Back to find things have gone from anarchy and peace to Trump?

[IsaacGage860]

What the fuck are you talking about? We aren't discussing whats in your head... Being free in your mind doesn't mean you are free in reality much in the same way that believing you can fly doesn't make it so. You can continue to live in your head if you like but this is getting pretty asinine, perhaps you should stop pretending to be psychic and telling others what goes on in their minds.

 

You continue to say that voting is ineffective while simultaneously saying it has an effect. Make up your mind!

 

Who here is advocating for subjugation? You accuse others of sophistry while telling others that by voting it means they support government which is an ASSUMPTION on your part... People vote for any variety of reasons, you don't get to dictate what people do or don't support with their actions especially when those actions have no effect according to you.

 

Since you get to equate voting with supporting and legitimizing government does that mean I can equate not voting with supporting and legitimizing nihilism?

 

You haven't given people an alternative... have you made a free society for everyone here to go to? I'm sure if they had that option they'd be much less likely to vote.

 

Also voting in and of itself isn't the issue, people vote all the time every day, they vote with their feet and with their wallets. Is that a problem also?

Is that voting with their feet and wallets coerced out of them at the point of a gun? Or is it individual economic actors choosing voluntarily from an array of different choices? The point he was making about being free in one's head was that if we elect people to rule over us, none of us can ever make decisions on our own. The choice has to come from the top down, similar to the state sanctioned Pravda in the Soviet Union offering the population the choice between one shitty car and another shitty car, one horrible brand of toothpaste vs. another horrible brand of toothpaste. Nowhere in this voting decision is there room for people to experiment and try things for themselves. As long as you have the government with the ultimate power to make decisions that can change the course of history, you are going to have people attracted to it that want to destroy Western civilization in your words. The fight will never end because there is always a gun in the room. Yeah you might be able to keep them at bay for a while, but as many here have pointed out demographics matter. I don't know what President Trump is going to be able to do, but if he can somehow reduce the size and power of the state from within and lead us to a more peaceful society then I'm all for it. Then again, Reagan was the supposed to be the president of small government and what did we get? Lower taxes but higher deficit spending which offset the gains. Nixon also ran on a small government Republican platform but then did a 180 and went full Keynesian. I'm going to reserve judgement but I am not overly optimistic.     

(1) Cause has to end somewhere.  It can't end on contingency since that violates the principle of sufficient reason.  The only sufficient reason for the contingent things of the Universe existing is an æternal thing.  A tower of contingent causes leads to the absurdity of an infinite regress of causes.  Therefore there must be an æternal cause.

(2) Consciousness has no explanation in a sea of mindless molecules unless it is itself in some sense original, part of the æternal cause.  That would make that cause analogous to our consciousness.  Ergo, in light of mankind's creative nature able to discover and employ principle, man's mind made in the image of the Creator.

But then who gave God his being? His ultimate power? To say he was always just there is the god of the gaps and reducing the argument to Pascal's Wager. In other words its better to assume God is real because the consequences of not believing outweigh the clear benefits, Heaven vs. simply being wrong or going to Hell. This is still not an argument with any kind of empirical proof or evidence. I am agnostic because of course I do not know either, but if God can descend down from the Heavens tomorrow and take a selfie with the Pope, then I will begin to reconsider.  

[Donnadogsoth]

I agree with you that man is unique because of its capacity for reason. However the second half describes all living things. Life adapts is a universal truth, which would make labeling us super-nature a distinction without a difference. Because species that do not have the capacity for reason do this also, I would just call it natural, not super-nature.

 

Whoops! This post was probably the most sensical I've seen from you in awhile if not ever. As impressive as that is, it's not enough to distract me from you slipping in "is made." This is begging the question. So I'll ask the question one last time: How do you know? No gaps, no assertions. I'm looking for logic, reason, and evidence.

 

Our understanding of natural law, as exampled by principles which we discover through experimentation, allows us to increase the power of our labour over nature. We have the power to reorder the Universe using our minds, with no principled upper limit to our power except the limitation I described above in terms of the inscribed circle, which is our temporal limit on how quickly and easily we can acquire such power. That limit aside, we literally have the power of a God or of Gods at our potential disposal, subject to our operating according to natural law.

