Underlore

I have an Adri, your argument is invalid.

Things every kid should know.

http://i1.wp.com/www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/Wanted_500.jpg?w=586

“The foundation of every state is the education of its youth.” – Diogenes

1. No one decides to be mean.
2. Being older doesn’t mean being smarter.
3. Respect does not mean obedience.
4. If someone can tell you what to do with something it’s theirs.
5. Responsibility is usually code for control.
6. Those who have more force others to have less.
7. Angry people are afraid of something.
8. If someone forces you instead of explains, you’re smarter than they are.
9. People want you to compete because they are afraid of what you can do when you cooperate.
10. Everyone gets something out of what they are doing.
11. No one chooses how smart they are.
12. No one chooses how they feel.
13. Almost everything is a matter of opinion.
14. Smart people can be wrong.
15. The message is independent of the messenger.
16. The majority can be wrong.
17. Reality is not a democracy.
18. Academic skill does not equal intelligence.
19. There is a tool or trick to offset every weakness.
20. Those that tell you loudest to work hard often aren’t working at all.
21. You don’t have to be part of something to understand something.
22. You could be the first.
23. Hurting people doesn’t make you strong or right.
24. Removing the need for something is the best way to fight it.
25. Everything you own charges you rent.
26. Only you know your gender.
27. Laziness is not a bad thing.
28. There are always more options.
29. How you feel and think depend partly on your health.
30. Your body is your brain’s pet.
31. You have a limited amount of time, spend it wisely sell it rarely.
32. People lie because the truth is a threat to them.
33. No one can tell you what love means.
34. Revenge is an attempt to control the past.
35. Context changes meaning, and you can always add context.
36. Outliving something is better than killing it.
37. They care enough to tell you they don’t care.
38. If they tell you they’re laughing, chances are, they aren’t.
39. The truth doesn’t always look true.
40. Knowing you could be wrong does not mean you are.
41. You don’t have to be an expert to be right.
42. No one owns a fact.
43. You don’t have to earn the right to live.
44. Wealth is about luck and ethics.
45. People who want power shouldn’t get it.
46. Genius is always outnumbered.
47. Strangers are more complicated than you think.
48. Everyone has a reason.
49. Some people are immune to the truth, sometimes it’s you.
50. There will always be things you don’t know about yourself.
51. Not all things are scalable.
52. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity.
53. Maturity does not equal conformity.
54. The really good ideas aren’t always popular.
55. Writing is nearly immortal and often ignored.
56. You are always entitled to an explanation that ignores authority.
57. You do not have to be what your parents intended.
58. Truly nice people are rarely popular, they tend to hide.
59. You’re a completely different person after a while.
60. Poor people exist mainly because rich people sequester wealth.
61. It’s not holding a grudge if they continuously offend you.
62. You will outlive all the adults, that means the future is your business.
63. If they can’t tell you what’s in it for them, it’s a trap.
64. Evolution doesn’t always improve things.
65. Common sense isn’t rare, you’re just misunderstanding the actual agenda of the parties involved.
##. There are always more things to put on this list.

189 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. Fantastic, should be where every child who is able to read, can see it.

    1. I know it would have helped me. Thanks for your comment.

  2. Fantastic, should be where every child who is able to read, can see it.

    1. I know it would have helped me. Thanks for your comment.

  3. To the printers!

  4. To the printers!

  5. Wow. Just wow. Some of these are so simple-sounding…but make you think. I had to chuckle at #58; so THAT’S why it’s so hard to find a nice person! Well done 🙂

    1. @Kris
      Thank you very much 🙂

  6. Wow. Just wow. Some of these are so simple-sounding…but make you think. I had to chuckle at #58; so THAT’S why it’s so hard to find a nice person! Well done 🙂

    1. @Kris
      Thank you very much 🙂

  7. Nice list, although I disagree with numbers one and twelve. Very much so, in fact. Many people choose to be mean. They’re called sadists. And although most emotions are involuntary, you can, in fact, decide how you want to feel in many cases. It’s just that it’s so much easier to simply let feelings happen, instead of to try to engender, control, or discard them.

    1. @Dr. Awkwad

      You are not thinking far enough back. Sure looked at like that people choose to be mean, but look at WHY they choose to be mean. They do it because being mean feels good to them. They did not choose that. No one choose what feels good to them else we’d all have a masturbation fetish and our favorite food would be oatmeal.

      You can try to hack your own brain, indoctrinate and brainwash yourself but as any phobic will tell you, whether it works or not is chance. Even the most concentrated efforts sometimes fail.

      For example, how about you make yourself agree with 1 and 12 🙂

      You can’t because you just don’t. Emotions are the same way, they underlie logic. Sometimes logic can reach down in bio feedback kind of way and influence emotions, but that’s not actual control.

      Not until we can literally change our brain paths directly, surgically (there is no correct word yet since I don’t mean cutting open the skull), will the concept of our emotions being under our control have any real meaning.

      Because think about it, your emotional state has to motivate you to want to change your emotions before you can even start. Some people don’t want to change, and that was not a choice.

      The cult of personal responsibility stems from ignorance and is there largely to justify servitude in my opinion. Boils down to the free will debate.

  8. Nice list, although I disagree with numbers one and twelve. Very much so, in fact. Many people choose to be mean. They’re called sadists. And although most emotions are involuntary, you can, in fact, decide how you want to feel in many cases. It’s just that it’s so much easier to simply let feelings happen, instead of to try to engender, control, or discard them.

    1. @Dr. Awkwad

      You are not thinking far enough back. Sure looked at like that people choose to be mean, but look at WHY they choose to be mean. They do it because being mean feels good to them. They did not choose that. No one choose what feels good to them else we’d all have a masturbation fetish and our favorite food would be oatmeal.

      You can try to hack your own brain, indoctrinate and brainwash yourself but as any phobic will tell you, whether it works or not is chance. Even the most concentrated efforts sometimes fail.

      For example, how about you make yourself agree with 1 and 12 🙂

      You can’t because you just don’t. Emotions are the same way, they underlie logic. Sometimes logic can reach down in bio feedback kind of way and influence emotions, but that’s not actual control.

      Not until we can literally change our brain paths directly, surgically (there is no correct word yet since I don’t mean cutting open the skull), will the concept of our emotions being under our control have any real meaning.

      Because think about it, your emotional state has to motivate you to want to change your emotions before you can even start. Some people don’t want to change, and that was not a choice.

      The cult of personal responsibility stems from ignorance and is there largely to justify servitude in my opinion. Boils down to the free will debate.

  9. #12 is so backward and wrong…Obviously written by a ‘feeler’ rather than a ‘thinker’. Cognitive psychology disagrees with you to the n-th degree. So does any modern understanding of how the brain works. Thoughts engender emotional responses–as opposed to feeling responses which are physical, hot, cold, tired, etc.–which lead to behavioral actions. You control your thoughts, you control your emotions. Simple.

    Of course, this does require you to make a distinction between emotions and feelings. I was assuming you used feelings to also mean emotions as indicated by your subsequent comments.

    A lot of these things on the list sound nice–a very Disney view of things–but can easily be proven wrong. For instance, I’ve decided to be mean on purpose. I had no goal other than the act of meanness itself. You can claim I’m not ‘looking deep enough’ but you are begging the question then and simply appealing to some ‘invisible’ third party to save you. The principle of charity dictates that you have to take people at their word otherwise we cannot even have discussions. My word is that I’ve done this. The simple truth is, I have. Meh.

    As to the free will debate…there is no debate. You are predetermined. Philosophy has largely moved past this as a relevant subject because the overwhelming mountain of evidence lands in favor of causal determinism. Of course this also rules out most spirituality as a side effect which a lot of people don’t like, but there you have it. Free will is kept–in my experience–as a trinket to show 2nd and 3rd year undergraduate students. No one seriously defends this anymore. It’s just ludicrous with science at the level it’s at.

    All in all, this list seems directed at those who you either think know more than you or who tell you they know more than you. There is a distinct bias against the hard-sciences which is slightly disturbing since every modern convenience we have is directely attributable to the hard sciences.

    Anyway, nice list at least in part

    Cheers!

    1. @DemChi

      It’s very interesting how many people have the illusion that how/what they feel is a choice.

      Refuting that illusion can be done from many angles. For example, if feeling is a choice, why is there a drug trade?

      If people can choose how they feel why can’t they simply choose to feel high?

      Cognitive psychology disagrees with you to the n-th degree. So does any modern understanding of how the brain works.

      Since you brought up psychology and brain structure, how come phobics can’t simply choose to not feel irrational fear?

      The words motive and emotion have the same root for a good reason. Emotions predate cognition, on an anatomical and historical level. Indeed the term “neo” in neo cortex means new. Emotions arise primarily in the limbic system, the same area of the brain we share with the very earliest of complex life forms. The other name for this system I might add is “Paleomammalian brain.”

      Even a cursory glance at complex life demonstrates rather strongly that emotions happen To us far more than Because of us.

      Granted the human neo cortex (redundant, for now) is specifically designed to interrupt the circuit allowing for behavior corrections, actions in spite of emotion, that can in turn influence stimulus and therefor emotion. Also meditation can control mental states by diverting resources (blood flow) through over stimulus of given areas of the brain, but for all practical purposes emotion for the vast majority of people in the vast majority of cases is wholly outside our control.

      In my opinion people that cling strongly to this attitude of emotions/feelings being a function of choice typically have an agenda requiring others to suppress theirs, or they themselves are being required to suppress them for whatever reason and avoid actually thinking the matter through to in turn avoid emotional pain.

      In part the conclusion that a person cannot be blamed for how they feel changes the very nature of responsibility, and since our entire social system is based on what we are held responsible for this concept can be extremely painful when you come to realize you’ve been punished and rewarded for things wholly outside your control.

      Ironic, considering that if this group were correct they could simply choose not to be bothered by it.

      You control your thoughts, you control your emotions. Simple.

