If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

DaVinci

  • Content count

    559
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

DaVinci last won the day on June 15

DaVinci had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

62 Excellent

About DaVinci

  1. You're probably a divergent thinker. Look it up. Nothing is wrong with you.
  2. conservativism

    I personally wouldn't consider Stefan to be an exception, though I'll admit that is just my view of it. I think Jordan Peterson is way more of an exception to the right being creative than Stef. After having watched so many of Stef's videos JBP by contrast is way more charming. Granted that's my personal view of it, but I think the growth of JBP's channel is a testament to the attractiveness of his personality. I bet he's going to catch up with Stef quick in terms of subscribers.
  3. conservativism

    To be fair, ideas are easy to come up with. Executing on ideas is what is hard, and the better you want your thing to turn out the more work you have to put in. I think any right leaning film in the realm of something like Easy Rider would be incredibly difficult to pull off. That's in part because people on the right aren't very creative. Not that they aren't creative at all. Just that they aren't anywhere near as creative as people on the left typically are. That's why the "message" of a right leaning film would probably come across to audiences as pretentious, proselytizing, and just plain old boring. It's a failing of the right in general. They know how to speak truthfully, but not in a way that has style, which is appealing and draws people in.
  4. The macho posturing isn't helping anything you guys. It's also not cool you are talking about people without mentioning them. @neeeel
  5. Is it possible for us to get to a robust discussion that will actually create some benefit? I've already said it's about the principle, and not the analogy. If you want to tear down my analogy, that's fine, but you didn't even touch the principle. Let's try again... What would happen if you used a chainsaw to cut out cancer?
  6. Well, if you made it up it's not proof, right? Why are you being so hesitant to even entertain what I'm saying?
  7. Proof that disproves human nature? Proof that shows you can cut out cancer with a chainsaw and it's the same as cutting it out with a scalpel? Okay. I want to see this.
  8. You're fighting the analogy, not the principle.
  9. This is how i know that this is a chess game. Because you think you've "won". A discussion isn't a competition. This is becoming a problem. Discussions don't have to be competitions. To be fair, it's not just you. There have been several threads recently where I knew I was in a chess game and not a discussion. If Country A carpet bombs Country B, and Country B defends themselves by nuking Country A, would you say that is self defense? If so, what happens when the nuclear fallout, and radiation ends up moving into Country C killing their citizens, poisoning their lands, and making them terribly sick. Country C did nothing wrong and wasn't involved at all. Forward 20 years later and the kids of Country C who grew up with no parents, or watched their parents die slow horrible deaths, start suicide bombing Country B's cities and population. Are Country C's suicide bombers justified? Answer yes or no and explain why. Are Country C's bombers engaging in self defense? Again, answer yes or no and explain why.
  10. You said your experience was different from mine. That you dealt with aggressive people that you had to meet with equal force. That doesn't sound like you've been living in a wonderful area if you have to meet force with force equally, but I'm open to being proven wrong. Are you saying these incidents have been recent and not when you were young? Have you moved from your childhood home land? Self defense does not always equal violence. If someone throws a punch at your face and you dodge it, that's self defense. I'm not even going to argue this point anymore. You're trying to make this point that puffing up your chest deters bullies. I'm sure that works sometimes. Other times it doesn't. There are even times where someone sees a puffed out chest and it makes them want to find a way to get you.
  11. I'm glad you've had a different experience than mine. My experiences have all been that escalating conflict, even in self defense, leads to heightened aggression and retribution from those who attacked. Even Stef has mentioned that when he challenges peoples opinions they will end up adhering to those opinions harder than they did before. You brought up this scenario of "What if Britain invaded the U.S. again." There are many historians who think that was going to happen. That England had plans to take back the "colonies". So why didn't they? It didn't make sense economically. There was no need to invade once they could gather resources elsewhere. Yes, America having a military force, and regular people having guns was a deterrent, but considering your opposition before you attack them, and what happens during a fight are not the same thought process. Side note, look up War Plan Red to read about how the U.S. had a military strategy for fighting a war against England in the 20th century. I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say self defense must be equal or greater. Are we talking about some kind of arm wrestling match? There isn't just one way to defend yourself. You don't have to bulk up with steroids to take on a physical bully. You can just outsmart them. You can remove their incentive to fight. You can be quicker. Harder to catch. Self defense isn't always physical force against physical force. I get that you grew up in a bad area, but that doesn't mean I grew up being "taught guilt". Perhaps your perspective is one that is always on guard. You're always looking for enemies. Always ready to spin around and punch. That doesn't mean that is the only way to defend yourself. Again, I'm not saying "don't defend yourself". I'm saying there is not a one size fits all approach to defense. You don't cut out cancer with a chainsaw.
