 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of Bradley
Show Posts Messages
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
1
General / Porcupine vs Lions - nature proves why we are stronger
« on: November 13, 2011, 03:41:18 PM »
The lions are the statists. We are the porcupines.
They may be many and full of agressors, yet look what happens.
Porcupine vs. Lion
Enough said.
They may be many and full of agressors, yet look what happens.
Porcupine vs. Lion
Enough said.
2
General / Re: The Question Thread
« on: February 19, 2011, 01:09:20 PM »Why is it that so many libertarians are obsessed with disaster scenarios that will almost certainly never occur, barring some catastrophic natural disaster that wipes out most of humanity? The opportunity cost of preparing for such things seems to far outweigh any expected benefit.
Did you just now not in fact bunch me into the same category with the "obsessed" ones? Did you just now in fact come from a collectivst frame? If that was an implication that I'm obsessed, because looking at the evidence it sure do looks like it, yes you are, because I'm not obsessed with that. My proof? Because I say so, got it?! I know ME better than you. Do you know me? No you don't. You've read at the top 15 posts that you know come from me, because I know I've made max 15 posts on this forum. To even think that you somehow can even begin to make correct assumptions or conclusions about me.
Look Mr Meister. You tried to "analyze" (you didn't follow the correct procedure of analysis, if you had even thought of the correct proecdure you'd realise you don't have enough info about me to justify an analysis) me.
Now I'm going to make my own analyze of YOU, if not for the point to show you how your post make me feel, and it's going to be based on more science than yours. Am I saying this is 100% true? No. See I'm just assuming, imagining, in my head, without labeling you as this. You labeled me, or at least the evidence points to it.
This is what I'm thinking you were thinking when you read my post:
"Ok, someone who is talking about gold. Ok he needs some information about gold. Do I have any useful information to post in reply to say about that or what I guess he was meaning? No. Something actually relevant? No... hmm... what if....what if gold~fiat money~bitcoins. Yes! This gives me the excuse to promote bitcoins. Because I think bitcoins is a good idea, I want to spread it to as many people as possible! I want them to realize how GOOD this idea is! It will change the world SO MUCH!
What did I base this on, where's my evidence? In your profile it says "bitcoins evangelist". This implies that you see yourself in the role as the bitcoin evangelist. What does an evangelist do? Preech. Again, not saying anything of this necessarily is true. See that's the difference between you and me, buddy.
Furthermore BonerJoe, which is a global moderator, replied "would you please stop that shit", probably because he was annoyed (since you've been "spamming" this idea in other threads or this thread already)
In you're profile it says "Evangelist". Who is the one obsessed with an idea?
Where's your evidence? What did you base your "conclusion" (you made it into a conclusion in your head), which really is an opinion on?
Why do so many people posting on internet forums make assumptions, which they then in turn, through some kind of mysterious magic, make into a conclusion?
And yes I know about bitcoins already, ok?. Did i say that I wanted to buy gold or bitcoins? Are you trying to help me or not? It doesn't seem like it. Don't make statements and "help" someone if you're not sure you know what kind of help they need or want. Capisce? If I was interested in someone helping me with bitcoins, I'd ask for it. Or I read all about it, because that information I know where to find.
Look, ask yourself, what value did you add with your post? Did you add more than you took? Or did you in fact decrease the value, because you created slight annoyance within both me and BonerJoe? Is annoyance a negative feeling? Yes, yes it is. What does this mean? Does this mean that you are a valuetaker in other relationships of your life? If so, ask yourself, "Do I want to be a valuetaker, or a valueadder?"
Look, listen, hear me out, if your goal is to spread the idea of bitcoin and you know bitcoins is a good idea, good for you. I'm not critiqing that.
When your first impression on me is poor, which it was, and rightly so it actually acts AGAINST your intention of spreading the idea of bitcoins. Why? I think you know why, but I'm spelling it out, just in case. It makes me associate bitcoins to a negative feeling, to a bad impression, to bad behaviour. Are you a bad person? Was it bad behaviour? If this texts resonates with you in any way that's a clue what I'm saying might be true.
If so I'm advicing (yes I'm the one giving the advice this time, and it is genuine, [yours wasnt]) you, because I'm pretty good at understanding frames and understanding people, I have a way of getting into their heads, maybe you noticed,
reflect on what you were thinking when you wrote that post, and what just happened when you read this post.
Why did I just spend a couple of minutes on this post? What's my motivation? You have shown evidence contrary to the premise that mine and yours relationship would be meaningful in any way, that it would add value to both participants (win-win).
If what all I said was true and this post makes you change your behaviour slightly, or even realise something new about yourself, it was worth it for me, that's my motivation. Because we are all in this libertymovement (making the assumption that you share the major points and goals of the movement) together. We need to be better than the statists, we need to love each other, even them.
The choice is up to you, I can not make it for you, nor do I want to. Even if I could through some kind of sick mind control, I wouldn't. The statists would, if a chip was invented that could make a choice inside the human brain, or change choices when it detects it's a choice that the government doesn't like, they would try to implement this chip on all the slaves on the planet. Not in their own brains though, although they would make all the slaves believe they also have this chip and the same configuration.