      One doesn’t control one’s thoughts, they proceed from a complex interaction of memory and stimulus. For example, think of a random number, don’t think of elephants. Did you choose to think of numbers and elephants or did you do so because you read about them just now?

      Emotions can indeed be stimulated by thought, but which emotion is produced by that thought is outside our control. A simple look at opinion makes that crystal clear. For example, when I think of abortion I have a given emotional reaction and opinion. I think it’s very safe to say that there is going to be someone out there who will react emotionally in a completely different way to the exact same thought.

      Of course, this does require you to make a distinction between emotions and feelings.

      Some feelings are emotions but not all emotions are feelings, for example, I feel silk, I feel fear, but fear is an emotion, silk is not. I’m not going to use the word feelings because it is vague and cluttered, if I need to I’ll use the word sensation, tactile, olfactory, etc.

      a very Disney view of things

      Except that the whole point of my list is to empower children, Disney has exactly the opposite purpose. I’m encouraging individualism, Disney is a homogenizing force.

      For instance, I’ve decided to be mean on purpose.

      But you did so because of an emotional reaction or state that was outside your control. Your goal was to feel better, and you acted according to the dictates of your emotion and memory in such a way that you believe would improve your emotional state.

      As to the free will debate…there is no debate. You are predetermined.

      Agreed. But… one wonders how you can believe that reality is unavoidably uniform (As Morpheus put it; “No, what happened happened and couldn’t have happened any other way.”) and still think that emotion is a choice when you’ve just committed to a belief that renders all choice illusory.

      There is a distinct bias against the hard-sciences

      Feel free to defend that. I of course strongly disagree.

  10. #12 is so backward and wrong…Obviously written by a ‘feeler’ rather than a ‘thinker’. Cognitive psychology disagrees with you to the n-th degree. So does any modern understanding of how the brain works. Thoughts engender emotional responses–as opposed to feeling responses which are physical, hot, cold, tired, etc.–which lead to behavioral actions. You control your thoughts, you control your emotions. Simple.

    Of course, this does require you to make a distinction between emotions and feelings. I was assuming you used feelings to also mean emotions as indicated by your subsequent comments.

    A lot of these things on the list sound nice–a very Disney view of things–but can easily be proven wrong. For instance, I’ve decided to be mean on purpose. I had no goal other than the act of meanness itself. You can claim I’m not ‘looking deep enough’ but you are begging the question then and simply appealing to some ‘invisible’ third party to save you. The principle of charity dictates that you have to take people at their word otherwise we cannot even have discussions. My word is that I’ve done this. The simple truth is, I have. Meh.

    As to the free will debate…there is no debate. You are predetermined. Philosophy has largely moved past this as a relevant subject because the overwhelming mountain of evidence lands in favor of causal determinism. Of course this also rules out most spirituality as a side effect which a lot of people don’t like, but there you have it. Free will is kept–in my experience–as a trinket to show 2nd and 3rd year undergraduate students. No one seriously defends this anymore. It’s just ludicrous with science at the level it’s at.

    All in all, this list seems directed at those who you either think know more than you or who tell you they know more than you. There is a distinct bias against the hard-sciences which is slightly disturbing since every modern convenience we have is directely attributable to the hard sciences.

    Anyway, nice list at least in part

    Cheers!

    1. @DemChi

      It’s very interesting how many people have the illusion that how/what they feel is a choice.

      Refuting that illusion can be done from many angles. For example, if feeling is a choice, why is there a drug trade?

      If people can choose how they feel why can’t they simply choose to feel high?

      Cognitive psychology disagrees with you to the n-th degree. So does any modern understanding of how the brain works.

      Since you brought up psychology and brain structure, how come phobics can’t simply choose to not feel irrational fear?

      The words motive and emotion have the same root for a good reason. Emotions predate cognition, on an anatomical and historical level. Indeed the term “neo” in neo cortex means new. Emotions arise primarily in the limbic system, the same area of the brain we share with the very earliest of complex life forms. The other name for this system I might add is “Paleomammalian brain.”

      Even a cursory glance at complex life demonstrates rather strongly that emotions happen To us far more than Because of us.

      Granted the human neo cortex (redundant, for now) is specifically designed to interrupt the circuit allowing for behavior corrections, actions in spite of emotion, that can in turn influence stimulus and therefor emotion. Also meditation can control mental states by diverting resources (blood flow) through over stimulus of given areas of the brain, but for all practical purposes emotion for the vast majority of people in the vast majority of cases is wholly outside our control.

      In my opinion people that cling strongly to this attitude of emotions/feelings being a function of choice typically have an agenda requiring others to suppress theirs, or they themselves are being required to suppress them for whatever reason and avoid actually thinking the matter through to in turn avoid emotional pain.

      In part the conclusion that a person cannot be blamed for how they feel changes the very nature of responsibility, and since our entire social system is based on what we are held responsible for this concept can be extremely painful when you come to realize you’ve been punished and rewarded for things wholly outside your control.

      Ironic, considering that if this group were correct they could simply choose not to be bothered by it.

      You control your thoughts, you control your emotions. Simple.

      One doesn’t control one’s thoughts, they proceed from a complex interaction of memory and stimulus. For example, think of a random number, don’t think of elephants. Did you choose to think of numbers and elephants or did you do so because you read about them just now?

      Emotions can indeed be stimulated by thought, but which emotion is produced by that thought is outside our control. A simple look at opinion makes that crystal clear. For example, when I think of abortion I have a given emotional reaction and opinion. I think it’s very safe to say that there is going to be someone out there who will react emotionally in a completely different way to the exact same thought.

      Of course, this does require you to make a distinction between emotions and feelings.

      Some feelings are emotions but not all emotions are feelings, for example, I feel silk, I feel fear, but fear is an emotion, silk is not. I’m not going to use the word feelings because it is vague and cluttered, if I need to I’ll use the word sensation, tactile, olfactory, etc.

      a very Disney view of things

      Except that the whole point of my list is to empower children, Disney has exactly the opposite purpose. I’m encouraging individualism, Disney is a homogenizing force.

      For instance, I’ve decided to be mean on purpose.

      But you did so because of an emotional reaction or state that was outside your control. Your goal was to feel better, and you acted according to the dictates of your emotion and memory in such a way that you believe would improve your emotional state.

      As to the free will debate…there is no debate. You are predetermined.

      Agreed. But… one wonders how you can believe that reality is unavoidably uniform (As Morpheus put it; “No, what happened happened and couldn’t have happened any other way.”) and still think that emotion is a choice when you’ve just committed to a belief that renders all choice illusory.

      There is a distinct bias against the hard-sciences

      Feel free to defend that. I of course strongly disagree.

  11. There is an undercurrent of helplessness in many of these: 11. No one chooses how smart they are.
    12. No one chooses how they feel.

    If a child is to be provided with guidance, he should be empowered. An individual has the ultimate authority over his state of mind and his thoughts. Those thoughts will determine your feelings; you control those feelings.

    There is so much emphasis on external factors beyond our control, where it might be more prudent to emphasize development of internal controls which will serve us through good times and bad.

    Like most lists, there are too many items here. Give people half a dozen as food for thought.

    Many of these were very touching and deserved a clearer platform.

    1. @t

      I don’t believe my response to DemChi was posted when you wrote this, so please look it over and let me know what remaining concerns you have on the subject of emotional control.

      If a child is to be provided with guidance, he should be empowered.

      Indeed, a big part of the point of this list is to illustrate for children the difference between guidance and oppression, so that they might fight the one and usefully accept the other.

      There is so much emphasis on external factors beyond our control,

      I didn’t write the laws of physics. Take it up with management 🙂

      it might be more prudent to emphasize development of internal controls which will serve us through good times and bad.

      Who define prudent in this case? The assumption of society is that children should be made into something predetermined, I wholly disagree. Parenting is increasingly defined as a training program with a goal. People treat children like complicated dogs to be trained or robots to be programmed. Children have no rights as individuals in our society and it sickens me, this list reflects my reaction to that sentiment. I wish to alert them to the situation they are in so they can approach it empowered with accurate knowledge.

      A good parent in my view has no idea what their child will be like. A good parent in society’s view knows exactly what their child will be like and will stop at nothing to produce it, even going so far as to intimidate/coerce them.

      Like most lists, there are too many items here.

      Again, life is complicated, and we subject children to decades of “Education” ostensibly to “help” them. A couple pages of text is a drop in that bucket. This list is the proper size for it’s goal.

      Thank you for your comments.

  12. There is an undercurrent of helplessness in many of these: 11. No one chooses how smart they are.
    12. No one chooses how they feel.

    If a child is to be provided with guidance, he should be empowered. An individual has the ultimate authority over his state of mind and his thoughts. Those thoughts will determine your feelings; you control those feelings.

    There is so much emphasis on external factors beyond our control, where it might be more prudent to emphasize development of internal controls which will serve us through good times and bad.

    Like most lists, there are too many items here. Give people half a dozen as food for thought.

    Many of these were very touching and deserved a clearer platform.

    1. @t

      I don’t believe my response to DemChi was posted when you wrote this, so please look it over and let me know what remaining concerns you have on the subject of emotional control.

      If a child is to be provided with guidance, he should be empowered.

      Indeed, a big part of the point of this list is to illustrate for children the difference between guidance and oppression, so that they might fight the one and usefully accept the other.

      There is so much emphasis on external factors beyond our control,

      I didn’t write the laws of physics. Take it up with management 🙂

      it might be more prudent to emphasize development of internal controls which will serve us through good times and bad.

      Who define prudent in this case? The assumption of society is that children should be made into something predetermined, I wholly disagree. Parenting is increasingly defined as a training program with a goal. People treat children like complicated dogs to be trained or robots to be programmed. Children have no rights as individuals in our society and it sickens me, this list reflects my reaction to that sentiment. I wish to alert them to the situation they are in so they can approach it empowered with accurate knowledge.

      A good parent in my view has no idea what their child will be like. A good parent in society’s view knows exactly what their child will be like and will stop at nothing to produce it, even going so far as to intimidate/coerce them.

      Like most lists, there are too many items here.

