#Anarchy

ask yourself three questions

(1) where does your food come from ?

(2) where do the cops get their guns ?

(3) where does your fuel and power come from ?

i almost didn't watch this because i thought it would just be repeating things i already knew

boy was i wrong

a steel-man argument is the practice of presenting the strongest possible version of an opponent's argument

even stronger than they may have presented it themselves, to engage in a more robust and fair debate

present your best arguments

and i will build you a fully customized steel-man

link skips to second half -

before the debate, the audience polled at 59% against the resolution

after the debate, the audience polled at 76% against the resolution

the hypothesis hypothesis

I have spent lot of years mainly figuring out what myself and this reality is all about. I've questioned everything I thought I knew about myself and reality. By doing so I constantly became more and more clear about my own conditioning and belief-systems. I saw that every belief I had was just that: a belief that I had taken for granted but that had actually nothing to do with the truth. In fact I've come to see that every belief I had was like a filter in front of truth. Truth isn't something mind can grasp, it's actually the very opposite, everything mind thinks it understands actually takes it that much further from the truth.

So I was questioning everything about reality and saw that eventually even the concept of material universe was just a hypothesis. All we can know for certain is our experience and the phenomenon it contains. Everything outside our experience is hypothesis, even the concrete nature of the universe.
But even more than that I figured out my own ego and belief systems I had about myself as a person. That seemed more relevant at the time. I was always puzzled by the idea that my past life dictates who I am. That would mean that if I were to born in completely different circumstances I would became a completely different person. I could never buy that, I felt that essentially I should be the same regardless of the circumstances. Difference is only in the accumulated beliefs and conditioning and I thought if I could get past those I would find my true core being.

So I continued to go deeper into myself and then in one ordinary day when I was sitting in a car and figuring these things as usual something happened. I suddenly felt total freedom, my issues with self esteem and self-confidence were suddenly gone, it felt instantly like there is no going back. It wasn't like I got suddenly perfect self-esteem and confidence, but experimentally those two words lost their meaning completely. All the subconscious stress about how I have to perform in life etc. were gone instantly, I felt I was free from all the concepts. I see the reason for that to happen was that my mind didn't anymore identify with any of those thoughts that made me a person of certain kind and that also ultimately made me uncertain about myself. My self esteem and feeling about myself was gradually getting better while in the middle of this process but that milestone was something I didn't anticipate.

And what does this story of my life have to do with free will? It is because how I experience it has changed from what it used to be. Before when I fully identified with my past and thought I knew what kind of person I am based on that, I had a sense of "free will" because I identified with the conditioning from which basis the choices are made. I identified myself as the maker of those choices. That event somewhat changed my identity from the doer to the witness, or to be clearer it kind of contains both aspects simultaneously now. So in my experience "I" don't have that identity as a clear cut entity that makes the choices anymore. I am more anchored in the present moment were there are no choices to be made, nor is there a maker of those choices.

Things just flow naturally and events follow each other. Of course there still seems to be this person who "chooses" to write this post, but it is like in the flower example: does a flower choose to bloom or is it just the flow of life that happens naturally?

I take it the main question here is whether the PSR is true. Or, we can put this ontologically: what is it that would make the PSR true? Or epistemically: what it is that would warrant our knowledge that the PSR is true?

It is Kant, in The Critique of Pure Reason, who famously both makes these sorts of questions explicit and defends some influential reasons to doubt the PSR, or at least doubt the PSR in some relevant contexts.

In answering what I have just called the ontological and epistemic questions, Kant argues that what makes the PSR true/what warrants our knowledge of the PSR is its transcendental ideality. That is, on Kant's view, the PSR is a principle which necessarily governs any rational act of conceptualizing what one experiences, so that it serves as a norm of reasoning or as a basis for producing concepts about nature from our experiences. The positive result of this position is that we have a reason to think that the PSR holds in principle whenever any rational agent is cognizing their experiences, and so holds in principle as a norm or basis of scientific reasoning. The negative result of this position is that, because the PSR is grounded in the necessary conditions of reasoning about experience, it is being misapplied if it is taken as a basis or norm for things beyond our experience. This is to say that, while we can know that the PSR is a principle governing our cognition, we cannot know that it is a principle governing things-in-themselves, or nature as it is independent of our cognition of it. This prohibits its use in metaphysical arguments like the cosmological argument for God, where it is taken as the norm governing a causal series extending beyond our experience to a first cause which lies outside it.

