it, and genrally to discuss philoposhy and our world. i posted a thread that put the nap and property rights through a intregrity test in the hopes of finding an answer to possible problems with those principles. so far no one has provided a valid answer to my queries. i do not know why you are picking on me personally because of this. i have not been offensive. i have not "promoted" tzm or tvp. i came here for discussion and exploration, and this attitude from you to shut out other perspectives is sad to see. i did not (and do not) believe that this is how this board operates, and i hope  it is only you who holds this closed-off view on discussion and philosphy.

 

edit: if you want to move past this petty attack on me personally, please feel free to respond to my thread where i raised queries/concerns about the nap and property rights. that is what is important -- putting philopshy through intellectual tests to see if they can withstand pure logic. that is what is important. stick to the information, not the people. peace, and i really do look forward to your response should you choose to do so, as after reading the other responses to my thread no one has been able to dismantle my arguments head-on. i challenge anybody to do so. i welcome it, if it can be done.

[PoopMeat]

i find this post intellectually offensive. are you really suggesting i have no place on this forum because i have a different world view? i came to this forum to discuss and explore the ancap disposition, to learn it, ask questions on it, and genrally to discuss philoposhy and our world. i posted a thread that put the nap and property rights through a intregrity test in the hopes of finding an answer to possible problems with those principles. so far no one has provided a valid answer to my queries. i do not know why you are picking on me personally because of this. i have not been offensive. i have not "promoted" tzm or tvp. i came here for discussion and exploration, and this attitude from you to shut out other perspectives is sad to see. i did not (and do not) believe that this is how this board operates, and i hope  it is only you who holds this closed-off view on discussion and philosphy.edit: if you want to move past this petty attack on me personally, please feel free to respond to my thread where i raised queries/concerns about the nap and property rights. that is what is important -- putting philopshy through intellectual tests to see if they can withstand pure logic. that is what is important. stick to the information, not the people. peace, and i really do look forward to your response should you choose to do so, as after reading the other responses to my thread no one has been able to dismantle my arguments head-on. i challenge anybody to do so. i welcome it, if it can be done.

 

Hello welcome to the internet, I think your being a bit overly sensitive and your playing the victim card. To respond I said and I quote, "Well  I'd say in my opinion this may not be a site" therefore this is not of a opinion or representation of anyone on FDR besides myself. Therefore I'm fine if you are intellectually offended by my opinion because I don't have a problem with what I said your the one with the problem. I stand by what I say.

 

i do not know why you are picking on me personally because of this. i have not been offensive.

 

 

Again playing the victim card here and inventing that I'm picking on you, I'm not picknig on you again your being overly sensitive, this is your problem not mine. If you don't like criticism or suggestion then you'll have a problem on the internet.

 

i have not been offensive. i have not "promoted" tzm or tvp. i came here for discussion and exploration, and this attitude from you to shut out other perspectives is sad to see.

 

 

I agree you haven't been offensive though you playing the victim card and are overly sensitive but at that I do not beleive I have been offensive either if your suggesting I was. In my opinion you have join FDR to promote TVP and or TZM which I do not mind that you have but here's the example, "i know. it's a rebuttal to stefan's truncated arguments, which is what we're talking about.". Truncated is a word PEter Joseph used and you parrot that as your own word because Peter did. You probably wouldn't of chosen that word if it was never uttered out of his mouth therefore this is a bit of a hint where you lean as far as a RBE. Another example, "RBE is more about specific design (TVP), whereas i am more interested in the logic which allowed that design to be, ie. sustainability, technology, focus on public health etc (TZM)", which again shows you align yourself with TZM's RBE then TVP's RBEM. Another example "peter joseph explained this quite well in the debate: "in pure vacuum and in the void of space these theories hold true, in other words you can have perfect circles when there is nothing else drawing influence. the fact of the matter is we live in a constant continuum of pressures.", again we can see this same theme of Stefan wrong PEter is right type of hero worship. You claim to want to learn about ancap but the majority of your psots are on TZM related threads, therefore it would suggest you may be here to learn about ancap but your more here to defend your leader as well. These are my thoughts and I stand by it.