      Again, life is complicated, and we subject children to decades of “Education” ostensibly to “help” them. A couple pages of text is a drop in that bucket. This list is the proper size for it’s goal.

      Thank you for your comments.

  13. Let’s do a little thought experiment to clear up the emotion thing.

    You point a gun at my head, I emote fear–as opposed to feel fear which I’m claiming is an important distinction.

    Now, you point that same gun at a person who does not know what a gun is. They may emote many things but not necessarily fear. That is because they lack the cognitive structure–the thoughts–to understand it and thus emote anything.

    This is why I make the distinction between emotions and feelings. Feelings are automatic, you can’t choose to not feel cold. Emotions are cognitive.

    As to the free will thing; just because things are causally determined does not mean we are going to go about our lives any differently than before–as if we could! My point with philosophy leaving that subject alone is that they realized it’s one of those topics that it does you no good to pursue, you don’t/can’t change anything in your life based on it. Meh, so what?

  14. Let’s do a little thought experiment to clear up the emotion thing.

    You point a gun at my head, I emote fear–as opposed to feel fear which I’m claiming is an important distinction.

    Now, you point that same gun at a person who does not know what a gun is. They may emote many things but not necessarily fear. That is because they lack the cognitive structure–the thoughts–to understand it and thus emote anything.

    This is why I make the distinction between emotions and feelings. Feelings are automatic, you can’t choose to not feel cold. Emotions are cognitive.

    As to the free will thing; just because things are causally determined does not mean we are going to go about our lives any differently than before–as if we could! My point with philosophy leaving that subject alone is that they realized it’s one of those topics that it does you no good to pursue, you don’t/can’t change anything in your life based on it. Meh, so what?

  15. Cute, but generally horseshit. Maybe this will help people feel better about their failings in life, but it will not make them a better or stronger person.

  16. Cute, but generally horseshit. Maybe this will help people feel better about their failings in life, but it will not make them a better or stronger person.

  17. @DemChi

    You’re needlessly complicating a simple example to create an illusory distinction.

    “Feeling” is just a vagary of semantics. It is about as exact as “thingy.” The relevant terms are sensation and emotion.

    The reaction difference between the parties in your thought experiment is easily explained by your manipulation of their memory. It tells us nothing about the nature of emotion. And you know it.

    What your fearless subject lacks is the memory of what a gun suggests, thus the character of the stimulus is changed. You might as well have pointed a banana at one of them for all the similarity between the subjects and experimental value presented.

    And just because you’ve abandoned thinking about free will doesn’t mean others have. If you think philosophy as a study is done with free will you’re simply not paying attention. Are you a PHD in philosophy? I ask not because a PHD means anything but because a PHD is likely to be well versed on the state of academic philosophical discussion.

    I can’t say for certain of course, but lucky for me, you’re the one that made the claim, and you’re now in a place where you have to prove a negative. Good luck.

  18. @DemChi

    You’re needlessly complicating a simple example to create an illusory distinction.

    “Feeling” is just a vagary of semantics. It is about as exact as “thingy.” The relevant terms are sensation and emotion.

    The reaction difference between the parties in your thought experiment is easily explained by your manipulation of their memory. It tells us nothing about the nature of emotion. And you know it.

    What your fearless subject lacks is the memory of what a gun suggests, thus the character of the stimulus is changed. You might as well have pointed a banana at one of them for all the similarity between the subjects and experimental value presented.

    And just because you’ve abandoned thinking about free will doesn’t mean others have. If you think philosophy as a study is done with free will you’re simply not paying attention. Are you a PHD in philosophy? I ask not because a PHD means anything but because a PHD is likely to be well versed on the state of academic philosophical discussion.

    I can’t say for certain of course, but lucky for me, you’re the one that made the claim, and you’re now in a place where you have to prove a negative. Good luck.

  19. @dwindle

    I see, so its preferable to make children suffering emotional cripples wracked with guilt about things utterly beyond their control so that their betters can continue to live in comfort off the fruits of their labor justified only by accident of birth.

    Your definition of strength isn’t even yours. You’re product. Congratulations.

    Perhaps it escaped your notice, since you obviously were raised to be a slave just like mommy and daddy, but children are human beings with rights. They are not sides of beef awaiting a USDA stamp.

    If your goal for children is to produce the next wave of cheap and pliant labor, then yes of course this list will fail to make them “better” read as “more productive” or “stronger” read as “silently obedient.”

    If however your goal is to aid in the formation of emotionally healthy, ethically responsible, creative, compassionate, problem solving individuals, ready to enrich the lives of everyone around them including themselves, then perhaps you should take another look at it.

    Why don’t you go flog yourself and write a hymn to plutocracy if that’s what you think strength and betterment means?

    On a personal note, you antler bashing tools disgust me and you should be thankful people of my capability were given ethics and compassion, because had we not, those antlers would be adorning someone’s secret trophy case.

    You’re lucky that not everyone subscribes to your mindless competitive Horatio Alger mythology. Very lucky.

    How about you demonstrate the smallest amount of cognitive ability and choose a particular item you disagree with, present a semi cogent, somewhat rational expression of that disagreement and I’ll reply.

    Perhaps I can disabuse you of your illusions and you’ll be happier and kinder as a result, rather than a chest thumping minion of orthodoxy. 🙂

  20. @dwindle

    I see, so its preferable to make children suffering emotional cripples wracked with guilt about things utterly beyond their control so that their betters can continue to live in comfort off the fruits of their labor justified only by accident of birth.

    Your definition of strength isn’t even yours. You’re product. Congratulations.

    Perhaps it escaped your notice, since you obviously were raised to be a slave just like mommy and daddy, but children are human beings with rights. They are not sides of beef awaiting a USDA stamp.

    If your goal for children is to produce the next wave of cheap and pliant labor, then yes of course this list will fail to make them “better” read as “more productive” or “stronger” read as “silently obedient.”

    If however your goal is to aid in the formation of emotionally healthy, ethically responsible, creative, compassionate, problem solving individuals, ready to enrich the lives of everyone around them including themselves, then perhaps you should take another look at it.

    Why don’t you go flog yourself and write a hymn to plutocracy if that’s what you think strength and betterment means?

    On a personal note, you antler bashing tools disgust me and you should be thankful people of my capability were given ethics and compassion, because had we not, those antlers would be adorning someone’s secret trophy case.

    You’re lucky that not everyone subscribes to your mindless competitive Horatio Alger mythology. Very lucky.

    How about you demonstrate the smallest amount of cognitive ability and choose a particular item you disagree with, present a semi cogent, somewhat rational expression of that disagreement and I’ll reply.

    Perhaps I can disabuse you of your illusions and you’ll be happier and kinder as a result, rather than a chest thumping minion of orthodoxy. 🙂

  21. I dont know what i like more, the list or the responses 😀

    Most of the points on this list were nothing new for my brain, as i consider myself lucky that i didnt have parents that had some special plans for me. Teachers, TV and Society are a different story… Life is just an exercise, but dont ask me in what. I have no fucking clue!

    Somethings about myself (english is not my native language)
    When i was a youngster, i was that guy that tried to !force! others to see life in many different perspectives (no exceptions). Later in life i understood how exhausting i was with my raging thoughts and my constant changing person. Impossible to grasb. And i also learned to respect the ignorance of others. But I sometimes wonder how much impact i had on my fellow men and somehow I think that my actions-thoughts had the opposite effect then what my intentions were. I was a mirror that reflected the unknown. Exactly what most people fear the most. All the little things they dont understand in others. Not that i felt responsible for others, it’s their thing how they dealt with me and i almost never was angry when i was rejected. It was more like a sadness, especially when they dont even tried to understand or playing dump on purpose. For me, being misunderstood was how it supposed to be. Sometimes i wonder how certain people would be like, if we never had a relationship with each another. I hate it when i meet some old “friends”, that they almost automatically see me as the person i was then (really just a memory). For me its always as if i meet a new person. They want to see what changed since then and what my plans are for the future. I want to get to know who they are now..
    Way to many people run out of time to get to know themselves. Your life between fourteen and twenty is for you to understand WHAT your are, not WHO you want to be. AWW forget the last two sentences and the advice in it. I just want you to ask: Did you ever meet a person like me? And if so, how did he make you “feel” and what do you think of that person now?

    The biggest challenge in life is to be that new person that you really are every single day. Not that guy from yesterday.

    @Innomen, I like your honest straightforwardness. Now that is what i call a clear thought process!

    Kudos to you!

    1. Thank you for the compliment and the serious response. To answer your question of if I’ve met a person like you the answer is I don’t know and wouldn’t remember if I did. The price of seeing things from the large scale abstract is the tendency to marginalize the importance of the personal.

      But I’m certain the shape of the organism I am now depended heavily on contact with people who serve the purpose you desire to serve at key points during the formation of my ideology.

      The thing we most seem to share is a desire to transcend the singular perspective from which we all find escape ultimately impossible. However, there are work arounds, and it seems we’ve both embraced one or two of them, ironically for self serving reasons, since those reasons are the only honest ones.

      Again, thank you for your comment. It’s nice to hear something nice for a change.

  22. I dont know what i like more, the list or the responses 😀

    Most of the points on this list were nothing new for my brain, as i consider myself lucky that i didnt have parents that had some special plans for me. Teachers, TV and Society are a different story… Life is just an exercise, but dont ask me in what. I have no fucking clue!