3
General / Re: The Question Thread
« on: February 18, 2011, 06:51:11 AM »
I want to prepare if the dollar is crashing. Most of my capital is in another currency, but if I know the governors of that currency they will lend their currency to the american govt, thus decreasing the value of my money. I want to buy gold to protect myself. I'm not prepared yet to go to the same degrees of measures that Sam did, ensuring self sufficiency and all that, and having my own gold vault (?) , that would be quite some gold.
Which company can I trust best that if the crash occurs they will hold my gold beholdent to me and not "give" to a government? Are there any counter-measures being taken by some companies that makes me as a customer trust them? Will they be able to protect it from robbers? Be it the military or civilians. If you have more knowledge than me, which makes you better able to predict the future, which company do you think fits best for what is going to happen? Which company should I choose? What should I do? As you can see I have a lot of questions about this, so if you know another resource I should turn to (book, another internet forum, etc), which one? Can anyone point me in the rigth direction?
Which company can I trust best that if the crash occurs they will hold my gold beholdent to me and not "give" to a government? Are there any counter-measures being taken by some companies that makes me as a customer trust them? Will they be able to protect it from robbers? Be it the military or civilians. If you have more knowledge than me, which makes you better able to predict the future, which company do you think fits best for what is going to happen? Which company should I choose? What should I do? As you can see I have a lot of questions about this, so if you know another resource I should turn to (book, another internet forum, etc), which one? Can anyone point me in the rigth direction?
4
General / Re: The Question Thread
« on: February 18, 2011, 05:33:14 AM »can't change the mind of a true believer.
Yep, that is why a broken collar bone might be more effective.
I look at this way. If I know an immediate relative was about to rape someone I would do what I had to to stop them. Cops/military about the same as rape in mind.
My statement is that he isn't a true believer at this point. I'm also stating that I did just enough probing, enough pushing, to plant a seed of truth, or a greater truth than the one he previously had. In theory he is the one that best can know this (that he now has a better version of the truth). I'm the second best one, in theory, because I only talked to him with no one else hearing our conversation.
Therefore it's logical to assume this is the case, since I strive to only make statements that I do not know are true. This is my theory, does it mean that I might at some point in my life made statements that I knew wasn't true? For sure, that is true. Am I saying the pendulum is slowly turning to the other side of the scale, yes. Especially after the revelations the liberty movement brings about statism? And these reinforced I've gained recently after watching Stefan Molyneux Statism is dead part 1-5? Yes.
5
General / Re: The Question Thread
« on: February 16, 2011, 05:41:16 AM »
Two answers off the top of my head:
1) You don't have to be consistent, and have every right to draw a line in the sand arbitrarily with what you think people should be allowed to own.
Isn't this what we are all against? Isn't that what the state is doing currently? They say you own your property, unless you stop paying property taxes. You either own something or you don't, there's no in between. Dosen't what you are saying make you morally corrupt?
I want to be logically consistent. Being logically consistent is good, inconsistency is bad, we all know that. It's called double standards. How can you persuade others if your moral is not true?
Or, when you are saying "think", do you mean that I can say I think someone shouldn't be allowed to own atom bombs, but that I doesn't give me the right to forcily steal it from someone if he chooses to own/build one?
If so that's useful and I will use it next time the atom-bomb card is played.
I think finding a reductio ad absurdum just as often is a problem with the argument of the person who made as it is with the person who found it.
For instance, Utilitarianism states that what is good is that which brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people. Well, doesn't that sound reasonable enough?
If everyone would be happier if the government cut taxes, shouldn't they do it, even if a few defense contractors would be out of jobs?
Well, what if you're in the Roman Coliseum, and they're about to feed a Christian to a lion? The majority of the people want it to happen, and only one person doesn't. In a Utilitarian system, it would be moral to feed the person to the lion. I know Jeremy Bentham had a counter-argument to this but I forgot it.
Anyways, that fact doesn't in my mind cancel out the entirety of Utilitarianism. Maybe it can be used in any general case that doesn't violate a persons natural rights.
A professor of mine, Dr. Furrow even wrote a book on this called Against Theorystating that moral theory cant be used. He is right in a lot of ways. Moral theories can't be consistent. There are way too many exceptions for any one to be right in all cases. But if not one, how about all of them, as they work best?
So, I don't think you have any obligation to be consistent. You can draw a line in the sand arbitrarily. Don't paint yourself into a philosophical corner where you will be beaten in an argument from tenaciously holding onto a bad idea.
These opinions are mine alone. They're not something that came out of any book, because almost all will disagree with me.