 

Still with me? The next thing to consider is how these principles are discovered, were they just tripped over or what, and the answer is they are the result of not just thought but emotion, particularly the emotion of agape or love of man, the motivator to spend one's life searching for scientific truths—for the benefit of mankind. With that mind, take the case of Christ, the archetype of the love of man. Without Christ, no popular conception of natural law, and without that, no Renaissance, no scientific revolution, no Enlightenment, and no anarcho-capitalist movement. Ask yourself if Stefan would be conceivable without love of man, that his crusade against evil would mean anything and would even begin if his only concern were to not pay taxes.

 

So we have the God-like human potential for intellect and power, and we have the human capacity for love, both of which are unlimited in principle, both combined in one sovereign mind.

 

That's where we ask where these things come from, where does intellect and love come from? If we take a materialist viewpoint, very fashionable these days, you'll hang with all the best people, we have to assume that mind is nothing more than an “epiphenomenon” like a layer of brightly coloured gasoline on a water puddle, moving incidentally with the winds and ripples, utterly unfree. Could there be a more ironic or less harmonious conception to go with the freedom vaunted by the anarcho-capitalist movement?

 

No, if political freedom is to mean anything, man must also be ontologically free. And so our freedom cannot be the function of the mixing of molecules, but must be in terms of a non-material strata.

 

Intellect, power, love, freedom, all being part of the respective sovereign, non-material minds of men, yet forming through its action as part of the human species what V.I. Vernadsky termed the noösphere--the domain of cognitive action which has been, throughout human history, superseding and reordering the biosphere in accordance with human survival and happiness—all this exists in a non-material domain.

 

Now apply this to the understanding that contingency cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing. Turtle upon turtle, all the way down does not explain why there is a Universe. At the end of the line the buck, or the turtle, has to stop at an æternal substance, something that by its nature exists forever, but which has the capacity to generate the Universe. This generation must include generating the mind of man, the noösphere, including those things' dominant nature over the biosphere and lithosphere or abiotic domain.

 

How can this æternal substance so generate the noösphere, and the mind of man, if it itself were not primarily defined in those terms? If it were dead, abiotic, it would be nothing more than the Master Molecule and humans would revert to being epiphenomenal puppets. If man is free, if man is loving, if man's intellect has power, then man must exist in a Universe in which the generating force is made in man's image, or, vice versa.

[rosencrantz]

then man must exist in a Universe in which the generating force is made in man's image, or, vice versa.

 

The earth is 4,5 billion years old, man is intelligent for 100 000 years. That's some low tier generating force if I ever saw one. 

[Tyler H]

Oh, that was from me.  Sorry, I thought everyone knew.    

Lol

[DCLugi]

My nervous system is responsible for my thoughts and actions to the extent that it processes sensory information it receives from the environment. My nervous system is not the primary cause of the sensory data from the environment, but it certainly has an effect on the environment from which the sensory data is obtained. In some sense, you could say that the environment I have lived in is also largely, responsible for my thoughts and actions. I have very little doubt that had my environment been less advantageous or more advantageous growing up, that my present thinking and circumstances would likely be different, probably vastly different depending on the amount of difference in the environment. There are many factors which are responsible for my thoughts and actions, and yet in the end, I (the mind) am the one ultimately culpable or ethically responsible for my thoughts and actions as I am a self-aware, volitional being (or at least I seem to be--a very strong case has been made for strict determinism).

So morality is not only based on sentimental agreement but is also pre-determined? This implies that one can't be wrong so is there even a point in discussing it?

[D-Light]

So morality is not only based on sentimental agreement but is also pre-determined? This implies that one can't be wrong so is there even a point in discussing it?

Strict determinism has been interpreted to suggest no culpability; however, this is a false dilemma since holding a person morally responsible would be equally unavoidable. If we can avoid "wrongly" holding a person morally responsible, then they must be capable of avoiding the "wrong" action themselves. Thus, either holding them accountable is unavoidable, or their immoral action was.

[Tyler H]

Strict determinism has been interpreted to suggest no culpability; however, this is a false dilemma since holding a person morally responsible would be equally unavoidable. If we can avoid "wrongly" holding a person morally responsible, then they must be capable of avoiding the "wrong" action themselves. Thus, either holding them accountable is unavoidable, or their immoral action was.

I think you're statement is correct from a determinist position, however couldn't the argument be made that the determinist himself can't hold people responsible and be consistent with his own determinist position?

[D-Light]

I think you're statement is correct from a determinist position, however couldn't the argument be made that the determinist himself can't hold people responsible and be consistent with his own determinist position?