    Somethings about myself (english is not my native language)
    When i was a youngster, i was that guy that tried to !force! others to see life in many different perspectives (no exceptions). Later in life i understood how exhausting i was with my raging thoughts and my constant changing person. Impossible to grasb. And i also learned to respect the ignorance of others. But I sometimes wonder how much impact i had on my fellow men and somehow I think that my actions-thoughts had the opposite effect then what my intentions were. I was a mirror that reflected the unknown. Exactly what most people fear the most. All the little things they dont understand in others. Not that i felt responsible for others, it’s their thing how they dealt with me and i almost never was angry when i was rejected. It was more like a sadness, especially when they dont even tried to understand or playing dump on purpose. For me, being misunderstood was how it supposed to be. Sometimes i wonder how certain people would be like, if we never had a relationship with each another. I hate it when i meet some old “friends”, that they almost automatically see me as the person i was then (really just a memory). For me its always as if i meet a new person. They want to see what changed since then and what my plans are for the future. I want to get to know who they are now..
    Way to many people run out of time to get to know themselves. Your life between fourteen and twenty is for you to understand WHAT your are, not WHO you want to be. AWW forget the last two sentences and the advice in it. I just want you to ask: Did you ever meet a person like me? And if so, how did he make you “feel” and what do you think of that person now?

    The biggest challenge in life is to be that new person that you really are every single day. Not that guy from yesterday.

    @Innomen, I like your honest straightforwardness. Now that is what i call a clear thought process!

    Kudos to you!

    1. Thank you for the compliment and the serious response. To answer your question of if I’ve met a person like you the answer is I don’t know and wouldn’t remember if I did. The price of seeing things from the large scale abstract is the tendency to marginalize the importance of the personal.

      But I’m certain the shape of the organism I am now depended heavily on contact with people who serve the purpose you desire to serve at key points during the formation of my ideology.

      The thing we most seem to share is a desire to transcend the singular perspective from which we all find escape ultimately impossible. However, there are work arounds, and it seems we’ve both embraced one or two of them, ironically for self serving reasons, since those reasons are the only honest ones.

      Again, thank you for your comment. It’s nice to hear something nice for a change.

  23. “The price of … the importance of the personal.” So true…

    btw. my question was a rethorical one. Just so that everybody can answer it to themselves.

    thx, you were a reminder of something very important

    cheerio

  24. “The price of … the importance of the personal.” So true…

    btw. my question was a rethorical one. Just so that everybody can answer it to themselves.

    thx, you were a reminder of something very important

    cheerio

  25. This list is legit for sure…although i know plenty of adults that need to read this as well.

    Interesting side note about DemChi’s debate over cold and guns. I remember reading about feral children (i think that’s what they’re called) in psych and it mentioned that they didnt understand the concept of cold (or guns for that matter).

  26. This list is legit for sure…although i know plenty of adults that need to read this as well.

    Interesting side note about DemChi’s debate over cold and guns. I remember reading about feral children (i think that’s what they’re called) in psych and it mentioned that they didnt understand the concept of cold (or guns for that matter).

  27. Hah… I stumbled upon this article by chance, and I’m quite happy I did.

    “Not all things are scalable.” Heh. It’s a concept I still struggle with, but it’s one I’ve found over my few short years to be true. You’ve done a much better job here collectively than I ever could have, but I’m forced to ask the question, how many items on this list can be scaled in themselves? I guess as far as intent goes, each item is restrained inherently… but the suggestion of the list itself speaks to something higher than the guidance of a child’s mind. That, or I really am still a child. Haha. Or, perhaps, our children are just that important? I guess any option is refreshing in its own way.

    Rarely do you see a list of any focus or scope so well-constructed and purposed; to you, I must lay my knuckles on bare stone. Whether it’s a product of predetermined function or wit (whether you made the list intentionally to support itself or you’re just really good at defending the individual parts), the execution is flawless, if not aesthetic. And as an observer, your thoughts provide a high concentration of viable, well-defended insight. Luckily, there were some responses, giving you a conduit to express the details of your more divisive points, which I believe arbitrarily suggests accountability. “If people are talking about it, it’s obviously worth talking about.”

    I’m a proponent of the human condition. The interaction between sensation and emotion is as old as our species, and in recent years, we’ve approached a relative scientific certainty that every emotion we can conceive is grown exclusively from a specific soil of sensation and circumstance. Being a proponent as such, I am instinctually compelled to refute the idea that humans cannot decide how they feel or think. This may a bit of straw man, but I have always felt that understanding breeds manipulation, and in that way, a body who understands his or her sensations and experiences is instinctually driven to control them… That’s what I think, anyway. Rarely do I get the opportunity to safely manipulate my sensations and experiences to produce measurable results, but I know that if I were to fully understand what my mind was doing while feeling fear or love or anger, I’d seek to recreate or suppress those specific feelings. The overall emotional picture is complex, so only by thorough, calculated manipulation would I be able to yield a defendable conclusion, but… in concept, at least, I find the adage to be true.

    Strangely, I’ve always been one of those people who doesn’t understand why phobics (as you mentioned earlier) are irrationally afraid of certain things. It seems so simple to me, the cognitive distinction between stimulus and sensation (input) and emotional reaction (output)… I find it very difficult to believe a person, reacting phobically to the space of a cramped, warm elevator, actually finds the extra two degrees frightening, or really believes that the man in the tweed suit will suffocate him if he steps an inch closer. The irrationality of it seems so clear to me, but there is obviously something else at work. These individuals just seem to be closer to this condition than to logic, in those specific situations. Though I claim to understand how it works (logically and emotionally), my mind is just as alien to me as it is to a doctor with a degree. One specific item you detailed in your list really sits at home with me, in all my cognitive walks and explorations. I’ve always quoted its wisdom in a different way, but the concept, I believe, is the same. “There is no truth; only perspective.” “13. Almost everything is a matter of opinion.” Though my rendition is more black-and-white, rarely do I hold it to its absolute. What yours may lack in aesthetic, it makes up for in global acceptability.

    I must return to my duties; these jaunts always throw me off my work schedule, but I just feel so compelled to respond.

    1. @nehemoth

      how many items on this list can be scaled in themselves?

      Excellent question. I hope my effort to make the items concise has not destroyed their meaning. But then again that could be a good thing. Perhaps in destroying the intended meaning a new and better meaning can be found. Honestly though I’m comfortable with the list currently in terms of its fidelity.

      whether you made the list intentionally to support itself or you’re just really good at defending the individual parts

      The list is an extension of a list of axioms or maxims I’ve found for myself as I’ve grown. These are the root beliefs about which I am most passionate. I can defend them effortlessly because they are me. I invented all of them, independently of course, obviously the concepts aren’t original or unique to me.

      The reason I aimed the list at children is because the opposing views to these items are often insidiously manipulative and those machinations are most effective when aimed at children. Of course I would love for adults to embrace these things as well but sadly the evidence indicates that adults experience a degree of neurological solidification, at which point new fundamental outlooks become impossible.

      I make no money from this blog, or from anything else as yet. Would a donation button be in bad taste? My work will always be free, I will not hold what I consider to be truth hostage for a dollar.

      but I have always felt that understanding breeds manipulation

      Understanding breeds the opportunity for manipulation assuming what is being understood is capable of being manipulated. No amount of understanding appears able to reverse entropy for example.

      As to your comments about self driven emotional and thought control I say in another way what I’ve already said. The control to speak of is illusory because it stems from chance. You chanced upon a way to control those emotions, it is your good fortune that this way works for you, but your initial will to change them, what you choose to change them into was not your choice, else you’d recurse.

      What we have here is a modern manifestation of the Homunculus Problem. At what point do emotions originate and if they are a function of will, are they still emotions.

      The irrationality of it seems so clear to me, but there is obviously something else at work.

      That’s because of the agreement we as a society have made to regard emotions as an action, so that we can elect leaders punish criminals reward contributors etc. You are your neo cortex, the rest of the brain serves the neo cortex, provides it with functions as the body provides it with oxygen. Like you eyes provide you with sight and your hippocampus provides you with memory encoding. The limbic system and related structures serve as entire brains in older life forms. Your brain quit literally is built on top of a monkey brain, and that monkey’s brain is on top of a rats brain, which is in turn on top of a lizards brain, which is just above a fish brain, and so on down to organism that don’t even have or need brains, further down to organisms that don’t need nerve tissue at all, down to specialist tissue, down to life forms so simple they might not even count as living.

      My point is that the part of you that says cogito ergo sum, is in many important ways, a separate life, an organ if you will. And the rest of the brain, is no more under its control than the pituitary gland is. It receives emotions just as it receives visual data. Now, yes you can look in a different direction,but is that the same as willfully hallucinating? No.

      And so, it becomes clear that while we can do something about our emotions, the notion of controlling them without actually altering the organs or stimulus responsible for creating them is absurd. that myth is sold because without it hierarchical society as we know it would crumble.

      Thank you very much for you heart warming compliments and your thoughtful reply with its constructive criticism and original insight.

      1. What , am I crazy commenting on a comment written 3 years ago? No idea how I got here but I need to say, you are very bright. I like your writing , your thoughtfulness, and I love the list! And I hasten to add I am an adult 53 years old and couldn’t if I tried, stop thinking about all these things. Some of us are born explorers and seek always. Thanks for some lovely thoughts and words. Leslie

        1. My material isn’t supposed to have a shelf life. At least not in the single digit years range. 🙂

          Thank you for your kind words. That anyone reads any of my work always surprises me. That they find is beneficial is nothing less than my primary source of purpose in life. I adore comments. 🙂

          If you like what I have to say in this list you may genuinely like parts of my book. You can get it for free on smashwords.

          https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/297456

          (It says “buy” but you can set the price to zero.)

  28. Hah… I stumbled upon this article by chance, and I’m quite happy I did.

    “Not all things are scalable.” Heh. It’s a concept I still struggle with, but it’s one I’ve found over my few short years to be true. You’ve done a much better job here collectively than I ever could have, but I’m forced to ask the question, how many items on this list can be scaled in themselves? I guess as far as intent goes, each item is restrained inherently… but the suggestion of the list itself speaks to something higher than the guidance of a child’s mind. That, or I really am still a child. Haha. Or, perhaps, our children are just that important? I guess any option is refreshing in its own way.

    Rarely do you see a list of any focus or scope so well-constructed and purposed; to you, I must lay my knuckles on bare stone. Whether it’s a product of predetermined function or wit (whether you made the list intentionally to support itself or you’re just really good at defending the individual parts), the execution is flawless, if not aesthetic. And as an observer, your thoughts provide a high concentration of viable, well-defended insight. Luckily, there were some responses, giving you a conduit to express the details of your more divisive points, which I believe arbitrarily suggests accountability. “If people are talking about it, it’s obviously worth talking about.”

