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

Boss

Member
  • Content count

    228
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Good

About Boss

Recent Profile Visitors

1163 profile views
  1. yea I went ahead and gave it a listen and I am shocked the "boyfriend" didn't skip a few hours work to be in such an important conversation. She also said he listens to the show so I can't imagine why he wouldn't have made sure to be there for the hour or so. No excuses really. Maybe he can give a call in but I wouldn't hold my breath.
  2. Incompatibilism

    Yea the chair was just a visual example. Things like gravity which has already been determined would probably be a better example. Like how things fall are already determined by the law of gravity which is provable and testable. As far as math is determined, I was thinking in the way someone can input 1+1= the answer is already determined by the laws of mathematics. There is no choice in the answer of a math equation. Probably not a good example but I hope you get the point in that determinable things like gravity can and should be proven to be objective and true. However, Determinism is not proven. so the name determinism, when there is nothing determinable, makes it unproven right from the start for me. Meanwhile, free will is testable and provable. like you and I can decide to reply or not to reply to this post. And someone like Sam Harris or whoever, calling this ability to choose between different possible courses as an illusion, is an unproven claim.
  3. yea this is not starting well, "fellow ancaps calling Stef a "neonazi" and a "statist" This guy probably has Sticked with him" Yea I think it's better to stick with truth and fellow arguments instead. I do agree tho, it's not easy to be an"FDR-enthusiast" if truth and arguments aren't your starting points I havent seen that show myself, but this incoherent assumptive post wouldnt give me something to look for if I did watch it. Maybe you can be more specific and coherent with Stefan arguments and your rebuttal before making claims of "betrayal"
  4. Incompatibilism

    I think to call something an illusion, it would require proof. Like if there is a chair in your room and I suddenly say that chair is an illusion, that wouldn't mean much. However, If I turn off the hologram and the chair disappears then we can objectively call it an illusion. To me, free will is as true as the question of free will. For free will is what ask and answer such thing. And until someone can objectively and accurately determine the "deterministic" nature of such thing before it actually happens. I will disregard determinism as an unproven hypothesis. There are many determinable things in this world like gravity, math, time, earth rotation etc but these all are objectively provable with evidence. Determinism, which I think claims throughout a person's life, their ability to choose between different possible courses is an illusion, is an unproven claim.
  5. r/K selection

    What do you mean by "got their life together"? Like for me, I think someone who "got their life together" would want to pay it forward and start a family. Also not sure what having a "super high sex drive" is trying to imply. Pretty sure any male with healthy levels of testosterone can feel like they have a high sex drive
  6. When will the welfare run out?

    I believe the "welfare" state will run out when the separation of money and state occurs. Bitcoin/cryptocurrencies have the best chance at it. However, Bitcoin core(BTC) is not usable as money right now due to high transaction fees and slow confirmations. As far as an exact date, I am not sure. I would be surprised if it didn't happen in my lifetime tho.
  7. Stef's wager (free will)

    1. "Determinism is defined as a lack of the ability have chosen differently" To claim people lack the ability to have chosen differently is to claim to have known the choice of the person. Like if I claimed people are not able to choose differently from Coca-Cola or Pepsi, then I would put my money where my mouth is and play the market solely on "determinism" outcome. But the reality is people choose differently so the market is not a determined outcome. It reminds me of the phrase when someone tells you "You have no choice in this matter" it means the person saying that already knows the choice. And normally enacts it by force 2. "determinism is also defined as the lack of choice" You are making a decision when faced with the possibility of replying or not replying to this post. Which are two choices Stefan has imo a slippery slope, claiming some people are "stripped of free will" I say maybe if they are unconscious. Other than that I strongly disagree with the idea of someone being stripped of free will. Everyone reading this made the choice to do so, And everyone reading this will make a choice on what to do after reading this.
  8. What is NAP and Initiation of Force?

    This is my current understanding. The NAP is the argument that the initiation of force(meaning to make someone do something against their will) is immoral. It is proven through UPB. 1,2,3. It was individuals who violated the NAP 4. Anyone who wants to be moral can live to the NAP 5. Not sure what you mean exactly with civil dual. If it involves making someone do something against their will then it is immoral 6. Yes, For example, verbal threats while flashing his gun on his waist 7. someone who initiates the use of force daily is only further validating their immoral ways. 8. "accidentally steps on land" doesn't grant someone the right to shoot them. Just like how someone accidentally stepping on your toes wouldn't. However, If someone grabs you against your will and start stomping on your toes legs body head whatever, and the way to get away is to shoot the person. You should stop their immoral behavior by shooting the person 9. As soon as that child is consciously able to initiate the use of force. 10. If someone cuts off your finger, they have violated the NAP and is immoral. Cutting off a finger is taking away the person's physical property. Thus, I believe he can take the person's property to mitigate some of the damages done. My question to you is What do you feel "works in philosophy, may not work in real life"? what got you into wanting to learn about the NAP and the initiation of force and to ask these questions? Thanks for the questions btw I love testing my current understandings
  9. I think the issue was our ideas of the outcome of a beating I try to stick to outcomes that are 100% the case. So like the obvious outcome of a beating is physical pain/injury and obviously, you can't choose to not have physical pain/injury after a beating. I do believe that the person can choose to beat or not beat someone tho, through free will I wasn't sure of your idea of the outcome of a beaten. Judging by stef statement he believes determinism can be the outcome. I still disagree with that statement.
  10. No person can choose the outcomes of having been beaten. Every person chooses to beat or not beat someone. Maybe you can say what you're saying in another way so I can understand? sorry. Like what outcome are you referring too? determinism? physical injury?
  11. No, you are not following, Of course, a person can't choose to have been beaten. This is not MMA or boxing. I am saying every person who was beaten(unless they were physically beaten 24/7) were also at times not beaten right? So they have the history of both being beaten and not being beaten. Does that make sense?
×

Important Information

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