I agree with the reductio ad absurdum, and I've realised there's validity to the suggestion that I'm leaning towards that to much in my conversations, because this is not the first time I've heard it as a critique.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Obi Wan Kenobi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgpytjlW5wU
"Either you're with us, either you love freedom, and with nations which embrace freedom, or your with the enemy. There's no inbetween."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-23kmhc3P8U
GW Bush intimidation rhetoric to get the world to support the invasion of Iraq. And it worked. What does it imply when the western states comply with that? What kind of moral prejudice does that propagate in the world when the so called international community agrees to that frame by doing what he says? What kind of moral does that create in millions of people who believe in their respective states? How much moral corruption is created? How much cognitive dissonance appears in peoples minds when they support bush in this statement and when I question that this moral is true? Does that mean I'm forcing their mind to approximate reality more accurately? Does it mean their mind realises I'm doing a reality check that seem to work and that in turn suggests that what they thought were 100% true beliefs are not?
Can a person faint from cognitive dissonance, like Neo in the Matrix when he wakes up in the "real" world? Does asking these questions make my mind spin and make me feel an increase in temperature as my blood starts flowing to different parts of my brain, in a faster way? Does it feel like I might faint or overstrain my brain if I continue pusing my mind further down the rabbit hole I'm exploring right now? It sure feels like it, that's why I'm stopping here.
Or does this make me crazy?
What I'm saying is that we can use the scientific method, or skeptical science if you may, to find which moral is most true, the best, which one produces the best situation for everyone, win-win. Just like we are stating that the free market in theory produces the best possible world for everyone, and hence the closer real world conditions approach this the more it will be true. Will it be 100% true? That's impossible. Am I saying we can get to 99% or 90%? We might quibble on the actual number, but we can all agree we can come real close.
Naturally you would continuously need to reapply the scientific method on every new unique situation (which virtually all human interactions are). After a while one will detect patterns that makes one being able to predict the consequences of X action more accurately.
Just like we can use the scientific method to find out which method is working best in a given area, say medicine. Like which kind of way of treating cancer is best for cancer X, in person Ys body.
Yes it's based on a map. But the map is not the territory, because reality is infinitely complex, and the map isn't. Are there more accurate maps than others? My statement is yes there are.
Would you agree?
6
General / Re: The Question Thread
« on: February 15, 2011, 10:56:05 AM »
Interesting. And I'm glad that it's you Sam I'm having the conversation with.
What's the difference? Wikipedia "police officer" redirects to Law enforcement officer. Is a security guard at a mall a police officer? Or a bouncer at a night club?
Have I understand you correctly that you are saying that I shouldn't even try to persuade him out of going to this school?
What's the difference? Wikipedia "police officer" redirects to Law enforcement officer. Is a security guard at a mall a police officer? Or a bouncer at a night club?
Have I understand you correctly that you are saying that I shouldn't even try to persuade him out of going to this school?
7
General / Re: The Question Thread
« on: February 15, 2011, 09:11:24 AM »
I recently got to know that my little brother, 15, is considering police-high school. Basically it prepares the students as a life of cop, military. It's for those that has that that a goal, not just to learn leadership in itself. Not that cops are true leaders. My brother has been talking about wanting to become a cop, but I can tell he is uncertain.
Obviously time is of the essence guys, I'm travelling to my parents house in under 2h to be able tp speak to him face to face tonight.
How do I convince him not to?
My plan is to use the argument from morality as my major tool. To point out the immorality, control and double standard the government has. Recently there was also an incident in school were the teachers and principals really overplayed what happened and blamed him. It was about obedience. I know how this made him feel.
edit: also to ask him what his definition of what a police is, and then compare that to the most correct definition. then he will realise it's not what he thinks, and immoral
Obviously time is of the essence guys, I'm travelling to my parents house in under 2h to be able tp speak to him face to face tonight.
How do I convince him not to?
My plan is to use the argument from morality as my major tool. To point out the immorality, control and double standard the government has. Recently there was also an incident in school were the teachers and principals really overplayed what happened and blamed him. It was about obedience. I know how this made him feel.
edit: also to ask him what his definition of what a police is, and then compare that to the most correct definition. then he will realise it's not what he thinks, and immoral
8
General / Re: The Question Thread
« on: February 15, 2011, 06:06:16 AM »Recently I got into a discussion with what seemed like a statist.
We got into the subject of guns and self defence. I stated that it's my right to have a gun, in order to defend myself. If it's morally right for a so called police to have a gun, then it's morally right for me as well.
He then played the atom-bomb card. "So where's the line? Why stop with guns? Is everyone allowed to have their own atombomb? Do you have the right to acquire an atom bomb as well?."
Now this is ridiculous because an atombomb can't arguably be used in self defense without killing lots of innocent people as well. And without governments the atom bomb wouldn't exist to begin with. So in a way it's a highly hypothetical scenario, and those are generally useless to discuss.
I asked him "what hell would I need an atom bomb for?!"
And I have to admit what he did then got me cornered, because he simply took it back to argument from morality.
"Yes but are you allowed to have an atom bomb, is it your right??"
Me: Yes.
So guys I'd appreciate some help here. How is it morally logically consistent, coming from the volountarist/scientifically viewpoint of morality (Stefan Molyneux style) to say that it's ok to have a gun, but not an atom bomb? (Not that I said that)
If you say that everyone has a right to their own gun, doesn't that also mean, if one is logically consistent, that atomb bombs are ok as well? Mustn't everyone be allowed to own their own atomb bomb if they'd like, and no one has the right to stop them from constructing one?