    I’m a proponent of the human condition. The interaction between sensation and emotion is as old as our species, and in recent years, we’ve approached a relative scientific certainty that every emotion we can conceive is grown exclusively from a specific soil of sensation and circumstance. Being a proponent as such, I am instinctually compelled to refute the idea that humans cannot decide how they feel or think. This may a bit of straw man, but I have always felt that understanding breeds manipulation, and in that way, a body who understands his or her sensations and experiences is instinctually driven to control them… That’s what I think, anyway. Rarely do I get the opportunity to safely manipulate my sensations and experiences to produce measurable results, but I know that if I were to fully understand what my mind was doing while feeling fear or love or anger, I’d seek to recreate or suppress those specific feelings. The overall emotional picture is complex, so only by thorough, calculated manipulation would I be able to yield a defendable conclusion, but… in concept, at least, I find the adage to be true.

    Strangely, I’ve always been one of those people who doesn’t understand why phobics (as you mentioned earlier) are irrationally afraid of certain things. It seems so simple to me, the cognitive distinction between stimulus and sensation (input) and emotional reaction (output)… I find it very difficult to believe a person, reacting phobically to the space of a cramped, warm elevator, actually finds the extra two degrees frightening, or really believes that the man in the tweed suit will suffocate him if he steps an inch closer. The irrationality of it seems so clear to me, but there is obviously something else at work. These individuals just seem to be closer to this condition than to logic, in those specific situations. Though I claim to understand how it works (logically and emotionally), my mind is just as alien to me as it is to a doctor with a degree. One specific item you detailed in your list really sits at home with me, in all my cognitive walks and explorations. I’ve always quoted its wisdom in a different way, but the concept, I believe, is the same. “There is no truth; only perspective.” “13. Almost everything is a matter of opinion.” Though my rendition is more black-and-white, rarely do I hold it to its absolute. What yours may lack in aesthetic, it makes up for in global acceptability.

    I must return to my duties; these jaunts always throw me off my work schedule, but I just feel so compelled to respond.

    1. @nehemoth

      how many items on this list can be scaled in themselves?

      Excellent question. I hope my effort to make the items concise has not destroyed their meaning. But then again that could be a good thing. Perhaps in destroying the intended meaning a new and better meaning can be found. Honestly though I’m comfortable with the list currently in terms of its fidelity.

      whether you made the list intentionally to support itself or you’re just really good at defending the individual parts

      The list is an extension of a list of axioms or maxims I’ve found for myself as I’ve grown. These are the root beliefs about which I am most passionate. I can defend them effortlessly because they are me. I invented all of them, independently of course, obviously the concepts aren’t original or unique to me.

      The reason I aimed the list at children is because the opposing views to these items are often insidiously manipulative and those machinations are most effective when aimed at children. Of course I would love for adults to embrace these things as well but sadly the evidence indicates that adults experience a degree of neurological solidification, at which point new fundamental outlooks become impossible.

      I make no money from this blog, or from anything else as yet. Would a donation button be in bad taste? My work will always be free, I will not hold what I consider to be truth hostage for a dollar.

      but I have always felt that understanding breeds manipulation

      Understanding breeds the opportunity for manipulation assuming what is being understood is capable of being manipulated. No amount of understanding appears able to reverse entropy for example.

      As to your comments about self driven emotional and thought control I say in another way what I’ve already said. The control to speak of is illusory because it stems from chance. You chanced upon a way to control those emotions, it is your good fortune that this way works for you, but your initial will to change them, what you choose to change them into was not your choice, else you’d recurse.

      What we have here is a modern manifestation of the Homunculus Problem. At what point do emotions originate and if they are a function of will, are they still emotions.

      The irrationality of it seems so clear to me, but there is obviously something else at work.

      That’s because of the agreement we as a society have made to regard emotions as an action, so that we can elect leaders punish criminals reward contributors etc. You are your neo cortex, the rest of the brain serves the neo cortex, provides it with functions as the body provides it with oxygen. Like you eyes provide you with sight and your hippocampus provides you with memory encoding. The limbic system and related structures serve as entire brains in older life forms. Your brain quit literally is built on top of a monkey brain, and that monkey’s brain is on top of a rats brain, which is in turn on top of a lizards brain, which is just above a fish brain, and so on down to organism that don’t even have or need brains, further down to organisms that don’t need nerve tissue at all, down to specialist tissue, down to life forms so simple they might not even count as living.

      My point is that the part of you that says cogito ergo sum, is in many important ways, a separate life, an organ if you will. And the rest of the brain, is no more under its control than the pituitary gland is. It receives emotions just as it receives visual data. Now, yes you can look in a different direction,but is that the same as willfully hallucinating? No.

      And so, it becomes clear that while we can do something about our emotions, the notion of controlling them without actually altering the organs or stimulus responsible for creating them is absurd. that myth is sold because without it hierarchical society as we know it would crumble.

      Thank you very much for you heart warming compliments and your thoughtful reply with its constructive criticism and original insight.

  29. I am very reassured by this list. The fact that people are willing to try to make us kids feel better is very refreshing. One other thing that could have been added to this list is that grades don’t matter. Learning does.

    1. @Milo

      I hope you find something that enriches you life in it.

      You are right about grades, I will change #18 to read to read; “Academic skill does not equal intelligence.”

      Is that good enough in your opinion?

  30. I am very reassured by this list. The fact that people are willing to try to make us kids feel better is very refreshing. One other thing that could have been added to this list is that grades don’t matter. Learning does.

    1. @Milo

      I hope you find something that enriches you life in it.

      You are right about grades, I will change #18 to read to read; “Academic skill does not equal intelligence.”

      Is that good enough in your opinion?

  31. @Innomen

    People can learn to control their emotions. Just look at Buddhist monks. Meditation is a very powerful tool to achieve emotional stability.

    1. @Sortarius

      There are a number of ways I can respond to this, and I think I’ve covered most of them already, some I know you haven’t seen because I just posted them as new comment replies, but I think the best way in this instance is to go with practicality.

      The solution to emotional problems you suggest is in effect become a Buddhist monk. Beyond the obvious impracticality of that, I will assume that you mean something more akin to adopting and fostering the mental discipline techniques.

      In response I ask, what if the flawed nature of my initial emotional state makes such an idea repulsive? Or what if I lack the mental faculties to apply such mnemonic tools?

      In short in my opinion meditation is a consequence of a given emotional state and set of stimuli not an originator of them, thus the subsequent changes in emotional state are not so much control as delayed reaction.

  32. @Innomen

    People can learn to control their emotions. Just look at Buddhist monks. Meditation is a very powerful tool to achieve emotional stability.

    1. @Sortarius

      There are a number of ways I can respond to this, and I think I’ve covered most of them already, some I know you haven’t seen because I just posted them as new comment replies, but I think the best way in this instance is to go with practicality.

      The solution to emotional problems you suggest is in effect become a Buddhist monk. Beyond the obvious impracticality of that, I will assume that you mean something more akin to adopting and fostering the mental discipline techniques.

      In response I ask, what if the flawed nature of my initial emotional state makes such an idea repulsive? Or what if I lack the mental faculties to apply such mnemonic tools?

      In short in my opinion meditation is a consequence of a given emotional state and set of stimuli not an originator of them, thus the subsequent changes in emotional state are not so much control as delayed reaction.

  33. #1 and #12 are clearly horseshit. That sort of thinking leads to victimization. If you are observant of your emotions they become easy to control. 🙂

    If I’m not responsible for my emotions, then who is?

    1. @Joe

      Honest recognition of the nature of emotion does not create victims, it exposes them. A victim is still a victim even if they are convinced they are not.

      If people can control their emotions then why do hobbies, ambition, and recreation exist? If emotion was a choice why not simply simply sit and will yourself into a state of total euphoria during your off hours?

      The proper question is what, not who, is responsible for your emotions, and that is a very important and complicated question. A good starting point for understanding the scope of the question is neuroscience. But there are other equally important starting points, such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology.

  34. #1 and #12 are clearly horseshit. That sort of thinking leads to victimization. If you are observant of your emotions they become easy to control. 🙂

    If I’m not responsible for my emotions, then who is?

    1. @Joe

      Honest recognition of the nature of emotion does not create victims, it exposes them. A victim is still a victim even if they are convinced they are not.

      If people can control their emotions then why do hobbies, ambition, and recreation exist? If emotion was a choice why not simply simply sit and will yourself into a state of total euphoria during your off hours?

      The proper question is what, not who, is responsible for your emotions, and that is a very important and complicated question. A good starting point for understanding the scope of the question is neuroscience. But there are other equally important starting points, such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology.

  35. #12 is probably the most emotionally destructive piece of advice I can think of.

    If I’m not responsible for how I feel, then who is? My boss? My parents? My girlfriend? What a ridiculous way to live. You can either control your emotions, or you can let them control you.

    Agreed at free will being a joke.

    1. @Joe

      I think you meant socially destructive, given the context of your prior comments.

      Just because you find something worthy of ridicule does not mean it is false. Pretending I am wrong simply because the costs of my being right are high is intellectually bankrupt.

      Your false dilemma has a plethora of other options. Ironically your adversarial tough guy attitude towards your emotional state IS your emotional state.

      So in your world every affective disorder is bunk? They chose to be suicidally depressed? Or they choose to be a crippled phobic? Or they choose to feel so ugly they starve themselves to death?

      I think not.

  36. #12 is probably the most emotionally destructive piece of advice I can think of.

    If I’m not responsible for how I feel, then who is? My boss? My parents? My girlfriend? What a ridiculous way to live. You can either control your emotions, or you can let them control you.

    Agreed at free will being a joke.

    1. @Joe

      I think you meant socially destructive, given the context of your prior comments.