The determinist position is not an imperative (moral) system, it is a declarative (empirical) system. If the determinist is able to choose whether or not to hold another person morally responsible, their assertion of the truth of determinism is demonstrably false. If, on the other hand, they are not able to make such a choice, but there only appears to be such a choice having been made, then the determinist position holds, regardless of the moral condemnation or exculpation. Personally, I find the strict determinist position to be irrelevant to the question of moral responsibility since whether or not determinism is an accurate depiction of existence or not cannot be determined as it will look precisely the same anyway.

[Tyler H]

The determinist position is not an imperative (moral) system, it is a declarative (empirical) system. If the determinist is able to choose whether or not to hold another person morally responsible, their assertion of the truth of determinism is demonstrably false. If, on the other hand, they are not able to make such a choice, but there only appears to be such a choice having been made, then the determinist position holds, regardless of the moral condemnation or exculpation. Personally, I find the strict determinist position to be irrelevant to the question of moral responsibility since whether or not determinism is an accurate depiction of existence or not cannot be determined and will look precisely the same anyway.

I see what you mean. Well phrased I might add.

[DCLugi]

The determinist position is not an imperative (moral) system, it is a declarative (empirical) system. If the determinist is able to choose whether or not to hold another person morally responsible, their assertion of the truth of determinism is demonstrably false. If, on the other hand, they are not able to make such a choice, but there only appears to be such a choice having been made, then the determinist position holds, regardless of the moral condemnation or exculpation. Personally, I find the strict determinist position to be irrelevant to the question of moral responsibility since whether or not determinism is an accurate depiction of existence or not cannot be determined as it will look precisely the same anyway.

So with determinism off the table we can continue the discussion. You are saying that you are the one ultimately responsible for your thoughts and actions. Do you hold this as an objective truth for all?

[D-Light]

So with determinism off the table we can continue the discussion. You are saying that you are the one ultimately responsible for your thoughts and actions. Do you hold this as an objective truth for all?

I am the ultimate source of my thoughts and actions, and I am the one that is ultimately culpable or creditable for my actions.  I hold this as true for all individuals capable of voluntary action, and to the degree of their developmental psychological maturity (i.e., I wouldn't not hold a 2 year old culpable for the act of murder, as they cannot be considered able to comprehend what their actions entail to the same degree that a teenager or adult is capable of comprehending).

[DCLugi]

I am the ultimate source of my thoughts and actions, and I am the one that is ultimately culpable or creditable for my actions.  I hold this as true for all individuals capable of voluntary action, and to the degree of their developmental psychological maturity (i.e., I wouldn't not hold a 2 year old culpable for the act of murder, as they cannot be considered able to comprehend what their actions entail to the same degree that a teenager or adult is capable of comprehending).

So one could say that you own your thoughts and actions?

[D-Light]

So one could say that you own your thoughts and actions?

How can one own an action? Can one transfer ownership of an action to another? If you purchase my actions between now and one hour from now, and I go out and commit murder during that time, are you culpable for the actions your purchased in advance? If I wanted to purchase your actions for the past year, am I thereby entitled to all the enjoyment you received from performing them? If so, how do I collect on all the proceeds of those actions? If I decide I don't want to be the owner or your actions for the past year, can I transfer them to another?

 

I think the idea of ownership of actions (including thoughts which are "mental actions") is merely an artificial contrivance that has no real bearing on what we really mean by "ownership" in every other instance or circumstance, which leads me to reject the notion.  Furthermore, as previously mentioned, "ownership" is a sentiment that only has any meaning when shared (or disputed) by two or more members in a society. This socratic questioning is interesting, but it's getting a bit tedious... how about you make your own argument instead of trying to lead me to make it for you?

[DCLugi]

How can one own an action? Can one transfer ownership of an action to another? If you purchase my actions between now and one hour from now, and I go out and commit murder during that time, are you culpable for the actions your purchased in advance? If I wanted to purchase your actions for the past year, am I thereby entitled to all the enjoyment you received from performing them? If so, how do I collect on all the proceeds of those actions? If I decide I don't want to be the owner or your actions for the past year, can I transfer them to another?

 

I think the idea of ownership of actions (including thoughts which are "mental actions") is merely an artificial contrivance that has no real bearing on what we really mean by "ownership" in every other instance or circumstance, which leads me to reject the notion.  Furthermore, as previously mentioned, "ownership" is a sentiment that only has any meaning when shared (or disputed) by two or more members in a society. This socratic questioning is interesting, but it's getting a bit tedious... how about you make your own argument instead of trying to lead me to make it for you?

