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

    223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Good

About Boss

Recent Profile Visitors

1052 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. 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?
  7. Well, It's hard to give an example as I feel this is a complex issue and maybe the example I or you talk about won't be 100% related to all other cases. I can try to tho. Like when the abuse occurred, abuse also did not occur prior to the event. Like if someone got spanked with a belt, it's not a 24/7 event. So they have the history of not getting spanked with the belt too. So the individual has the history of both abuse and not abuse. Thus when they get older they have the history and free will to choose what they want to do. Well, I don't think ideas are a biological inevitably like farting. I think Ideas are something someone chooses through free will. Like I gathered your ideas because I choose to check the FDR board. I also had the idea of not checking the board so I could have done that too. Farting, on the other hand, didn't have much of a choice. I guess you can choose to not eat beans lol
  8. Hello Barnsley, Peaceful parenting is 100% true. I'm not too well versed in the "photocopier effect". My first objection to that phrase is since everyone has histories of everything that happened to them also not happening, why is the event of it not happening not taken into account? For evil to exist, good must also exist. For every action taken, before that action, there was no action. "Enough unprocessed suffering has the tendency to make a person immune to healing / mourning / curiosity" How do you quantify what is enough? I think this is a slippery slope.
  9. "enough trauma can, I believe, strip people of free will" Only if the trauma made them brain dead, which would make them incapable of anything. Anyone who can, also can not. The majority of people live their lives not doing. They all know what not doing is like. When people do anything it is a free choice as they could have continued doing nothing. Anyone know when Stefan developed or found this idea? At face value, I disagree with it pretty strongly but want to learn more about it.
  10. Stef the Hypocrite

    You know when you claim someone is "no longer bringing philosophy to the world" that implies you know what philosophy is. When you claim someone is bringing "more propaganda" that says you know what the propaganda is. so bring the philosophy and call out the propaganda, but start with an actual argument this time, instead of the incoherent statement you originally posted. Also, Trump is not pumping up the stock market bubble lol, the stock market has been going up even under Obama. It's because of the FED low-interest rate. It's basically free money. Of course, the stock market keeps going up. The solution is still the same: END THE FED TAXATION IS THEFT #FreeCryptocurrency The FCC net neutrality is rumored to stop Crypto. Stefan doesn't deal with rumors tho so not sure if he will mention that.
  11. What knowledge was Stefan referring too at the 38 min mark?
×

Important Information

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