If it's true that atom bombs are OK, sure that makes me a bit nervous. However, it makes me more nervous that some have the right to have atom bombs, and some have not, as is currently the case. Maybe it's not a right to own an atom bomb, but it's not anyone else's right to come take it away from you? Two wrongs doesn't make one right.
Two answers off the top of my head:
1) You don't have to be consistent, and have every right to draw a line in the sand arbitrarily with what you think people should be allowed to own.
Isn't this what we are all against? Isn't that what the state is doing currently? They say you own your property, unless you stop paying property taxes. You either own something or you don't, there's no in between. Dosen't what you are saying make you morally corrupt?
I want to be logically consistent. Being logically consistent is good, inconsistency is bad, we all know that. It's called double standards. How can you persuade others if your moral is not true?
Or, when you are saying "think", do you mean that I can say I think someone shouldn't be allowed to own atom bombs, but that I doesn't give me the right to forcily steal it from someone if he chooses to own/build one?
If so that's useful and I will use it next time the atom-bomb card is played.
9
General / Re: Bitcoin
« on: February 14, 2011, 08:36:14 AM »
It's true all systems can be broken. That is the very nature of a system, isn't it?
Recently this was demonstrated on TOR.
http://i2psites.com/Content/Search/ViewCached.aspx?CachedURL=privacy.i2p/category/tor-is-not-safe/
However you have nothing to loose on encryption. So why not use it, as an extra layer of safety.
Recently this was demonstrated on TOR.
http://i2psites.com/Content/Search/ViewCached.aspx?CachedURL=privacy.i2p/category/tor-is-not-safe/
However you have nothing to loose on encryption. So why not use it, as an extra layer of safety.
10
General / Re: The Question Thread
« on: February 14, 2011, 08:26:26 AM »
Recently I got into a discussion with what seemed like a statist.
We got into the subject of guns and self defence. I stated that it's my right to have a gun, in order to defend myself. If it's morally right for a so called police to have a gun, then it's morally right for me as well.
He then played the atom-bomb card. "So where's the line? Why stop with guns? Is everyone allowed to have their own atombomb? Do you have the right to acquire an atom bomb as well?."
Now this is ridiculous because an atombomb can't arguably be used in self defense without killing lots of innocent people as well. And without governments the atom bomb wouldn't exist to begin with. So in a way it's a highly hypothetical scenario, and those are generally useless to discuss.
I asked him "what hell would I need an atom bomb for?!"
And I have to admit what he did then got me cornered, because he simply took it back to argument from morality.
"Yes but are you allowed to have an atom bomb, is it your right??"
Me: Yes.
So guys I'd appreciate some help here. How is it morally logically consistent, coming from the volountarist/scientifically viewpoint of morality (Stefan Molyneux style) to say that it's ok to have a gun, but not an atom bomb? (Not that I said that)
If you say that everyone has a right to their own gun, doesn't that also mean, if one is logically consistent, that atomb bombs are ok as well? Mustn't everyone be allowed to own their own atomb bomb if they'd like, and no one has the right to stop them from constructing one?
If it's true that atom bombs are OK, sure that makes me a bit nervous. However, it makes me more nervous that some have the right to have atom bombs, and some have not, as is currently the case. Maybe it's not a right to own an atom bomb, but it's not anyone else's right to come take it away from you? Two wrongs doesn't make one right.
We got into the subject of guns and self defence. I stated that it's my right to have a gun, in order to defend myself. If it's morally right for a so called police to have a gun, then it's morally right for me as well.
He then played the atom-bomb card. "So where's the line? Why stop with guns? Is everyone allowed to have their own atombomb? Do you have the right to acquire an atom bomb as well?."
Now this is ridiculous because an atombomb can't arguably be used in self defense without killing lots of innocent people as well. And without governments the atom bomb wouldn't exist to begin with. So in a way it's a highly hypothetical scenario, and those are generally useless to discuss.
I asked him "what hell would I need an atom bomb for?!"
And I have to admit what he did then got me cornered, because he simply took it back to argument from morality.
"Yes but are you allowed to have an atom bomb, is it your right??"
Me: Yes.
So guys I'd appreciate some help here. How is it morally logically consistent, coming from the volountarist/scientifically viewpoint of morality (Stefan Molyneux style) to say that it's ok to have a gun, but not an atom bomb? (Not that I said that)
If you say that everyone has a right to their own gun, doesn't that also mean, if one is logically consistent, that atomb bombs are ok as well? Mustn't everyone be allowed to own their own atomb bomb if they'd like, and no one has the right to stop them from constructing one?
If it's true that atom bombs are OK, sure that makes me a bit nervous. However, it makes me more nervous that some have the right to have atom bombs, and some have not, as is currently the case. Maybe it's not a right to own an atom bomb, but it's not anyone else's right to come take it away from you? Two wrongs doesn't make one right.
11
General / Re: My paper on nethatred
« on: February 08, 2011, 04:36:43 AM »Words are not an initiation of aggression. That is the only fault I see in you essay.