Actually I'm trying to work it out myself and found your perspective challenging but I'm okay with ending it too.

[D-Light]

Actually I'm trying to work it out myself and found your perspective challenging but I'm okay with ending it too.

If you're trying to work it out, I'm happy to continue. I realize it's not a particularly popular position, and I've spent a long time working it out. Still, I encounter some new perspectives from time to time that help me refine, and every once in awhile completely revise or abandon a position I've held for a long while. I enjoy the discussion; it just felt like it was getting a bit tedious with the libertarian property argument that is currently in vogue. I must say that I used to be much more staunch libertarian before visiting this forum. Now, Stefan and others have fairly well convinced me of the anarchist position (though I still disagree with his strong atheist anti-agnostic reasoning. I'm more of the literal interpretation of atheist, not anti-theist as Stefan and other so-called "strong atheists" seem to be.

[Tyler H]

How can one own an action? Can one transfer ownership of an action to another? If you purchase my actions between now and one hour from now, and I go out and commit murder during that time, are you culpable for the actions your purchased in advance? If I wanted to purchase your actions for the past year, am I thereby entitled to all the enjoyment you received from performing them? If so, how do I collect on all the proceeds of those actions? If I decide I don't want to be the owner or your actions for the past year, can I transfer them to another?

 

I think the idea of ownership of actions (including thoughts which are "mental actions") is merely an artificial contrivance that has no real bearing on what we really mean by "ownership" in every other instance or circumstance, which leads me to reject the notion.  Furthermore, as previously mentioned, "ownership" is a sentiment that only has any meaning when shared (or disputed) by two or more members in a society. This socratic questioning is interesting, but it's getting a bit tedious... how about you make your own argument instead of trying to lead me to make it for you?

 

 

If I could jump in here, I think how one owns an action is that the term's ownership and responsibility are used interchangeably in the argument for property rights, the ownership of property being a result of our ownership/responsibility of/for our actions.  

 

Not sure what you mean by purchasing someone's actions.  My first thought was employment for remuneration, but obviously that's not what you meant.  If you mean purchasing the core motor functions of another person then as far as I know that's not possible.  

[dsayers]

How can one own an action? Can one transfer ownership of an action to another? If you purchase my actions between now and one hour from now, and I go out and commit murder during that time, are you culpable for the actions your purchased in advance? If I wanted to purchase your actions for the past year, am I thereby entitled to all the enjoyment you received from performing them? If so, how do I collect on all the proceeds of those actions? If I decide I don't want to be the owner or your actions for the past year, can I transfer them to another?

 

I think the idea of ownership of actions (including thoughts which are "mental actions") is merely an artificial contrivance that has no real bearing on what we really mean by "ownership" in every other instance or circumstance, which leads me to reject the notion.  Furthermore, as previously mentioned, "ownership" is a sentiment that only has any meaning when shared (or disputed) by two or more members in a society. This socratic questioning is interesting, but it's getting a bit tedious... how about you make your own argument instead of trying to lead me to make it for you?

The question was THOUGHTS and actions. This bluster serves as a deflection from the question of the part you apparently don't reject. Perhaps your annoyance comes from the fact that you've basically reasoned into being against your own position, if I understand the socratic method being employed correctly. Sorry, mostly wasn't following it.

 

How do we own ourselves? It's because we have the capability of reason. We understand the consequences of our actions, therefore we are responsible for them. If we own ourselves, especially for this reason, then of course we own the effects of our labor. Be that a chair we fashion or a window that we break.

 

If you feel your understanding of the word ownership doesn't fit this, how do you know that it is the idea of owning an action that must give and not your understood definition? Not saying that you're wrong to take that approach; Just curious if you're open to the possibility.

[D-Light]

... the term's ownership and responsibility are used interchangeably in the argument for property rights...

 

And that is what I take issue with.

 

... the ownership of property being a result of our ownership/responsibility of/for our actions.  

 

I don't disagree entirely with the premise; however, it gets messy when the property being manipulated to make new objects are not already considered the property of the individuals applying their actions to them, which is another reason why I believe it to be important to keep the concepts definite, separate and distinct. Ownership of chattel (personal, movable property) is a distinct concept from the idea of "self-ownership" and "ownership of actions".