 

 

i did not (and do not) believe that this is how this board operates, and i hope  it is only you who holds this closed-off view on discussion and philosphy.

 

 

Again playing the victim card and wanting FDR memebrs to back ou up. You invented a fact that I represent FDR board, what I said is of my opinion and no one elses, I too am also a new comer on FDR and I'm not a ancap believer though I believe in a free market with the government out of the market place. I joined FDR mainly to share my information on TVP and TZM and to discuss these things and guess what this thread is to do exactly that genius. I think your being a bit overly sensitive, and it's not my problem that you are upset with a opinion I said, your the one with the problem not me I can't help if your upset your allowed to be but I will in fatc tell you straight up that I think your inventing things because you are emotional rather than looking at the situation for a logical and rational standpoint.

 

 

if you want to move past this petty attack on me personally, please feel free to respond to my thread where i raised queries/concerns about the nap and property rights. that is what is important

 

 

How about this I will just continue to do what I do. It wasn't a personal attack it's of my opinion that you do not know much about a RBE and you should seek knowledge in about a RBE in TVP or TZM. If you get over my opinion that's not my problem and again that's your problem.

 

putting philopshy through intellectual tests to see if they can withstand pure logic. that is what is important. stick to the information, not the people. peace, and i really do look forward to your response should you choose to do so, as after reading the other responses to my thread no one has been able to dismantle my arguments head-on. i challenge anybody to do so. i welcome it, if it can be done.

 

 

Again inventing things up and being overly sensitive for no reason. Your playing the victim card and you need to stop that your not a victim your intentionally making yourself the victim and me the bad person. I didn't do anything to you and if you can't take criticism and you revert to being the victim and painting me as a attacker then that shows how weak your arguments really are and that you don't have a leg to stand on.

[june]

this is boring. i do not want to partake in personal jabs of this side vs that side. stop berating me for having a viewpoint and instead lets discuss the actual information at hand. if you have a problem with anything i said then don't simply label me as this or that, actually make an argument to refute it. peace

[PoopMeat]

this is boring. i do not want to partake in personal jabs of this side vs that side. stop berating me for having a viewpoint and instead lets discuss the actual information at hand. if you have a problem with anything i said then don't simply label me as this or that, actually make an argument to refute it. peace

 

Welcome to the internet! Come again please.

[TheRobin]

poopmeat: Being on the internet is not an excuse for behaving like a dick. If you want to offload the responsibility of your behaviour to something else then I'm pretty sure that's the wrong forum to do that.

[PoopMeat]

poopmeat: Being on the internet is not an excuse for behaving like a dick. If you want to offload the responsibility of your behaviour to something else then I'm pretty sure that's the wrong forum to do that.

 

First I want to thank you for calling me out on this I really do appreciate your/others thoughts and in general people should call out others or have dialogue with persons/groups that they disagree with to gain a better understanding. If a person has a problem with me I want them to call me out on it on the site or PM or any other method to contact me directly.

 

So with that I disagree,I do not think I was being as you say a "dick" but rather was being straight forward.

 

 

If you want to offload the responsibility of your behaviour to something else then I'm pretty sure that's the wrong forum to do that.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what your getting at but I had suggested to this individual that in my opinion they may look for more RBE info on TVP and TZM. This individual then said I attacked them which was never my intent. After he called me out for attacking him I responded that he may be a bit "overly sensitive" and "painting themselves as a victim", then I'm guilty as charged; though I do not interpret that as an attack but my thoughts on his interpretation of me attacking me.

 

Do not get me wrong I'm sympathetic towards anyone who perceives things I write as an attack but more times than not that's not what I intended to do. I'm very straight forward in my line of thinking and how I communicate. Therefore it goes against who I am to lie or sugar coat something and it can be perceived as me being a "dick" or a jerk but I'd rather be straight forward than to lie to someone. I think I would be doing a person a disservice if I lied or sugar coated what I really thought rather than being straight forward about it. I'm not perfect I can be and have been wrong many of times but in this particular communication I do not believe so though I am empathtic towards this situation. So you and others can give me all the negative points you want, to your hearts content I'll keep doing what I think is right. Though I wont' give you or others negative points though.