I agree, it's supposed to be aggresivity. Editing it now.
12
General / My paper on nethatred
« on: February 07, 2011, 07:57:23 AM »
Hello how we all doing?
Great.
This is an essay I wrote on my final test. During the course I was a bit afraid that my anti-govt views would affect my grade, even though the teachers aren't supposed to grade according to that. But this proved not the case, I got an A, and I bloody well deserved it.
I felt like I wanted to share this. The task was to write a response to a debate contribution made in a Swedish newspaper by a celebrity blogger, Birro, and a so called university professor, Pålshammar. Lots of people have channeled their hate via the net on Birro's blog. So Birro and Pålshammar are now wanting to solve the "nethatred problem" with some kind of compulsatory registration. This would remove the anonimity and reduce the hatred on the net, according to ghem.
Thoughts are welcomed.
Anonymity - threat or blessing?
"Never in the history of man has there been a true free press"
- Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, recently to a well renowned Swedish newspaper.
"In trying to control others, we find ourselves controlled."
- Dr. Mary J. Ruwart
Every time people experience that a problem exists you can be sure of, as sure of as the sky is blue, that someone will outcry "one should X, it should be like Y". Or as in the article "Nethatred at its largest amidst youths" where Pålshammar articulates that "if one did something about anonymity" and where Birro says he thinks that a system where one has to register would decrease the hatred. When people voice their opinion in this manner it's usually covert communication; what they in fact is saying is that "Mommy government should force all selfish others to act according to how I want. With the gun turned to the head of these selfish others if she has to."
Tell me, does this sound like a favourable method to solve problem? Doesn't such a method, a method of coercion, in fact create five new problems? Every time the government tries to solve a problem it invariably creates five new ones, as my old grandmother always said.
I do have sympathy for Birro, nobody feels good about having nasty comments to ones' blogposts, which by nature are personal. A blogger puts himself into his posts and is therefore at that moment vulnerable, exposed. If he then receives nasty comments, like Birro has, it is easy to get hurt. Birro has probably not even met these nasty commentators and much less said anything nasty to them, yet they spew their hatred on him. They are projecting negative events from their own life towards Birro, just like Pålshammar says in his argument that anonymity makes the net an attractive place for one to get rid of aggressivity from ones own life.
Pålshammar states that anonymity pose a danger. Of course anonymity pose "a danger", nuts pose a danger to those allergic to nuts. To solve this "danger" with the method Birro and Pålshammar are proposing is by far a much more grave danger. They are talking about restricting everybody's freedom by ushering in compulsatory registration, which then would be run by some kind of department? I will not even begin to entertain the problems such a concept would involve by stating it here. The administrative nighmare alone to monitor 9 million individuals following such an endeavour is enough to keep signed up at night. Furthermore: Quiz custodiet ipzoz custoz? Who watches the watchmen?
Pålshammar's reasoning that "in the end the right to speech threatens the right to speech" is so absurd that I barf a little in my mouth. It is an formidable oxymoron that one wants to restrict the right to speech in order to protect it. How he on some level manages to dream up that this in any way would protect the right to speech is beyond my comprehension.
Birro is a victim (and that not said in a condescending tone) in this case, a victim of nasty words. He has been exposed to others initiatingaggression aggresivity against him, which is wrong, always. But to then react by wanting to initate the threat of violence and physical aggression towards everyone who happens to live on the geographical landmass most commonly referred to as Sweden, is that right? Two wrongs doesn't make one right!
I believe in rights, I believe that they are a good idea and that it's a good idea to defend and uphold certain rights. I don't believe that all rights which many today consider are rights de facto are rights. HOWEVER if there is one right I believe in and will always defend it's freedom of speech. My philosophical axiom of life, if you will, is to allow everyone to do whatever they want as long as nobody gets hurt. In addition that the use of force is only just IF someone else has initiatied force against you or to protect your property against attempted theft. If we want to live free we have to honour our neighours choice, no matter what kinds of moral objections we happen to have about what he is doing. If we don't do that, who will defend us when someone (most likely the government) tries to opress us?
For it is most commonly the government that is the oppressor, the government is the largest threat to your freedom. "Terrorists! Suicide bombers" some will object. Please. Think about it. Through the government we take turns of being victims and agressors. That which one group gains from a law or a program another group loose, and vice versa. Birro and Pålshammar is stuck in this paradigm.
The paradigm indoctrinated through the government's schools; how you solve problems and make a difference. Students are thought through role playing and written essays that "children, if you could be the president for a day what laws would you make to do everything so much better?". Or to write to "your" so called "representative".
This paradigm is all about making sure the people are playing into the higher ups agenda by getting them to use the system, which in essence is about forcing what we happen to think is right, our will, upon others.
This is also what this debate about anonymity on the net boils down to, and I will make that apparent with three simple questions.
Does Birro and Pålshammar acknowledge that I'm free to have whatever opinions and ideas I might have? To this question surely their answers is yes, I hope.
Do they think that I am free to express these opinions and ideas? Again, here they will answer yes, hopefully.