      Just because you find something worthy of ridicule does not mean it is false. Pretending I am wrong simply because the costs of my being right are high is intellectually bankrupt.

      Your false dilemma has a plethora of other options. Ironically your adversarial tough guy attitude towards your emotional state IS your emotional state.

      So in your world every affective disorder is bunk? They chose to be suicidally depressed? Or they choose to be a crippled phobic? Or they choose to feel so ugly they starve themselves to death?

      I think not.

  37. this shouldnt only be for kids most adults I kno could use to hear this

  38. this shouldnt only be for kids most adults I kno could use to hear this

  39. “No one decides to be mean.”

    That is the stupidest thing I ever heard in my entire life.

    1. @James

      Then I suggest you explore more of the world and I envy you if that really is the depth of absurdity as far as your experience tells you.

      Let me be the first to welcome you to the Internet. If you wish to explore stupidity, might I suggest you start with something like creationism.

      If you have a specific refutation other than the intellectual equivalent of “nu uh” for entry #1 I’ll respond.

  40. “No one decides to be mean.”

    That is the stupidest thing I ever heard in my entire life.

    1. @James

      Then I suggest you explore more of the world and I envy you if that really is the depth of absurdity as far as your experience tells you.

      Let me be the first to welcome you to the Internet. If you wish to explore stupidity, might I suggest you start with something like creationism.

      If you have a specific refutation other than the intellectual equivalent of “nu uh” for entry #1 I’ll respond.

  41. Neither of you have mentioned the most important part in taking responsibility for your own emotions:

    The heart

    You make a choice from the heart, if you can do that, you can feel whatever you please.
    Why there are drugs if people can feel whatever they want to feel? Because they don’t have the heart and they often feel comfortable in a very crooked manner.

    A sort of helplessness is being imparted in people today and I strongly object. We can do much more than we are made to believe, we are kept stupid and powerless. Look at the Ancient Greeks; they did amazing things and look at us now, We have become creatures of whim, of cowardice and emptiness.

    It seriously needs to stop.

    1. @phormicola

      Not to be rude but the heart is a pumping muscle and it has nothing to do with emotion. (pet peeve)

      The reason we associate the heart with emotive force is because the ancients believed that the heart was in functional effect the brain. We know better now, so there is no excuse to speak that way unless you are purposely trying to cloud an issue.

      The only exception is art ort speaking metaphorically. But that is not the case here.

      But to use your convoluted metaphor against you…

      You say that people use drugs because they lack the “heart” and they often feel comfortable in a crooked manner. (Whatever that means.) Let me then ask you did they choose to not have the heart? Did they choose what qualifies to them as comfortable?

      The attitude that emotion is a choice is what is largely responsible for the evils of our world. We toss apples and cry for blood instead of looking for real solutions to our problems.

      Blaming and punishing a rapist is FAR easier than understanding and destroying the social phenomena of rape.

      We are given the choice of squarely facing a monumental problem or indulging our blood lust and burning rape in effigy using a living human as the straw doll. We tell ourselves that we’re not caging and killing a person we’re caging and killing rape. And that idea is as absurd as tossing your neighbor’s child in a well to assure next years harvest.

      If you seriously want it to stop you have the look for the real problem and solve it, not stroke your own ego and thirst for vengeance.

      The real question is why do people WANT to hurt other people? And that question can only honestly be answered when you realize that what people want isn’t their choice. Ask any pedophile who has cut off his own genitals in an attempt to free himself from his urges.

      If you really want to to help them stop looking for ways to blame criminals and the cruel and instead try to understand crime and cruelty.

  42. Neither of you have mentioned the most important part in taking responsibility for your own emotions:

    The heart

    You make a choice from the heart, if you can do that, you can feel whatever you please.
    Why there are drugs if people can feel whatever they want to feel? Because they don’t have the heart and they often feel comfortable in a very crooked manner.

    A sort of helplessness is being imparted in people today and I strongly object. We can do much more than we are made to believe, we are kept stupid and powerless. Look at the Ancient Greeks; they did amazing things and look at us now, We have become creatures of whim, of cowardice and emptiness.

    It seriously needs to stop.

    1. @phormicola

      Not to be rude but the heart is a pumping muscle and it has nothing to do with emotion. (pet peeve)

      The reason we associate the heart with emotive force is because the ancients believed that the heart was in functional effect the brain. We know better now, so there is no excuse to speak that way unless you are purposely trying to cloud an issue.

      The only exception is art ort speaking metaphorically. But that is not the case here.

      But to use your convoluted metaphor against you…

      You say that people use drugs because they lack the “heart” and they often feel comfortable in a crooked manner. (Whatever that means.) Let me then ask you did they choose to not have the heart? Did they choose what qualifies to them as comfortable?

      The attitude that emotion is a choice is what is largely responsible for the evils of our world. We toss apples and cry for blood instead of looking for real solutions to our problems.

      Blaming and punishing a rapist is FAR easier than understanding and destroying the social phenomena of rape.

      We are given the choice of squarely facing a monumental problem or indulging our blood lust and burning rape in effigy using a living human as the straw doll. We tell ourselves that we’re not caging and killing a person we’re caging and killing rape. And that idea is as absurd as tossing your neighbor’s child in a well to assure next years harvest.

      If you seriously want it to stop you have the look for the real problem and solve it, not stroke your own ego and thirst for vengeance.

      The real question is why do people WANT to hurt other people? And that question can only honestly be answered when you realize that what people want isn’t their choice. Ask any pedophile who has cut off his own genitals in an attempt to free himself from his urges.

      If you really want to to help them stop looking for ways to blame criminals and the cruel and instead try to understand crime and cruelty.

  43. What a load of crap. During WWII, 20-year-olds went to war. Today, they play computer games and write meaningless blogs. Men. Ladies. Today? Kids. Grow up and do something meaningful.

    1. @Joe

      I see so the world was better when it was engulfed in a war which demanded the literal sacrifice of our children.

      If you had an ounce of human compassion or were a loving parent you would realize that the choice between a fat and lazy child is infinitely preferable to one howling for his mother dying in the mud after having his flank blown off by shrapnel.

      You are apparently infected with the classic male delusion, that worth comes from the barrel of a gun or from service to a government.

      For all you know the child in your metaphor will go on to invent artificial intelligence as a result of a desire for better video games. That AI could then go on to aid humanity in curing cancer.

      To pretend you can see the ultimate meaning of a given act by its proximity to what the TV told you constitutes propriety is the height of self delusion.

      And just to turn your dagger against you, what are you doing on the Internet arguing with a fool such as me? Shouldn’t you being doing something more important?

      Protip: That is a trap, you must now either admit to this forum being important or you must admit to your words being a meaningless waste of time. 🙂

  44. What a load of crap. During WWII, 20-year-olds went to war. Today, they play computer games and write meaningless blogs. Men. Ladies. Today? Kids. Grow up and do something meaningful.

    1. @Joe

      I see so the world was better when it was engulfed in a war which demanded the literal sacrifice of our children.

      If you had an ounce of human compassion or were a loving parent you would realize that the choice between a fat and lazy child is infinitely preferable to one howling for his mother dying in the mud after having his flank blown off by shrapnel.

      You are apparently infected with the classic male delusion, that worth comes from the barrel of a gun or from service to a government.

      For all you know the child in your metaphor will go on to invent artificial intelligence as a result of a desire for better video games. That AI could then go on to aid humanity in curing cancer.

      To pretend you can see the ultimate meaning of a given act by its proximity to what the TV told you constitutes propriety is the height of self delusion.

      And just to turn your dagger against you, what are you doing on the Internet arguing with a fool such as me? Shouldn’t you being doing something more important?

      Protip: That is a trap, you must now either admit to this forum being important or you must admit to your words being a meaningless waste of time. 🙂

  45. To revisit this page and see your responses to community input is wonderful; that you awarded my shy ramblings with such a genial reciprocation of your rationale and further acumen, is humbling.

    Your command of progressive logic is by far the most satisfying thing I’ve read in a long, long time. I have always found myself at odds with expression, in particular with issues you have discussed in your comments pertaining to the root of self and the definition of emotion, and to see it done so flawlessly feels like sustenance in starvation.

    I am convinced that minds like yours will be our race’s salvation nisi our existential terminus, be it thermonuclear or nanomachanical or elysian. If we are to find that ultimate salvation, it will be along this avenue; of that much I am certain. I can do naught but shake my head in wonderment.

    Your existence is… analeptic. Sans surgical, wholly comforting.

    I am ashamed to say I have nothing legitimate to contribute. Hah.

  46. To revisit this page and see your responses to community input is wonderful; that you awarded my shy ramblings with such a genial reciprocation of your rationale and further acumen, is humbling.

    Your command of progressive logic is by far the most satisfying thing I’ve read in a long, long time. I have always found myself at odds with expression, in particular with issues you have discussed in your comments pertaining to the root of self and the definition of emotion, and to see it done so flawlessly feels like sustenance in starvation.

    I am convinced that minds like yours will be our race’s salvation nisi our existential terminus, be it thermonuclear or nanomachanical or elysian. If we are to find that ultimate salvation, it will be along this avenue; of that much I am certain. I can do naught but shake my head in wonderment.

    Your existence is… analeptic. Sans surgical, wholly comforting.

    I am ashamed to say I have nothing legitimate to contribute. Hah.

  47. Some of these are gems of timeless wisdom, but others strike me as complete BS. Most notably, numbers 44 and 60. These statements seem representative of the worldview that wealth is magically created and we just need to figure out how to distribute it to everyone fairly.

    Students of history (as opposed to students of pop sociological theory) will recognize that capitalism as a societal structure has raised the absolute level of wealth in the world far beyond any other prior system. Most of our deeply held societal values (property rights, individual freedoms) are deeply intertwined with the capitalist ethic.

    Poor people are always going to exist, regardless of how wealthy the world becomes as a whole. “Poor” is a relative term. A poor American probably would probably be quite wealthy in many central African countries. What we should be teaching our children instead is that they are the captains of their economic destiny; relying on others to “spread the wealth around” is a sure path to poverty.

