Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

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

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Jos van Weesel

Member
  • Content count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About Jos van Weesel

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Netherlands
  • Interests
    Philosophy, psychology, (self-)knowledge, (peaceful) parenting, morality & ethics, debating.

Recent Profile Visitors

195 profile views
  1. How did you possibly read my comment as if I was saying that pointing out a large threat of predation was irrelevant? I am aware of this, and normally I don't have a problem with it. "Back in the day" it felt like Stefan was speaking to us individually, because we had a more strongly aligned listener base, but now FDR has grown so much (speaking in terms of subs) Stefan speaks in more general terms, which is sometimes sad. But I do understand it! However, in this particular instance it felt really strange, that's all.
  2. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    I wasn't talking about how easy or hard it was to leave a country, I was talking about it in terms of morality (the costs, permission and consent.) You're saying that I ignored most of your message, but at least I responded to your message. You haven't responded to anything I said to you, and that makes me wonder. Why would you spend time writing a comment complaining how you don't like my comment, when if you have good arguments, you could spend that time refuting my arguments. Can we stick to the topic at hand, taxation and morality, please?
  3. Stefan: "The superstitious form of ghosts, not the religious." [21:45] Really Stefan, there is a difference now? Also, in the call with the man of whom the son was sexually assaulted (horrible horrible story ) Stefan immediately brought up the fact that Catholic priests are far less likely to commit sexual assault on children in comparison to teachers. This seemed completely irrelevant to the topic and I was shocked that Stefan used that little moment to steer away from the conversation about a boy that was sexually assaulted to put religion in a good light... I understand the whole notion of "Christianity has been overall a positive force for Western civilization" that has been growing the past few months, but I keep hearing this kind of stuff and I'm getting a bit sick of it. Did I miss something in this conversation that made it actually relevant or do most of you agree with me? If it's the former, I'm genuinely curious what that was, because I missed it completely.
  4. Can information be Property?

    To be fair, he was just stating facts, not his opinion of what should be the fact.
  5. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    "I personally do not and will not view it as theft" > "because when" Is a completely subjective statement and not based on principles. "because when" implies subjectivity. Universality means "for anyone, at any time, in any place" and not "when". Your statement could also have been "I personally do not and will not view rape as non-consensual sex because when you consent to it, it's not rape." By not consenting to the sex, it automatically becomes rape. The same goes for theft: the moment you don't consent to your money being taken, it becomes theft. Deciding to stay in a place where you are born does not automatically equate to consent. I don't even have to bring up a situation where a person is being held hostage and cannot leave, so let's forget about that right from the start. It costs money, time and effort to leave a country, and on top of all that, permission. Besides that, you shouldn't have to leave a place if you're being stolen from. You certainly can if you wanted to, but morality doesn't require you to. And not doing so does not necessarily mean that you consent. Simply, deciding to stay in the place you're in after being put there (being born, for example) does not necessarily equate to consent. (unfortunately I feel the need to keep repeating this) If you live in a city in the US, there is a small chance you will fall victim to rape. However, being aware of the fact that there is a chance of being raped and staying in that place, does not mean you consent to the chance of being raped, and makes it therefore consensual.
  6. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    That is exactly what I did with shirgall's reply. It would be hypocritical of me to shame you for that
  7. Yes, and apparently it's still in the Play store for me
  8. Is there a way to help transfer the app from one phone to another? If so, and someone can help me, I can help share the Android version.
  9. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    Addition: A forced benefit is necessarily defined as beneficial by someone other than the person it is forced upon. Meaning: Even if the person is really benefiting from it, that does not make it consensual.
  10. Answering an Atheist Chestnut

    The colour yellow is a physical manifestation of light projected on an object (I don't know the technical terms), without the objects, and without the light, 'colors' means nothing. The idea of a banana is not timeless either, since there hasn't always been bananas, and there hasn't always been minds to conceive of a banana and create the idea of a banana internally.
  11. A rational proof that taxation is theft.