Now to the interesting, and really the only relevant question: Are they ready to force me, with the gun pointed to my head of I don't wan't to, to pay for their opinions and ideas? Indeed here I hope their answer is no.
I also do hope that it's apparent that Birro, would he to answer yes, have gone from being the victim to the aggressor. And so is the cycle of violence and aggression propagated. The evil commentators are in turn victims in some way in their lives, this is where the aggresivity comes from in the first place. And guess who chiefly creates that? The government.
Can the reader see how it all goes together? Does the reader realize that it's not a constructive idea to try to solve problems with the government, the monopoly of violence? Anonymity on the net may be a danger, a threat. But to solve this with the method Birro and Pålsammar wants is by far a more grave danger.
The government is a gigantic monster, a leviathon. It devours everything in its path and is always searching for new ways to expand its control. The bureucrats and the politicians reward their friends and punishes their enemies. If the government is allowed to grow in one area it gets hungry for more. Then it's set in stone that it will try to escalate its control even further.
They want to control you! They want to own you! (and for many intents and purposes currently they do)
If those that through some sort of registration of internet-users want to restrict mine and your freedom are allowed to make their plans come to fruition this is merely the first step. Behind the curtains the North Korean government is applauding and preparing welcome-to-the-club cards.
Nay, I say. Anonymity on the net is by and large a blessing. Now is the first time in the history of mankind, thanks to Wikileaks, a true free press exists, and this is invaluable. It will correct a lot of corruption within governments. As a consequence the resentment amidst the sheeple people will decrease.
The politicians and the bureucrats (read control freaks) will still exist with their biggest wish to restrict your freedom. Remember, it's OK, they know whats best for you, your children and your life. They know what is best for everyone. But their agenda will be harder to realize, easier to see through with anonymity on the net.
As a consequence Birro will, with some luck, be exposed to less hatred, a little less aggresiveness on his blog and email inbox.
There are other methods to solve these kinds of problems with than to either shut down ones blog or force ones will upon the selfish others and, worse yet, forcing me and you to pay for it. However good intentions Birro and Pålshammar might have it will result in unintended consequences when they want to coerce others.
If we restrict the freedom of others we create many enemies which in turn will want to take their revenge upon us, by restricting our freedom; In trying to control others, we find ourselves controlled.
Coercion is an uninmaginable more grave danger than anonymity on the net. About this theme one of Birros blogposts would be much better suited.
edit: replaced aggresion with aggresivity
Great.
This is an essay I wrote on my final test. During the course I was a bit afraid that my anti-govt views would affect my grade, even though the teachers aren't supposed to grade according to that. But this proved not the case, I got an A, and I bloody well deserved it.
I felt like I wanted to share this. The task was to write a response to a debate contribution made in a Swedish newspaper by a celebrity blogger, Birro, and a so called university professor, Pålshammar. Lots of people have channeled their hate via the net on Birro's blog. So Birro and Pålshammar are now wanting to solve the "nethatred problem" with some kind of compulsatory registration. This would remove the anonimity and reduce the hatred on the net, according to ghem.
Thoughts are welcomed.
Anonymity - threat or blessing?
"Never in the history of man has there been a true free press"
- Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, recently to a well renowned Swedish newspaper.
"In trying to control others, we find ourselves controlled."
- Dr. Mary J. Ruwart
Every time people experience that a problem exists you can be sure of, as sure of as the sky is blue, that someone will outcry "one should X, it should be like Y". Or as in the article "Nethatred at its largest amidst youths" where Pålshammar articulates that "if one did something about anonymity" and where Birro says he thinks that a system where one has to register would decrease the hatred. When people voice their opinion in this manner it's usually covert communication; what they in fact is saying is that "Mommy government should force all selfish others to act according to how I want. With the gun turned to the head of these selfish others if she has to."
Tell me, does this sound like a favourable method to solve problem? Doesn't such a method, a method of coercion, in fact create five new problems? Every time the government tries to solve a problem it invariably creates five new ones, as my old grandmother always said.
I do have sympathy for Birro, nobody feels good about having nasty comments to ones' blogposts, which by nature are personal. A blogger puts himself into his posts and is therefore at that moment vulnerable, exposed. If he then receives nasty comments, like Birro has, it is easy to get hurt. Birro has probably not even met these nasty commentators and much less said anything nasty to them, yet they spew their hatred on him. They are projecting negative events from their own life towards Birro, just like Pålshammar says in his argument that anonymity makes the net an attractive place for one to get rid of aggressivity from ones own life.
Pålshammar states that anonymity pose a danger. Of course anonymity pose "a danger", nuts pose a danger to those allergic to nuts. To solve this "danger" with the method Birro and Pålshammar are proposing is by far a much more grave danger. They are talking about restricting everybody's freedom by ushering in compulsatory registration, which then would be run by some kind of department? I will not even begin to entertain the problems such a concept would involve by stating it here. The administrative nighmare alone to monitor 9 million individuals following such an endeavour is enough to keep signed up at night. Furthermore: Quiz custodiet ipzoz custoz? Who watches the watchmen?