So this sort of position is probably the most famous case of a mitigated skepticism regarding the PSR. But there are of course people who defend the PSR against this kind of criticism, as well as those who defend a broader skepticism regarding it. [[]]

㊙️ 道可道 非常道

when you go head first and speak confidently of your movement, it is like the opposing wings of a bird, working in concert with, yet balancing the established durable standard description of proper movement

in other words

your description of your motive is not the same as the commonly accepted standard motive

in other words

in other words

if i made a bunch of robots

on a deserted island

or on the moon

or maybe i genetically engineered the robots

so they grew from cells

and i expected them to worship me

without giving them any direct evidence of my existence

would that seem crazy to you ?

Do you ever feel like you're making meaningful choices in your life? Do you feel like you have the power to shape your own destiny? If so, you're not alone. Most people believe in the idea of free will, the notion that we are capable of making choices that are not predetermined by external factors.

However, upon closer inspection, the concept of free will is an obvious contradiction in terms. After all, if an event is truly "free" and not caused by any prior factors, then it is essentially a random event - and not a product of our own choices or agency. In other words, to be truly free, an event must be uncaused by anything else - and that is simply impossible.

This is where compatibilism comes in. Compatibilists argue that free will and determinism can coexist, and that our choices can still be meaningful even if they are ultimately determined by prior causes. However, this perspective is a bit of a smoke screen - it's essentially redefining free will in a way that almost nobody thinks of it.

For example, when most people talk about free will, they mean something like "the power to act untethered to fate." They're not thinking about internal mental processes or the influence of their environment on their decisions. By redefining free will in this way, compatibilists are essentially dodging the issue of determinism and the idea that events are pre-determined by prior causes.

To make matters worse, even magic and supernatural powers cannot solve this simple logic problem. The idea of causing an uncaused cause is inherently flawed and runs counter to the basic principles of logic itself.

So what's the takeaway from all this? At the end of the day, the concept of free will is an impossible and incoherent one. While it's certainly true that we feel like we're making decisions and acting on them, this feeling is a product of our internal mental processes and the influence of external factors - not a supernatural power to break causality.

In short, if you want to feel like you have free will, go ahead and do so. But just know that this feeling is not based on any coherent or logical perspective.
I hope you find this post entertaining and thought-provoking!

(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself

There's your conditional statement.

(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed (THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief" and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY

Feel free to point out any errors you may find.

It's exactly as it sounds. I know I tagged #anarchy, but I'm not actually an anarchist. I believe that as long as there is a government system controlling you or people near you, there is no such thing as "freedom." obviously, every human has freedom to do whatever they want, its about punishment. As I'm righting this, I realize that I am sort of wrong with my own opinion, but nonetheless, thoughts?

coinage has an interesting history

in india, when the foreign invaders wanted to control the population

they minted new coins

but nobody used them, and that makes a poor system of control

so, they did some research

and minted new coins with the image of a luck god that was popular in that region

and spread rumors about how lucky things happened to people who carried these lucky coins

people then wanted these coins, because, who doesn't need more good luck, and apparently, the more coins you hold, the more luck you get

they of course also cornered the market on wheat (leveraging physical force, aka, soldiers) and set an exchange rate of X number of coins for X measure of wheat
this gives the coin practical utility

but to really get things started, they need the broadest possible USERBASE

and that's where the "air-drop" comes in

representatives traveled the countryside, making sure every village gets some free coins and spreads the word about how lucky they are

and just like cocaine

once you get them hooked

the system becomes self-sustaining

Trump 'endorses' Dan Goldman, the lawyer who led his impeachment, amid a confounding string of Truth Social posts praising Democrats [**]

Taleb would argue, on the basis of the precautionary principle, that religious ideas that have been useful for thousands of years (Lindy Effect), and would be better arbitrators of truth than personal rationality or new moral ideas. But at the same time, religion is only accepted because it survived, while other belief systems that would have been equally valid did not survive. How do we reconcile survivorship bias with the precautionary principle in the case of religion?

1. Precautionary Principle: a broad epistemological, philosophical and legal approach to innovations with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking.

2. Lindy Effect: a theory that the future life expectancy of some non-perishable things like a technology or an idea is proportional to their current age, so that every additional period of survival implies a longer remaining life expectancy. Where the Lindy effect applies, mortality rate decreases with time.

3. Survivorship Bias: the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias. [**]

For years now those who have been investigating conspiracies have been aware of a U.S. intelligence group called Deagle.