 

Not sure what you mean by purchasing someone's actions.  My first thought was employment for remuneration, but obviously that's not what you meant.  If you mean purchasing the core motor functions of another person then as far as I know that's not possible.

 

Yes, that is precisely my point. When people talk about employment, they're not actually paying for the time or labor of a person, they're paying for the results of that time and labor.

 

The question was THOUGHTS and actions.

... I think the idea of ownership of actions (including thoughts which are "mental actions")...

If you're going to take the trouble to comment on what I wrote, please take the trouble to ACTUALLY READ what I wrote. 

 

This bluster serves as a deflection from the question of the part you apparently don't reject.

 

Nope.  I reject the notion that actions (including thoughts) can be owned in the same way that that material objects and places (real estate) may be owned.

 

Perhaps your annoyance comes from the fact that you've basically reasoned into being against your own position, if I understand the socratic method being employed correctly. Sorry, mostly wasn't following it.

 

Please refrain from commenting on something you don't take the troulbe to follow. That sort of behavior I find particularly annoying. That and specious accusations of bluster.

 

How do we own ourselves? It's because we have the capability of reason. We understand the consequences of our actions, therefore we are responsible for them. If we own ourselves, especially for this reason, then of course we own the effects of our labor. Be that a chair we fashion or a window that we break.

 

You just mentioned two things being owned: "(our)selves" and "the effects (of our labor)". You also referred to the term "ourselves" which you most probably mean to refer to the bodies and the minds which inhabit each respective body and directs the actions and behaviors of it. You also refer to two items which are associated with a person by way of origination or causation: "(our) actions", "(our) labor". Responsibility, as previously mentioned, refers to two separate concepts: the capability to act or respond on the one hand, and the concept of credit or culpability for the action on the other hand.

 

When you answer the question, "How do we own ourselves?" Assuming that by "responsibility" you mean "credit and culpability", you are asserting that once a person understands the consequences of their actions, they are "creditable and culpable" for their actions (and presumably not before or after the loss of such a faculty). While a person may be considered responsible for their actions, that does not directly imply that the consequences of their actions are their property, nor does it suggest that they are their own property. While such a sentiment is commonly found in highly individualist populations and free societies, in societies which endorse the sentiment of collectivism, indentured servitude and slavery, such a sentiment is not as common or well regarded. Being that it is a subjective sentiment, it can hardly be claimed as an objective fact, nor can it therefore be the basis of any imagined, and logically impossible "objective moral system".

 

If you feel your understanding of the word ownership doesn't fit this, how do you know that it is the idea of owning an action that must give and not your understood definition? Not saying that you're wrong to take that approach; Just curious if you're open to the possibility.

 

It is my sentiment for ideas (concepts) to be wholly consistent which leads me to my understanding and belief. There are very few things I claim to actually know, and these are rational relationships and existential certainties (e.g. I think and therefore exist). Yes, I am definitely open to the possibility of my being mistaken in my beliefs. That very openness has led me to abandon a previously strongly held conviction in favor of libertarianism and against anarchism. Upon expanding and correcting my understanding of anarchism, I came to realize my views favoring libertarianism over anarchy were misinformed and rationally inconsistent with my sentiments. I now embrace anarchy as being preferable to libertarianism, something that months ago I never would have imagined as being probable.

 

If you can demonstrate where my reasoning is flawed in the ideas I have expressed, you will be able to persuade me to alter my beliefs and convictions based upon that new understanding. If you are unable to do so, it is most likely that you have failed in demonstrating that my reasoning is flawed, or you are attempting to persuade me away from a sentiment I prefer to one that I do not. Nevertheless, I invite you to attempt to do so. I simply request that you not make so many negative presumptions if I do not readily agree with your arguments. I endeavor to point out what I believe to be their failings, i.e., why they fail to convince me. If you are able to remedy them or demonstrate where my criticisms are unfounded, I am just as open to altering my beliefs as I was (and incidentally still remain) with respect to anarchism and libertarianism (i.e., I could theoretically be persuaded back to libertarianism if a more rational argument could be made favoring it over anarchy).

[dsayers]

If you're going to take the trouble to comment on what I wrote, please take the trouble to ACTUALLY READ what I wrote.

I did. But if your response to it being pointed out your deflection is to double down with more deflection, then I can't see a reason to continue to do so.

[D-Light]

I did. But if your response to it being pointed out your deflection is to double down with more deflection, then I can't see a reason to continue to do so.