 

TheRobin I feel you have jumped the gun a bit though. June perceived me as attacking him and hoped other FDR members would go with him to defend him (I even noted this in my post that, that this is what he was trying to do aka play the victim card). At which I explained to June that it was an opinion and not an intent to attack in that he would learn more about a RBE if he want on TVP and TZM communication mediums. This doesn't mean I told him that he should stop posting here. To add you jumped onboard with June defending their perception of being attacked when I already explained my intent was not an attack at all.  I almost feel you got duped by June to defend him because he played the victim card and you ran in to save him. Which is fine

 

I agree on exchanging thoughts and calling out people when a disagreement arises. June is allowed to feel like he's been attacked, I'm allowed to say to him that my intent was never to attack and that he's overly sensitive and playing the victim card. Just because I say those things that certainly doesn't mean June should not change the perception that he's attacked and he's the victim, but in the same sense that does not change my opinion that I think he's overly sensitive and playing the victim. He's allowed the feel the way he does and I'm allowed to feel the way I do. I'm not going to tell someone how they should feel, however in this case I will explain that my intent wasn't to attack but an opinion take it or leave. 

[TheRobin]

the reason I called your behaviour as "being a dick" is cause you repeatedly used the phrases "welcome to the internet" and called him "overly sensitive" and such, for which I don't see good reasons ("overly sensitive" is another way of saying that he's wrong feeling insulted, despite you then saying he's allowed to feel insulted, which is another way of saying "You're wrong but feel free to believe whatever you want" which is really just passive aggressive at that point).Though I have to say in order to make a good case for it I'd have to write about as many paragraphs as you did and I really don't feel like doing that, especially since it would involve a lot of quoting and going thourgh a lot of posts and such, which is really tedious work and I don't realy enjoy doing that.

 

So yeah, I get this isn't that helpful given the shortness of the reply. I'd go and search for a podcast, but I don't really remember a good one on that topic, maybe someone else can jump in here. 

[PoopMeat]

the reason I called your behaviour as "being a dick" is cause you repeatedly used the phrases "welcome to the internet" and called him "overly sensitive" and such, for which I don't see good reasons ("overly sensitive" is another way of saying that he's wrong feeling insulted, despite you then saying he's allowed to feel insulted, which is another way of saying "You're wrong but feel free to believe whatever you want" which is really just passive aggressive at that point).Though I have to say in order to make a good case for it I'd have to write about as many paragraphs as you did and I really don't feel like doing that, especially since it would involve a lot of quoting and going thourgh a lot of posts and such, which is really tedious work and I don't realy enjoy doing that.

 

So yeah, I get this isn't that helpful given the shortness of the reply. I'd go and search for a podcast, but I don't really remember a good one on that topic, maybe someone else can jump in here. 

 

Fair enough, I think I understand your side though I compeltly disagree with it.

 

"overly sensitive" is another way of saying that he's wrong feeling insulted, despite you then saying he's allowed to feel insulted, which is another way of saying "You're wrong but feel free to believe whatever you want" which is really just passive aggressive at that point).

 

 

This is up for interpretation. Though I could say your being passive aggressive when you called me a "dick", though I think that was more of a emotional response to what you perceived as a injustice and not really based on civil discourse at which you may be capable of doing. I don't think he's wrong if he feels insulted because he has a right to feel the way he does however and I've said this from the start that my intent was an opinion that he interpreted as an attack. I don't believe it to be wrong if I suggest he's being a bit overly sensitive and playing the victim card because that's honestly what I believe. I stand by what I said and this is my thoughts on the matter. I honestly do not think June is wrong nor am I wrong in feeling in this way, I can't control the way June feels nor can June control the way I feel, nor can I control the way you feel. Your allowed to feel that way and I'm allowed to disagree, if you don't like it then my apologies if it hurts your feelings before hand but I will still disagree. In general if someone does not like what someone says on FDR I highly recommend people start using the blacklist option on FDR.