    1. @Heady Murphy

      There can be no rational argument against capitalism being a wonderful thing if one grades on a curve. I am well and truly aware of the impact on global quality of life capitalism has had.

      But you need to understand that the current global economic picture has about as much to do with the invisible hand of pure capitalism as congress has to do with social justice for its own sake.

      You must be aware that capitalism creates its own common good problem, because as the power of the wealthy expands their desire and ability to secure that wealth at the expense of future competition also expands.

      Just look at the evolution of the pharmaceutical industry and patent law generally. The Horatio Alger picture of economic truth should be seen for the fiction that it is. Now whether or not it was true at one point is debatable. that fact is that it is no longer true.

      Wealth is about chance and brutality more than anything else these days.

      I find it ironic that people accuse me of self absolution, while others say things like “Poor people are always going to exist.”

      It is extremely intellectually dishonest to make that statement because the term “poor person” as in someone who can’t afford to eat and “poor person” someone who has one penny shy of a million on an island of millionaires clearly does not mean the same thing.

      Wealth is not an abstraction in this context, its the ability to provide for oneself materially.

      Your claim that children are “captains of their economic destiny” is a comfortable lie rich people tell each other to absolve themselves of the human responsibility the power their wealth grants them to the poor.

      You bring up an interesting point by dragging Africa in. Do you think the child in this photo was a captain of his economic destiny?

      http://www.personal.psu.edu/suj133/blogs/ist590-fall2008/starving-child.jpg

      No, clearly not. You accuse me of ignorance but I must make the same counter claim. There is a clear and heavy top down social element to economics and the individual. To place all the power and blame on the individual is incorrect and unethical.

  48. Some of these are gems of timeless wisdom, but others strike me as complete BS. Most notably, numbers 44 and 60. These statements seem representative of the worldview that wealth is magically created and we just need to figure out how to distribute it to everyone fairly.

    Students of history (as opposed to students of pop sociological theory) will recognize that capitalism as a societal structure has raised the absolute level of wealth in the world far beyond any other prior system. Most of our deeply held societal values (property rights, individual freedoms) are deeply intertwined with the capitalist ethic.

    Poor people are always going to exist, regardless of how wealthy the world becomes as a whole. “Poor” is a relative term. A poor American probably would probably be quite wealthy in many central African countries. What we should be teaching our children instead is that they are the captains of their economic destiny; relying on others to “spread the wealth around” is a sure path to poverty.

    1. @Heady Murphy

      There can be no rational argument against capitalism being a wonderful thing if one grades on a curve. I am well and truly aware of the impact on global quality of life capitalism has had.

      But you need to understand that the current global economic picture has about as much to do with the invisible hand of pure capitalism as congress has to do with social justice for its own sake.

      You must be aware that capitalism creates its own common good problem, because as the power of the wealthy expands their desire and ability to secure that wealth at the expense of future competition also expands.

      Just look at the evolution of the pharmaceutical industry and patent law generally. The Horatio Alger picture of economic truth should be seen for the fiction that it is. Now whether or not it was true at one point is debatable. that fact is that it is no longer true.

      Wealth is about chance and brutality more than anything else these days.

      I find it ironic that people accuse me of self absolution, while others say things like “Poor people are always going to exist.”

      It is extremely intellectually dishonest to make that statement because the term “poor person” as in someone who can’t afford to eat and “poor person” someone who has one penny shy of a million on an island of millionaires clearly does not mean the same thing.

      Wealth is not an abstraction in this context, its the ability to provide for oneself materially.

      Your claim that children are “captains of their economic destiny” is a comfortable lie rich people tell each other to absolve themselves of the human responsibility the power their wealth grants them to the poor.

      You bring up an interesting point by dragging Africa in. Do you think the child in this photo was a captain of his economic destiny?

      http://www.personal.psu.edu/suj133/blogs/ist590-fall2008/starving-child.jpg

      No, clearly not. You accuse me of ignorance but I must make the same counter claim. There is a clear and heavy top down social element to economics and the individual. To place all the power and blame on the individual is incorrect and unethical.

  49. Some of this is true, very much so but some of the items mentioned by others above are feelgood crap and attempt to absolve responsibility by saying you can’t help it.

    1. @Marc

      Define responsibility without including assumed duty to a socially delegated superior. Responsibility is 9 of 10 times just a euphemism for unquestioning obedience. If a person wants to tell me I owe them something they are going to have to convince me of it, not shame me into it.

  50. Some of this is true, very much so but some of the items mentioned by others above are feelgood crap and attempt to absolve responsibility by saying you can’t help it.

    1. @Marc

      Define responsibility without including assumed duty to a socially delegated superior. Responsibility is 9 of 10 times just a euphemism for unquestioning obedience. If a person wants to tell me I owe them something they are going to have to convince me of it, not shame me into it.

  51. So true.
    You’ve hit a lot of the ‘high points’ of life’s questions that so many children never find answers to, even after becoming old enough to be considered as an ‘adult’.
    You defend your stance(s) with great aplomb: “Perhaps I can disabuse you of your illusions and you’ll be happier and kinder as a result, rather than a chest thumping minion of orthodoxy.” I can name at least three people I work with that suffer from incessent ‘chest thumping’.
    A list like this is an affront to so many for it rocks the foundations upon which they’ve modeled their lives. Modeling your life on a lie is a formula for disaster, because, if for no other reason; those in power do not and will not condone ‘free-thinking’ .

  52. So true.
    You’ve hit a lot of the ‘high points’ of life’s questions that so many children never find answers to, even after becoming old enough to be considered as an ‘adult’.
    You defend your stance(s) with great aplomb: “Perhaps I can disabuse you of your illusions and you’ll be happier and kinder as a result, rather than a chest thumping minion of orthodoxy.” I can name at least three people I work with that suffer from incessent ‘chest thumping’.
    A list like this is an affront to so many for it rocks the foundations upon which they’ve modeled their lives. Modeling your life on a lie is a formula for disaster, because, if for no other reason; those in power do not and will not condone ‘free-thinking’ .

  53. I cannot decide which part is more interesting; the list itself or the comments and the debate happening within it. The list is very true and I am incredibly grateful I found it at this point in my life as I need it most now. Thanks for the advice in the list and keep it up 🙂
    🙂 – Margey, high school student
    Oh and just wondering, what kind of profession do you have? Judging from only the perfect application of English, I would guess you have at least a Masters degree and you seem like an educated individual. Are you a psychologist? Anthropologist? Sociologist? Perhaps my guesses are quite biased, as I tend to associate such good observation of human behavior with psychologists, but it is amusing to guess nonetheless.

    1. @Margey

      I am deeply gratified that my list helped you in some small way. Thank you for telling me. I hope my answer to your next question doesn’t devalue my words for you though I know it will for some.

      As to your extremely flattering guesses about my social standing, I must admit a temptation to simply not answer as I know the tendency to dismiss the unlettered masses. I even wrote an essay years ago on the subject called the lab coat effect, before this blog even existed.

      I am a high school and college drop out. I got my GED and ended up a high school graduate when I should have been a junior. I left school because of social problems. I went to community college simply for the work study positions and the grant overflow, I stayed for 3 years.

      I do not as yet have a degree, I developed a pair of phobias which have destroyed my ability to advance socially. My last year I was student body president at my college but the stress of this year caused what could be seen as a near mental breakdown. I am in theory about a semester away from a degree, but there are caveats. (Aren’t there always.)

      This may be a self serving attitude but I do not associate formal education with personal intellectual growth. Ironically the people I get along best with do tend to be the more lettered, but I think this is not because they are more intelligent, since I have to ask like Asimov famously did “What is intelligence, anyway?”, but because being lettered they felt justified, accepted, and intellectually secure. They were kind and open for the same reason the most massive of people are often non violent. The Gentle Giant scenario.

      Being secure usually leads to being nice since fear is the root of most cruelty.

      I would adore being a sociologist. But only in so far as I would have the social equipment needed to confirm and promote my ideas. Sadly college is just not an option for me.

      I like to think of myself as educated but only in the Ray Bradbury sense. I’m not even published unless this blog counts.

  54. I cannot decide which part is more interesting; the list itself or the comments and the debate happening within it. The list is very true and I am incredibly grateful I found it at this point in my life as I need it most now. Thanks for the advice in the list and keep it up 🙂
    🙂 – Margey, high school student
    Oh and just wondering, what kind of profession do you have? Judging from only the perfect application of English, I would guess you have at least a Masters degree and you seem like an educated individual. Are you a psychologist? Anthropologist? Sociologist? Perhaps my guesses are quite biased, as I tend to associate such good observation of human behavior with psychologists, but it is amusing to guess nonetheless.

    1. @Margey

      I am deeply gratified that my list helped you in some small way. Thank you for telling me. I hope my answer to your next question doesn’t devalue my words for you though I know it will for some.

      As to your extremely flattering guesses about my social standing, I must admit a temptation to simply not answer as I know the tendency to dismiss the unlettered masses. I even wrote an essay years ago on the subject called the lab coat effect, before this blog even existed.

      I am a high school and college drop out. I got my GED and ended up a high school graduate when I should have been a junior. I left school because of social problems. I went to community college simply for the work study positions and the grant overflow, I stayed for 3 years.

      I do not as yet have a degree, I developed a pair of phobias which have destroyed my ability to advance socially. My last year I was student body president at my college but the stress of this year caused what could be seen as a near mental breakdown. I am in theory about a semester away from a degree, but there are caveats. (Aren’t there always.)

      This may be a self serving attitude but I do not associate formal education with personal intellectual growth. Ironically the people I get along best with do tend to be the more lettered, but I think this is not because they are more intelligent, since I have to ask like Asimov famously did “What is intelligence, anyway?”, but because being lettered they felt justified, accepted, and intellectually secure. They were kind and open for the same reason the most massive of people are often non violent. The Gentle Giant scenario.

      Being secure usually leads to being nice since fear is the root of most cruelty.