Pålshammar's reasoning that "in the end the right to speech threatens the right to speech" is so absurd that I barf a little in my mouth. It is an formidable oxymoron that one wants to restrict the right to speech in order to protect it. How he on some level manages to dream up that this in any way would protect the right to speech is beyond my comprehension.
Birro is a victim (and that not said in a condescending tone) in this case, a victim of nasty words. He has been exposed to others initiating
I believe in rights, I believe that they are a good idea and that it's a good idea to defend and uphold certain rights. I don't believe that all rights which many today consider are rights de facto are rights. HOWEVER if there is one right I believe in and will always defend it's freedom of speech. My philosophical axiom of life, if you will, is to allow everyone to do whatever they want as long as nobody gets hurt. In addition that the use of force is only just IF someone else has initiatied force against you or to protect your property against attempted theft. If we want to live free we have to honour our neighours choice, no matter what kinds of moral objections we happen to have about what he is doing. If we don't do that, who will defend us when someone (most likely the government) tries to opress us?
For it is most commonly the government that is the oppressor, the government is the largest threat to your freedom. "Terrorists! Suicide bombers" some will object. Please. Think about it. Through the government we take turns of being victims and agressors. That which one group gains from a law or a program another group loose, and vice versa. Birro and Pålshammar is stuck in this paradigm.
The paradigm indoctrinated through the government's schools; how you solve problems and make a difference. Students are thought through role playing and written essays that "children, if you could be the president for a day what laws would you make to do everything so much better?". Or to write to "your" so called "representative".
This paradigm is all about making sure the people are playing into the higher ups agenda by getting them to use the system, which in essence is about forcing what we happen to think is right, our will, upon others.
This is also what this debate about anonymity on the net boils down to, and I will make that apparent with three simple questions.
Does Birro and Pålshammar acknowledge that I'm free to have whatever opinions and ideas I might have? To this question surely their answers is yes, I hope.
Do they think that I am free to express these opinions and ideas? Again, here they will answer yes, hopefully.
Now to the interesting, and really the only relevant question: Are they ready to force me, with the gun pointed to my head of I don't wan't to, to pay for their opinions and ideas? Indeed here I hope their answer is no.
I also do hope that it's apparent that Birro, would he to answer yes, have gone from being the victim to the aggressor. And so is the cycle of violence and aggression propagated. The evil commentators are in turn victims in some way in their lives, this is where the aggresivity comes from in the first place. And guess who chiefly creates that? The government.
Can the reader see how it all goes together? Does the reader realize that it's not a constructive idea to try to solve problems with the government, the monopoly of violence? Anonymity on the net may be a danger, a threat. But to solve this with the method Birro and Pålsammar wants is by far a more grave danger.
The government is a gigantic monster, a leviathon. It devours everything in its path and is always searching for new ways to expand its control. The bureucrats and the politicians reward their friends and punishes their enemies. If the government is allowed to grow in one area it gets hungry for more. Then it's set in stone that it will try to escalate its control even further.
They want to control you! They want to own you! (and for many intents and purposes currently they do)
If those that through some sort of registration of internet-users want to restrict mine and your freedom are allowed to make their plans come to fruition this is merely the first step. Behind the curtains the North Korean government is applauding and preparing welcome-to-the-club cards.
Nay, I say. Anonymity on the net is by and large a blessing. Now is the first time in the history of mankind, thanks to Wikileaks, a true free press exists, and this is invaluable. It will correct a lot of corruption within governments. As a consequence the resentment amidst the sheeple people will decrease.
The politicians and the bureucrats (read control freaks) will still exist with their biggest wish to restrict your freedom. Remember, it's OK, they know whats best for you, your children and your life. They know what is best for everyone. But their agenda will be harder to realize, easier to see through with anonymity on the net.
As a consequence Birro will, with some luck, be exposed to less hatred, a little less aggresiveness on his blog and email inbox.
There are other methods to solve these kinds of problems with than to either shut down ones blog or force ones will upon the selfish others and, worse yet, forcing me and you to pay for it. However good intentions Birro and Pålshammar might have it will result in unintended consequences when they want to coerce others.
If we restrict the freedom of others we create many enemies which in turn will want to take their revenge upon us, by restricting our freedom; In trying to control others, we find ourselves controlled.
Coercion is an uninmaginable more grave danger than anonymity on the net. About this theme one of Birros blogposts would be much better suited.
edit: replaced aggresion with aggresivity
13
General / Re: The Question Thread
« on: January 09, 2011, 08:50:09 AM »
I want to atleast try to convince my boss of stop paying taxes on my labour.
How do I brush the subject of tax evasion to my boss?
Any resources? Any advice?
Appreciate it.
How do I brush the subject of tax evasion to my boss?
Any resources? Any advice?
Appreciate it.
14
The Show / Re: Fashion and Ian
« on: January 07, 2011, 07:17:21 PM »
How can I frame this so that it will get through to you Ian?
