DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here



If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at 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.


If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at with your Paypal email/Bitcoin address/etc as well as your board account name and the situation will be addressed ASAP.


We just upgraded the board software, and now your email address is used to log in. If you're having trouble, please Contact Us.

Tyler H

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Tyler H last won the day on March 11

Tyler H had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

114 Awesome!

About Tyler H

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Philosophy of course!

Recent Profile Visitors

418 profile views
  1. Hmm, maybe. What do you mean by negative influence?
  2. Sorry, I recognize equivocation has a negative, deceptive connotation to it and that's not what I meant. I just meant that you were treating the questions as synonymous. Perhaps I should have used the term conflating. I guess how I interpret the questions is that people who don't listen to reason, can be influenced- just not by reason. And people who's minds can't be changed, well if nothing can change their mind, neither reason, evidence, deception, appeal to self interest, nothing, then trying to influence their thoughts or behavior would be worse than a waste of time.
  3. This is what I was responding to. What this not the question you wanted answered? I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that you were equivocating how to influence people who don't listen to reason and how to change a mind that can't be changed. The former being the question which I believe our best answer at this point in time is the original answer you provided (living your principles, being genuinely happy) yet still unsolved as we can't successfully reproduce the result we desire with this method, and the latter being an obvious contradiction. I think we agree on enough here that it might not be all that productive to hammer out the edges just yet, would you agree?
  4. It uses rationality to disprove rationality? If it disproves rationality then rationality is no longer a viable method of disproof. You can't see the contradiction in this statement?
  5. But that wasn't the question. It's not that they can't be changed, it's that they resist change by way of reason and evidence. Why would a Christian try to convert someone who said, "there's nothing you could ever possibly do or say to get me to believe in God"? The wise choice, if they're interested in getting as many people through the pearly gates as they can and their isn't a sentimental tie, would be to move on to people they could persuade. That's all it is. If you reject reality we have nothing to talk about.
  6. My argument is that anything less than the scientific method is not the scientific method at all. The scientific method is a set of steps, each necessary but not sufficient. If you skip a step or vary from the method in any way then you are no longer adhering to the scientific method. You may be following some steps of the scientific method, but without all the constituent parts you do not have the scientific method. Saying people who manipulate data to advance their own agenda are adhering to the scientific method in any way is exactly the kind obfuscation I worry about permeating the philosophical arena. The same with the NAP. It's a principle which posits that all actions are allowed but for actions of physical aggression. Therefore if you act in a physically aggressive way, you are no longer adhering to the NAP. If you make the exception that there are gradations and there is no way to adhere to it in the ideal, then you leave a crack in the foundation for evil to gain social acceptance. I really think the language and specificity are important, especially with the constant co-opting of language by sophists.
  7. Like I said before, if you mean there are fewer violations of the NAP then I completely agree. You wouldn't say there is more or less scientific method in this experiment. Either the scientific method was followed or it wasn't. In the same vein anything that isn't consistent with the NAP should not at all be confused with adherence to the NAP else it soils the principle, just as saying any experiment that failed to follow the scientific method did follow the scientific method. Blur the line and the manipulators and looters will take advantage. That's my concern with the phraseology. Perhaps I'm just being nitpicky but I do have the urge to push back, and I think that's the reason but I'm open to correction.
  8. So this is why when you asked "what is reality", Meister, I said I would stop debating. If you can't accept reality and the evidence of your senses, and your mind's ability to process them, then there is no reason to debate at all.
  9. I thought you were generalizing with these statements, but now I think you might have been directing advice towards another poster and confused them with me. Could that be the case? Because I totally agree with what you're saying so I don't know what I said to imply otherwise. I've been working on make it good or make it gone since I started listening. But to the discussion on whether the question is difficult or not I think I understand. Is it your contention that answering the question is simple, but implementation is difficult? And I'm inclined to agree except for the fact that, as you said, you could spend all that time, do everything right, and still not get through to someone. This signals to me that the question of how to change the minds of people who don't listen to reason is not entirely solved. I suppose I'm searching for a deterministic solution in a world of free will, but I would hate to assume I have the answer and stop looking for another. Am I making sense? Of course I don't mean not to work with the best ideas we have on changing minds but I don't want to assume there are no other undiscovered solutions. That was the reason for my objection against the remark that the question wasn't a tough question.
  10. My apologies. That which exists. What is existence? That which is able to be detected or measured, regardless of our knowledge of the means with which to do so. That's the definition I work with, I'm always open to improvements upon it. Because it seemed to me we were talking about two different things so I was trying to clarify. There's the question of how to change people's minds who don't listen to reason, and the question of when to accept that you can't and move on. While I agree that the answers you gave are maybe the best we have for persuading people without reason, there must be more or the problem would be solved. If we had the answer then we could be out there changing the minds of the unreasonable right now. It seemed to me that your remarks to which I did not respond (and I agree with most everything you said in regards to this) were more applicable to enhancing the relationships in your life (including the one with yourself), hence the question, which I admit should have been framed more obviously as a request for clarification. I apologize if I've misunderstood your posts. Perhaps through mine you can see where maybe I've gotten confused and clarify.
  11. No objection there. In a free society people can live however they want as long as the participation is voluntary. There can be little communist communities, constitutional republics, whatever. However I'm still confused; why call themselves Alt-Right, why not just white separatist? Why ethnostate, why not just freedom of association? Do you see how these terms imply a statist association?
  12. Authoritarian crapitalist centrism. I always thought that left/right political spectrum was about more/less government, but I guess that would put the left right next to the biggest mass murderers ever so.... turns out they avoid that by making it about egalitarianism.
  13. Audiobooks Peaceful Parenting series Bomb in the Brain series I just started at podcast 0, most of my favorite stuff is below 1000.
  14. You don't think how to influence people who don't listen to reason is a tough question?
  15. It's not that they are totally lost, it's about the opportunity cost. You can poor x hours into this guy to change his mind, of which there is no guarantee that it will stick, or you can spend that time trying to convince people who will listen to reason and therefore be more likely to hold the position without your reinforcement. Ideally they will go out and try to convince others as well. We're not defeatists, we're economists. From what you've said it sounds like you're friend needs a dose of self knowledge before any dose of reason will help him. Debating. I should mention that was part in jest with reference to the earlier posts about when to stop trying to reason with people. It would be one of multiple factors I think, but if someone starts debating what reality is then you're not headed in the right direction.