  12. Calling me a Muslim apologist is a strawman. I'm not apologizing for them. If that's what you see, that's on you. What I'm saying is that you don't get to a peaceful world through the barrel of a gun. That's like getting to love making with a gun. That doesn't mean "Don't defend yourself." People need to stop perverting the idea of changing the world into a peaceful one to mean "lay down and accept your death". That's not what it means it all. Changing the world to a peaceful one and defending yourself are not mutually exclusive. You have to use the right tools for the job you are doing. Some jobs require a chainsaw. Some require a scalpel. If you use a chainsaw for everything you are probably causing more problems than you are solving. The more problems you create the more you have to clean up. I'm wondering how many of you have actually dealt with physical conflict before, or been bullied? I know from extensive experience that bullies and people prone to aggression typically become more aggressive in response to those who are aggressive back. Even if it is aggression to defend themselves. As for your last question those posts aren't here, but they do exist. I'm just as critical of the left as i am of the right. It's just there aren't really any left leaning people here that I know of. But if you would like to tag them in this thread I'd be glad to take note of that so I can be on the lookout for their posts in the future.
  13. I think you are missing the bigger picture. If you go blow up the other side of the planet, even if you are killing the "bad guys" you are also opening yourself up to be used as a recruitment tool for more bad guys. There's a reason terrorists groups don't want to destroy the evil infidels of the North Pole. They can't recruit people to a cause that isn't based on anything. The same thing is happening in the U.S. with BLM. They use those incidents with the police as tools for recruitment. That's why this is such a complex issue. Defending yourself can recruit your own future opposition. I've been saying for months now that the right needs to stop treating the political left like enemies. The longer that keeps happening the longer they will use the right as a recruitment tool.
  14. I look at it like this. Imagine a free anarchic world is starting tomorrow. This is the last day of government rule ever. What does that mean? For most people who don't understand anarchy they think that means "chaos" and riots, and the water is shut off, etc. In my scenario that means the anarchic world was built in parallel with the "current" systems making them outdated, and obsolete. So the last day of government is coming at the end of a shutting down process for all government. You don't turn off government and start up anarchy. You start up anarchy now. The earlier you start anarchy the earlier the government will disappear. Even if it's 500 years from now, for every day you wait to start anarchy that's at least another day, if not more, of government rule. Why? Cause government always has an incentive to keep running. They always have an incentive to create new "problems" to "solve" that need a tax farm and slaves. The big problem right now is all of these killings in Europe. But we're right back to what I just said. The government loves having problems to solve. It justifies their existence. So while we certainly have to protect ourselves from violent people you don't necessarily solve the problem of violence forever by blowing them up in retaliation. It just doesn't work. Every time the west blows up some cave they use it as a reason to recruit to their suicide killers. I think peaceful parenting, as well as change in other areas, is the most important change that can be made today. To a certain extent the fight against immigration is a distraction. I'm not saying it's not important. But I do see lots of regular people, here and elsewhere, who are fighting the wrong fights, which is a whole other topic.
  15. You said : "The whole peaceful parenting used to be the #1 issue but with what is going on in the world today it may be too early for that idea too" Ignore means to intentionally disregard. Saying "it may be too early for that idea" is to disregard it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you said "may be", but I still disagree that it's too early. You achieve a peaceful society by making it happen in the now. If you agree with that, then no, peaceful parenting is not too early. Peaceful parenting shouldn't "used to be the number one issue". It should always be the number one issue.