Their ties to the intelligence community such as the C.I.A. public knowledge.

Several years ago they published a chilling world population forecast. They later revised it to still chilling numbers. And have since scrubbed much of their forecast from the internet, including the WayBack machine. I did however find this still up.

The news looks grim indeed for the United States and much of the so called western world.

To put this in perspective, here is a screenshot taken a few years ago.

source
As you can see there are, according to their forecast, much pain coming for those of us in the U.S.

According to the census population clock there are at the time of this writing over 332,000,000 people in the U.S.

In three more years, they are predicting a population here of 100,000,000. A reduction of over 66% in people living here.

They are also projecting GDP to fall from its current 19 trillion to 2.4 trillion.

I won't bother listing the other pain points, this is enough for the scope of this examination.

Here are some videos for those more curious.

MIT agrees only their prediction is for total societal collapse by 2040.

Editorial
I've heard many posit who are more spiritual than myself that there is some karmic law where they have to tell you beforehand. To somehow make you complicit I guess.

I have a hard time with that line of thinking due to all of the billions of casualties daily who were not made aware upfront of their impending hardships or death.
I remember a similar thought process for myself when I was quite young over the assertion the only way to heaven was through Jesus. I wondered what of the many people who hadn't heard of Jesus. Many would answer me they were safe because they couldn't be punished for their ignorance, which sounds conveniently a lot like the karmic law I mentioned a moment ago.

Without knowing for sure, I lean more towards the act of warning beforehand to be tainted a lot with cruelty.

History (and personal experience) demonstrates often one of humanities worst characteristics. To not only abuse those one has power over, but to derive so much pleasure out of it many will flex as they do so. Relishing in the pain those who are powerless to stop them exhibit.

The old rubbing salt in the wound if you would.

We've seen this in most every walk of life, in even what can be quite trivial situations.

In fact, one can quite readily see it on display in stake based systems where flag/stake nullification is allowed.

It seems that there is perhaps a narcissistic compulsion to hurt others to maintain their perceived positions of being superior. I say this as due to my perception it has appeared to me that many of those drawn to power mostly fit the narcissist profile.

I see it in the way many in what are considered positions of power display an entitlement that their lives and their opinions are much more valuable than the commoners such as myself. Believing they are the mold with which one must listen to and emulate (in words not actual actions). I say in words because so many of these fake folks are constantly being caught doing the opposite of what they pretend to do or advise their followings to do.

Much like those who are quick to wish death on their neighbors because we have to many people, yet they never seem to consider that they could put their money where their mouths are and be the first in line to creating that depopulation progress they wish would come already.

In the last years, I've watched my country grind to a halt with ridiculous, exaggerated edicts that were often contradictory and harmful to sustainability.
In the last year specifically, I've watched as every step taken that could derail the economy has been taken. From sabotaging energy, to the supply chain to our food supply.

Just as we saw with the planned 911 tragedy, this is a controlled demolition.

And there appear to be no white knights coming to save the day.

The politicians, and their private armies of law enforcement and military are not only standing down, they are actively supporting these many acts of sedition with their threats of violence.

We have entered very tough times, and I've mentioned one thing several times now.

If you tell me that you consider me your enemy, I'll believe you.

In both action and deed those who control most aspects of the societal agreement have mentioned they believe most of us an enemy when we are not useful for their plans.

I believe them, and their continued moves leave little doubt they are making their final move towards seeing that first Georgia Guidestone message become reality.

Regardless of how much weight you give to these warning that they themselves give to us I do hope you will at least understand one thing. Random or not, the coming pain that is being purposely orchestrated will ensure much hardship and death, and will see neighbors fighting neighbors over the few scraps of necessities that will be available.

Think it can't happen to you and your neighbors. The Donner Party would be a stark wake up call to understanding how far some will indeed go when they face certain death.

do you believe these strategies are identifiable ??

(1) do you think a person should get their sense of self-worth from within themselves or from what other people think of them?

(2) do you prefer to be spontaneous and go out and travel and do things "IRL" or do you prefer to think about doing things and lose yourself in movies and television shows and books ?

(3) do you think people should generally trust their gut or do you think people should generally think things through ??

(4) do you think people should follow a strict core code of laws or principles no matter what, or do you think that people should follow different rules in different situations ??

I'll get right to the point.

Ad hominem attacks are basically inevitable.

So, I'm proposing, for maybe a week, at random, all DebateArt usernames and icons be shuffled.