    Yes, yes, and yes!
  12. I want to make a video about MGTOW in the future, but I'll share my biggest objections with the 'movement'. MGTOW state statistics that ? % of women (file for, and) divorce their husbands, taking half of their wealth, taking the kids, etc. etc. and are completely evil. Although I agree that a lot of women are like this, MGTOW fails to realize that these statistics are not random chnce. What do I mean with that? Well, when you get to know a woman and she seems great, but in the end will divorce you and take your shit, then she wasn't great from the start. You choose the partner and are responsible for that choice. When you want to get into a relationship/marriage, you don't get a random partner assigned and just have to wait and see what happens. This is how MGTOW seems to think of relationships. All it does is demonstrate that MGTOW are not deep-thinkers/lovers and only have superficial relationships where it is kind of random what women they will end up with, because they don't have high standards for what they choice, but then in the end blame women for their own choice. When I met my partner we talked about everything that was important to us before we decided to be in a committed relationship. We have very strong values and high standards for each other and others. We agree on almost everything (other than preferences, like food, movies, music, the less important stuff) and there are no surprises in our relationship because we know so much about each other. I don't know the statistics, and I can't bother looking them up (you're free to tell me and/or correct me before addressing my message) but let's assume that 1/3rd of women are the kind of woman that we're talking about, the ones that MGTOW are 'avoiding'. Are you (MGTOW) really trying to tell me that my own relationship has a 33% chance of failing, and that my wife will abandon me and become this evil witch that you speak of? Yeah, don't think so... Besides that, MGTOW praise casual sex and short-term dating, as long as it doesn't become serious. This also shows their extreme lack of values and standards for women and for themselves in the like. I don't know where their flawed thinking comes from, but I affirm that it's 'mommy issues' that are repressed and not dealt with at all and results in their fear/hatred of women.
  13. Inconvenient Morality

    Good to know you'll be staying away from your brother when you have children! Since you didn't have a question, I'll just respond with a similar situation I experienced: In the Netherlands, where I come from, there are more bikes than people and everyone has at least one because it's a very common and convenient way to get around (we have bicycle paths everywhere and cities are very small compared to bigger countries.) Because bikes are so common, the stealing of bikes is also very common. If you live in the Netherlands, just expect that have at least one bike stolen. When I was younger, I had my bike stolen 2 or 3 times. Now the subject of the matter: my parents. My parents would tell me to "just steal someone else's bike, everyone does it", without recognizing the complete lack of morals in their thinking. They didn't think about the fact that I you might be stealing someone's bike who never stole a bike themselves. Or, even more obvious, the fact that you're not stealing from the person who stole from you, so morally it can't be justified. Other justifications (from my mother) were things like "But it's not locked, someone else will take it anyway" or "It's their own fault for not locking it". I think we must have stolen 2-3 bikes in return with this thinking. Of course I felt bad, but was influenced enough by my parents to not follow my conscience. Around the time I turned 16 I started growing up and developing my own morals and standards, and objected to their way of thinking, and that resulted in preventing more bikes stolen by more parents (or through me). But I just can't forget this one time, when my (then) step-father stole a parent's bike which wasn't locked by putting it in his car and driving home with it. The reason why I emphasized that it was a parent's bike was because it had a kiddy-seat on the back, meaning this parent used the bike to take their kid to school, etc. He did say he felt bad about it, but apparently not enough to stop himself... I stand by you that this world is a place lacking of real morals, and the reason why people do follow or demand morals, is only for their own (malign) self-interest. Its truly saddening that the most common objection to having a society based on freedom (Anarchism; Free Market; Peaceful Parenting; UPB/NAP) is that people are like this, but the people making this objection fail to recognize that the people advocating for this kind of freedom are NOT the ones they should be objecting to. The people that object to this philosophy are the ones who ought to be objected to. Thanks for sharing your story
  14. For some reason, after Question 3, Mike repeats questions 4 and 5 and then it goes to caller number 4. I think there was an editing hiccup where Mike's reading of question 5 got stuck in between, call #4 is still there.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.