That sounds an awful lot like projection to me. I point out where you missed/ignored what I wrote (thoughts are mental actions and therefore it may be inferred that they fall under the same principles which apply to other kinds of actions) and you respond by deflecting with an ad hominem and doubling down on your position with more ad hominem deflection. This is not rational discourse, and you are correct that there is no justification for continuing such behavior. If you wish to address the challenges I placed to your argument, please do so. If you're inclined to simply respond with another hypocritically ironic ad hominem attack, please reconsider and refrain from doing so.

[DCLugi]

If you're trying to work it out, I'm happy to continue. I realize it's not a particularly popular position, and I've spent a long time working it out. Still, I encounter some new perspectives from time to time that help me refine, and every once in awhile completely revise or abandon a position I've held for a long while. I enjoy the discussion; it just felt like it was getting a bit tedious with the libertarian property argument that is currently in vogue. I must say that I used to be much more staunch libertarian before visiting this forum. Now, Stefan and others have fairly well convinced me of the anarchist position (though I still disagree with his strong atheist anti-agnostic reasoning. I'm more of the literal interpretation of atheist, not anti-theist as Stefan and other so-called "strong atheists" seem to be.

If you're still interested let's back up a bit. What position are you convinced on given that Stefan's philosophy is anchored to property rights being a universally applied concept.

[D-Light]

If you're still interested let's back up a bit. What position are you convinced on given that Stefan's philosophy is anchored to property rights being a universally applied concept.

I think we'll have to back up quite a bit. I find Stefan's philosophy to be an apology (defense) of Anarcho-libertarian ethics. It is built into his UPB framework. Do I happen to agree with the sentiments? Yes. Do I happen to agree with the reasoning used in an attempt to justify the sentiments?  No.

[DCLugi]

I think we'll have to back up quite a bit. I find Stefan's philosophy to be an apology (defense) of Anarcho-libertarian ethics. It is built into his UPB framework. Do I happen to agree with the sentiments? Yes. Do I happen to agree with the reasoning used in an attempt to justify the sentiments?  No.

What is the sentimental agreement? Do you favor anarcho-libertarian ethics because they might lead to a happier life or the same as one would favor rice over potatoes? I ask because you mentioned this forum influenced your current perspective.

[D-Light]

What is the sentimental agreement? Do you favor anarcho-libertarian ethics because they might lead to a happier life or the same as one would favor rice over potatoes? I ask because you mentioned this forum influenced your current perspective.

Sentimental agreement or agreeing with the sentiments of another, or sharing the same or similar sentiments is what most people mean by sharing the same ideals, values, and preferences. As near as I can tell, such agreement or shared sentiment is the basis of most successful, intimate friendships and relationships and the basis of all peaceful, orderly societies.

 

I favor anarcho-libertarian ethics because I believe that my living by such ethics offers me the most hope of achieving the most interpersonal and material success and fulfillment in my life.

 

I believe all sentiments have their same basic origins in our physiology, but as each person's physiology is unique to them, only general rules apply universally. While there is a generally experienced sentiment for individuality or liberty, and a generally experienced sentiment for community or interconnectedness, the preference for most people with northern european ancestry seems to slightly favor liberty over community, and most people with asian ancestry may have a preference for community over individuality. I believe it is far more complicated than simple genetics causing a preference for one ideal or value over another, and I believe there are physical environmental factors (nutrition, amount of UV exposure, etc.) at play as well as intellectual and cultural, and experiential factors. Thus, while the origins are ultimately in the regions of the brain that might be termed "non-rational", "emotional", or "sentimental", I believe sentiment is a rather complex process (just as rational thinking is) that likely has many influences and may be generalized in some ways, while not being fully understood.

 

To answer the question as to whether it is like a preference for rice over potatoes, yes... but it comes with the notion that one prefers rice over potatoes because of certain expectations associated with rice vs potatoes.

[Weeds]

To dsayers,

 

(This topic changed so much that I tried PM, but I wasnt able to so..)

 

When you first responded to my posts you tickled my sense of humor due to your tactics and I could not take you seriously. That said, I'm also new to the whole debate environment and I was not effectively communicating in general. I appreciated your patience.

 

Outside of the initial thread(this one) I found another that linked to articles you wrote that influenced my understanding of your 'voice'(it was much more effective than your responses, in my opinion). Although I was being honest as devil's advocate to better understand the other side (I was still on the fence), reading your articles helped me to better understand and appreciate why you were unwavering on yours. Thank you