Of course the admins could still see the real userinfo, to mitigate potential abuse posting.

I think it would be very interesting to see how people respond differently to each other without the baggage they inevitably accumulate with familiarity.

and of course, after the wacky-week, everything posted would be re-labeled back to the actual (correct) account that created it (and not the randomized pseudonym).

a shining example of a typical ad hominem debate

pay close attention to the defense

pay close attention to the face to face attack

this is basically the "super-bowl" of debates

My platform - any and all code-of-conduct enforcement should be uniform - regardless of the individual being considered and regardless of where they posted

your scathing critique is requested

The problem is that we'll never evolve (and never would be more than other primates even with our language capacity) if we never ever trusted what others told us about the past, meaning we inherently do need authority to stop lies being spread or else the lies can just as easily become the 'truth'. It's easy to blame the authority as 'evil' but the alternative is far more sinister and in fact a perfect example of how sinister it can be when authorities fail to stop the spread of falsehood-tainted propaganda and other such lies is the very Holocaust in discussion, meaning it is self-evidently necessary to prevent its denial even to justify said prevention. [**]

Your scathing critique is requested.

The vast majority of "men's rights" groups are not actually about trying to reverse sexual discrimination against men. They don't even make the effort. They're about undermining feminism and fighting against equality. It's basically the same kind of mindset that pushes some on the right to insist that white people are the real victims. Any erosion of power, however unjust that power position is, makes some people feel like victims of discrimination.

'A Voice for Men' was the most prominent, loud and genuinely awful groups a few years ago. Probably still are. And if you bothered to pay attention to the things they were actually trying to get attention for, it either had nothing to do with addressing actual sexual discrimination or was used as a battering tool against women and feminism. AVfM, in particular, has advanced lies that about half of rape accusations against men are false, that domestic violence shelters for women are just teaching anti-male politics, that domestic violence against men studies were hiding real rates of violence, have doxxed feminists and female protestors, stated that women would be useless if not for sex, etc.
The most common argument in these kinds of groups (again, a majority) is that sexual discrimination against men is a bigger and wider problem than discrimination against women. On its face, it's a rejection of the very basic feminist notion that women are not yet treated equally. And even when they attempt something positive, it's anti-female. Rather than try to seek better care for veterans, AVfM sought better care for male veterans. Like, most veterans are men, why make the distinction except to specifically discriminate against female veterans?

As frustrating and horrifying as these kinds of groups are, the truth is that a bigger part of me just feels sad. Because there are issues that affect men more than women. There are problems that aren't being properly addressed. Men who experience sexual assault at the hands of women, though rarer than the other way around, usually have no recourse in the courts. Because the idea that a woman can rape a man is "silly." Men commit suicide at higher rates and, partly thanks to the sexual roles that push them into both self-reliance and an aversion to asking for emotional support, are less likely to seek help when suicidal ideation takes hold. The outreach aimed at reducing suicide currently works better for women than men. That's a problem. But most men's groups aren't trying to address and fix problems, they're about airing grievances against feminism and women. It's so stupid and pointless.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What you call "the majority" is simply the worst examples that have been AMPLIFIED by media in order to paint the entire movement with a BROAD-BRUSH and create a convenient BOOGIE-MAN to rally against. It's a game. We're all humans and should defend the individual sovereignty of all humans, BOTH female and male, foreigner and citizen, no matter how poor and no matter how rich they may be. They want us to think of each other as "evil", but that's just a game that keeps us fighting amongst ourselves.

Click this link to create your own version of DEBATEART.COM (well, the forum section at least).

YOU CAN SET THE AGENDA.

YOU CAN DECIDE WHAT THE RULES ARE.

YOU CAN DECIDE WHO TO INVITE AND WHO TO IGNORE.

Your public reputation is your most valuable asset.

So there should be laws that keep people from saying mean things about each other in public.

Especially famous people.

Nobody should be able to use a photograph of you or talk about you ("use your name or your corporation's name as click-bait") WITHOUT YOUR EXPRESS CONSENT.

Celebrities and other public figures are constantly being accused of "not caring" about things like "the environment" and or "justice" and the like.

These kinds of claims are LIBELOUS SLANDER AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

Caring about the "right" or "wrong" things is not a crime yet.

And since it is an indisputable fact that people don't know the inner thoughts (actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea) of the people they hate, they should not be allowed to speak publicly on the matter without facing steep fines and penalties.