I've been an avid listener of FTL and consider both Mark and Ian as role models, but up until recently I hadn't seen any of them on video, so I looked up a video of Ian on youtube and when I saw the way he dressed I was like "ooh....". I was disappointed.
Ian you have a powerful personality and an awesome intellect! It would be the last piece of the puzzle if you brushed up on fashion a bit!
I used to not care how I dressed at all. I was thinking along the lines of "I'm not going to play into that stupid game, everyone should just stop wasting money on stupid things like clothes" and "It's good to not care about what other people think of you, so I'll just not care about fashion to show that I don't care about what people are thinking about me".
However the past year I have made an effort to improve my fashion. I've put together a style and started paying attention to what I wear. And the difference is HUGE in interactions. People react to you differently unconsciously, and it actually changes you.
Fashion can be understood within the context of biological signals, it's PROGRAMMED into our genes. Just as female mallards
are attracted to certain colors of feathers on males, people are attracted to certain types of
clothing on other people.
Charles Darwin was the first to
attempt to construct a theory of why
animals have such extravagant
signals and physical ornamentation.
"The sexual struggle is of two kinds:
in the one it is between the
individuals of the same sex, generally
the males, in order to drive away or
kill their rivals, the females
remaining passive; while in the
other, the struggle is likewise
between the individuals of the same
sex, in order to excite or charm those
of the opposite sex, generally the
females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners."
-Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
Having a good style shows that you have the time, energy and money to put into appearances, and that's attractive to all people. Yes fashion is magnified by societal norms and media like many other phenomenons, but it does have it's root in human nature. We are animals just like every other animal on this planet, and the peacook is a perfect example of the importance of fashion.
You're shooting yourself in the foot if you are not putting an effort into creating a good style for you, which after all is relatively easy compared to other areas of improving oneself.
If you're one of the millions of guys out there who's been saying your whole life:“Nah, I'm
not into clothes. I just wear what feels comfortable,” you are missing out on one of the
simplest ways to influence people before you even open your mouth. Once you understand some basic concepts to discover
and perfect your own look, fashion is going to become one of your quickest, easiest, most
reliable tools influencing people. You will start to love putting on the clothing that gets you
noticed by people.
I've been an avid listener of FTL and consider both Mark and Ian as role models, but up until recently I hadn't seen any of them on video, so I looked up a video of Ian on youtube and when I saw the way he dressed I was like "ooh....". I was disappointed.
Ian you have a powerful personality and an awesome intellect! It would be the last piece of the puzzle if you brushed up on fashion a bit!
I used to not care how I dressed at all. I was thinking along the lines of "I'm not going to play into that stupid game, everyone should just stop wasting money on stupid things like clothes" and "It's good to not care about what other people think of you, so I'll just not care about fashion to show that I don't care about what people are thinking about me".
However the past year I have made an effort to improve my fashion. I've put together a style and started paying attention to what I wear. And the difference is HUGE in interactions. People react to you differently unconsciously, and it actually changes you.
Fashion can be understood within the context of biological signals, it's PROGRAMMED into our genes. Just as female mallards
are attracted to certain colors of feathers on males, people are attracted to certain types of
clothing on other people.
Charles Darwin was the first to
attempt to construct a theory of why
animals have such extravagant
signals and physical ornamentation.
"The sexual struggle is of two kinds:
in the one it is between the
individuals of the same sex, generally
the males, in order to drive away or
kill their rivals, the females
remaining passive; while in the
other, the struggle is likewise
between the individuals of the same
sex, in order to excite or charm those
of the opposite sex, generally the
females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners."
-Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
Having a good style shows that you have the time, energy and money to put into appearances, and that's attractive to all people. Yes fashion is magnified by societal norms and media like many other phenomenons, but it does have it's root in human nature. We are animals just like every other animal on this planet, and the peacook is a perfect example of the importance of fashion.
You're shooting yourself in the foot if you are not putting an effort into creating a good style for you, which after all is relatively easy compared to other areas of improving oneself.
If you're one of the millions of guys out there who's been saying your whole life:“Nah, I'm
not into clothes. I just wear what feels comfortable,” you are missing out on one of the
simplest ways to influence people before you even open your mouth. Once you understand some basic concepts to discover
and perfect your own look, fashion is going to become one of your quickest, easiest, most
reliable tools influencing people. You will start to love putting on the clothing that gets you
noticed by people.
15
General / Re: Drama in the Free State
« on: January 07, 2011, 06:33:06 PM »
I'm a relationship anarchist, the traditional concept of marriage is so stupid. Humans are not designed to be sexually monogamous!
"I will love you in my whole life"
"Til death to us apart""
How can someone make that promise? This doesn't make any sense in my world, I always strive to keep my word and I would never make a promise like that, because I know there's a high probability I wouldn't be able to keep it.
I reject societies message of monogamy as having the moral ground.
"I will love you in my whole life"
"Til death to us apart""
How can someone make that promise? This doesn't make any sense in my world, I always strive to keep my word and I would never make a promise like that, because I know there's a high probability I wouldn't be able to keep it.
I reject societies message of monogamy as having the moral ground.
Pages: [1]