Freedomain Radio

Me too! Me two!

Ditto.

....starting to wonder what I got myself into......

lol

OK I can make time tomorrow (Thursday 6/18) night (after 6:30PM MST)  if that works for Stef.......

That sounds good, just give me a ping on Skype... stefan_molyneux

OK, just tried to call three times and it looks like Stefan is unavailable so we're going to have to reschedule.   Sorry to disappoint everyone. 

Sorry about that, I'm available now if you like...

Bump

Actually, I'm not sure that having a philosophical conversation with a Mystic would be very productive...

Stefan Molyneux:

Actually, I'm not sure that having a philosophical conversation with a Mystic would be very productive...

Now I'm a mystic.  Yes because whatever my religious beliefs are has direct bearing on my opinion of the completely unfounded claims that you made about soldiers.   See this is exactly what I was paranoid about when I mentioned it in the other thread.   The knee-jerk judgemental reactions around here come directly from you Stefan.  People here are following your lead and you have created arbitrary standards of who it is acceptable to talk to.   Frankly that's bullshit.  

Here are the bullet points of what I had to say:

1. You identify four groups that rightly should be held to high moral and ethical standards.   Of those four you only felt the need to project motivations about one of them (soldiers).  Why the selectivity?   Why not project perks of the other four professions?
   
2. The "perks" for the military you listed were:

1. Regimented Life:   I'm not sure why this one is bad.  If somone desires it, then isn't it OK for them to choose it?
2. Murder:   You claim that a perk to military service is the right to murder.   Well there's one major problem to this and that is that only a minority of service men & women will be in a combat zone and only a few of those will be in combat units were it could possibly be a perk so this applies to so few people as to be a very bad selling point.
3. Rape:  You used some dubious statistics on rape in the military to try to show that rape was a perk that the military overlooked.  Once again simple numbers prove that this would be a perk for so few people (2000 out of 1.4M) as to be ridiculous on it's face value.  That works out to 1.4 rapes per 1000 people in the military.  On the other hand, there are approximately 12.5M students in college and it is estimated that 1.5 to 3 % will be raped.  So that's at best 15 per 1000.  Over 10 times higher.   So would you claim that rape is a "perk" to college life?  No I don't think any reasonable person would and I bet you don't think that either.
   

The problem here is you let an otherwise excellent presentation with very valid points get contaminated by a needless segway because of your personal prejiduces.   And I see the same thing happening to others here as they make the same mistakes you do because they are following your lead.

Well, lowkey, that seems like pretty good potential productiveness.

I would also identify myself as a mystic, Stef, and I'd like to give you a call when you get back from Murka. I totally agree with and love so much of what you say and how you say it, but hey, you could benefit with a more open window on the military - I'll let lowkey handle that side - and the mystic, which isn't so bad "once you get used to it, heh heh." I don't want to change your mind about so much, maybe just add another facet.

Or, I could be in for a repenting of my mystic ways. But either way, you should understand mysticism more, through interviewing me and similar others.

Testudines:

 But either way, you should understand mysticism more, through interviewing me and similar others.

How does one understand mysticism?

 All the goods that corrupt people hold and offer, and are pleased to give promising neophites, are in themselves corrupt. But it's like the basic instinct to find the whip hand in society, and start kissing it, is inbred in enough young citizens to perpetuate the corruption indefinitely.

Is that realistic or pessimistic?        - Testudines

- If this were in fact a basic instinct in children, that would not need to be so much overt and covert bullying of the young in society...

- Stefan Molyneux

I didn't see this post of yours post till today, Stef. I think I first mistook it in my e-mail for one of my own, because it starts with a quote of mine.

You are correct (I hope) about the children. I shouldn't have used the word inbred - God, that would be sick, if true! I was exaggerating because of the exasperation I feel at all the adults who so so well have learned the lessons of school and state - find the whip hand, and obey and serve. They seem to have such a deep aversion to independent action or thought it is AS IF it were there from the womb.

The tragedy, that these people who support authority over themselves so ardently WERE ONCE INNOCENT CHILDREN - I have not really dealt with that, and it's something I'm going to meditate upon.

Hi Ricky - well, how I mean this is . . . obviously, there are several potential meanings to "mysticism." But to start defining it would not be the mystical approach, so this would not lead to understanding mysticism on its own terms, but in rational terms. Hmn, there could be a problem in the elusive interface between rationality and mysticism. But I appreciate both so there must be some connection - or maybe I'm just a person of two minds?

I think, to start somewhere, that the mystic values and invites the unknown whereas the rationalist disregards it or dis - somethings it. But that's only one of the differences, and not an ostensible point of agreement. Maybe the point of agreement would be that the unknown does exist?

Testudines:

 

Hi Ricky - well, how I mean this is . . . obviously, there are several potential meanings to "mysticism." But to start defining it would not be the mystical approach, so this would not lead to understanding mysticism on its own terms, but in rational terms. Hmn, there could be a problem in the elusive interface between rationality and mysticism. But I appreciate both so there must be some connection - or maybe I'm just a person of two minds?

I think, to start somewhere, that the mystic values and invites the unknown whereas the rationalist disregards it or dis - somethings it. But that's only one of the differences, and not an ostensible point of agreement. Maybe the point of agreement would be that the unknown does exist?

I don't think I quite understand. So to remain a mystic one must avoid knowledge? Does the mystic value the unknown / unknowable over truth and certainty?