      I would adore being a sociologist. But only in so far as I would have the social equipment needed to confirm and promote my ideas. Sadly college is just not an option for me.

      I like to think of myself as educated but only in the Ray Bradbury sense. I’m not even published unless this blog counts.

  55. @Innomen
    The fact that you evaluate human nature this well and reveal your own truths brings about a great deal of respect from me. My guesses were very much biased, as I want to be a psychologist myself.

    Your blog is absolutely fascinating, as I’m planning on taking a philosophical course at the local university in a few years, because they offer it to anyone willing.

    Follow the path of education if you wish, as there is always a way when there is a will. And do get around to publishing a book, I’d certainly buy it once it came out.

    1. @m

      I have your email address, if I ever do publish I’ll hold you to that 🙂 Expect to see my spam some day 🙂

  56. @Innomen
    The fact that you evaluate human nature this well and reveal your own truths brings about a great deal of respect from me. My guesses were very much biased, as I want to be a psychologist myself.

    Your blog is absolutely fascinating, as I’m planning on taking a philosophical course at the local university in a few years, because they offer it to anyone willing.

    Follow the path of education if you wish, as there is always a way when there is a will. And do get around to publishing a book, I’d certainly buy it once it came out.

    1. @m

      I have your email address, if I ever do publish I’ll hold you to that 🙂 Expect to see my spam some day 🙂

  57. I am talking about responsibility for your own actions, not responsibility to another. Saying that you can’t help how you act and thusly shouldn’t face the consequences of your actions is silly. “I can’t help that I want to rape people. It isn’t my fault.” or “I was born with the urge to touch little boys and girls and you cannot punish me in any way for it.” I am not saying that you are necessarily born with this urge, but based on your list, most of life’s problems aren’t your responsibility simply because you cannot help how you were born. Come on…

    1. @Marc

      I didn’t say you can’t help how you act. Action is Far more firmly under our control than our emotions. That’s the whole point of the neo cortex, a neurological check point, a barrier between instinct and action.

      And I didn’t say you shouldn’t face the consequences of your actions. But you need to understand that there is more to the phrase “consequences” then the petty animalistic need for punishment and retribution, which are in and of themselves instinctual in nature.

      Just because something is an accident, or unwilling doesn’t mean it doesn’t have results. The horrifically unintended is a common theme in tragedy generally. A child darts out between two cars and horror ensues.

      We cling to ideas of vengeance and punishment because we think that’s all we have, and we labor under the delusion that fear of punishment will prevent certain actions. But a quick look at history shows how absurd that notion is.

      For one, criminals don’t plan on being caught so no matter what the punishment is, it doesn’t apply in the minds of criminals. They don’t expect to be caught. Ironically this attitude stems directly from the idea that we are in complete control of our destiny.

      For two, punishment is never about the victim, its about making everyone else feel better, feel in control, again, ironically because they have the need to preserve an illusion.

      Vegence is an effort to control the past by addition of context. But that’s a fools errand because nothing you can do to a person entitles them the right to harm another, thus crime is often priceless.

      Think about it, bob rapes sandy, bob goes to prison. Now by prison I mean whatever you want it to mean. If you want bob to be rehabilitated, fine if you want bob to be tortured and raped daily, fine. It’s a hypothetical and it doesn’t matter. You feel bob has “paid” for his crime. But think about this price in reverse, is it actually enough?

      Could bob earn the right to rape sandy by entering prison under false pretenses? At what point would society say “Yup, you’ve paid for it now go rape sandy.” There is no such point and you know it.

      What we should spend our energy on is not hitting back but preventing hitting. But that’s hard work. Anyone can swing a pick ax or revel in vicarious blood-lust. We’re programmed for that, it’s easy. But understanding rape? Removing the desire to rape from the heart of humanity while balancing free will and freedom generally? That feels impossible.

      So we pretend it’s impossible, we don’t even try, and those that do we call bleeding hearts or worse.

      I have no such cowardice. I think the problem can be solved it’s just going to cost us a few cherished illusions. And that’s the real issue isn’t it. It’s all well and good to demand a pound of flesh when its not our flesh.

      If you want to cling to an illusion, that’s your choice. But you need to realize that logic is absolutely not on your side.

      It makes you angry that children are raped, as it bloody well should, but no amount of blood will cure either your anger, the rape itself, or the concept of rape. While you’re busy breaking bob’s bones and grinning with self satisfaction, Tom, Jared, and Sarah are busy raping victims of their own.

      We evolved intelligence because simple action isn’t enough. We developed writing because some problems can’t be solved in a human lifetime. We as a people need to quit pretending that our problems can be solved in gorilla fashion.

      Thumping and breaking isn’t enough.

  58. I am talking about responsibility for your own actions, not responsibility to another. Saying that you can’t help how you act and thusly shouldn’t face the consequences of your actions is silly. “I can’t help that I want to rape people. It isn’t my fault.” or “I was born with the urge to touch little boys and girls and you cannot punish me in any way for it.” I am not saying that you are necessarily born with this urge, but based on your list, most of life’s problems aren’t your responsibility simply because you cannot help how you were born. Come on…

    1. @Marc

      I didn’t say you can’t help how you act. Action is Far more firmly under our control than our emotions. That’s the whole point of the neo cortex, a neurological check point, a barrier between instinct and action.

      And I didn’t say you shouldn’t face the consequences of your actions. But you need to understand that there is more to the phrase “consequences” then the petty animalistic need for punishment and retribution, which are in and of themselves instinctual in nature.

      Just because something is an accident, or unwilling doesn’t mean it doesn’t have results. The horrifically unintended is a common theme in tragedy generally. A child darts out between two cars and horror ensues.

      We cling to ideas of vengeance and punishment because we think that’s all we have, and we labor under the delusion that fear of punishment will prevent certain actions. But a quick look at history shows how absurd that notion is.

      For one, criminals don’t plan on being caught so no matter what the punishment is, it doesn’t apply in the minds of criminals. They don’t expect to be caught. Ironically this attitude stems directly from the idea that we are in complete control of our destiny.

      For two, punishment is never about the victim, its about making everyone else feel better, feel in control, again, ironically because they have the need to preserve an illusion.

      Vegence is an effort to control the past by addition of context. But that’s a fools errand because nothing you can do to a person entitles them the right to harm another, thus crime is often priceless.

      Think about it, bob rapes sandy, bob goes to prison. Now by prison I mean whatever you want it to mean. If you want bob to be rehabilitated, fine if you want bob to be tortured and raped daily, fine. It’s a hypothetical and it doesn’t matter. You feel bob has “paid” for his crime. But think about this price in reverse, is it actually enough?

      Could bob earn the right to rape sandy by entering prison under false pretenses? At what point would society say “Yup, you’ve paid for it now go rape sandy.” There is no such point and you know it.

      What we should spend our energy on is not hitting back but preventing hitting. But that’s hard work. Anyone can swing a pick ax or revel in vicarious blood-lust. We’re programmed for that, it’s easy. But understanding rape? Removing the desire to rape from the heart of humanity while balancing free will and freedom generally? That feels impossible.

      So we pretend it’s impossible, we don’t even try, and those that do we call bleeding hearts or worse.

      I have no such cowardice. I think the problem can be solved it’s just going to cost us a few cherished illusions. And that’s the real issue isn’t it. It’s all well and good to demand a pound of flesh when its not our flesh.

      If you want to cling to an illusion, that’s your choice. But you need to realize that logic is absolutely not on your side.

      It makes you angry that children are raped, as it bloody well should, but no amount of blood will cure either your anger, the rape itself, or the concept of rape. While you’re busy breaking bob’s bones and grinning with self satisfaction, Tom, Jared, and Sarah are busy raping victims of their own.

      We evolved intelligence because simple action isn’t enough. We developed writing because some problems can’t be solved in a human lifetime. We as a people need to quit pretending that our problems can be solved in gorilla fashion.

      Thumping and breaking isn’t enough.

  59. @Innman

    “Of course I would love for adults to embrace these things as well but sadly the evidence indicates that adults experience a degree of neurological solidification, at which point new fundamental outlooks become impossible.”

    I completely agree with this statement, the older you are the more set into your ways you become, be them good, bad or indifferent.
    At the age of six weeks, the brain is wired to have chosen either fight or flight. This choice is based on the environment you’re in and the actions around you. There is nothing you can do to change the choice your brain has made. Same goes for your emotions. You can’t choose them, can’t control them, and for the most part can’t completely change them. But I have found in my own life, thus far, that you can guide your emotions but only in slight. Such as you can have the emotional response of happiness, and with thoughts make that emotion more intense, possibly turning it into euphoria. Seeing as these are two similar emotions, just different scales. However, you can’t have the emotion of contempt and turn it into the emotion of happiness. It simply doesn’t work.

    “Understanding breeds the opportunity for manipulation assuming what is being understood is capable of being manipulated. No amount of understanding appears able to reverse entropy for example.”

    That’s exactly what I’ve been screaming at the computer, while reading some other points of views. Except in that, my words were not nearly as composed and censored as yours were. 🙂

    “The proper question is what, not who, is responsible for your emotions, and that is a very important and complicated question.”

    Indeed. However, I believe that a person is responsible for their own emotions and actions. No matter what past acts upon them or around them or what they are conditioned to know, believe, or understand, that may have lead them to emote or act the way in which they have.

    To conclude you list is very inspiring and thoughtful. Thank you for spreading the word, that things, no matter how scary it may seem, can be just out of your control.

    Hope to hear back from you. And read your blogs and comments to come.

    1. @PaytonRiver

      Thank you for your words of encouragement. You have good timing. I was just writing in my journal about how I feel a growing sense of incomprehension among those around me.

      It’s nice to know that some people still understand the things I’m trying to convey and are getting something positive out of it.

      I’m curious about what you mean by the following, considering your earlier words…

      However, I believe that a person is responsible for their own emotions and actions.

      As far as actions go, responsibility should be limited to willful acts. Not willful intentions mind you, but the actions themselves. I think we see eye to eye on that, or at least we understand each other.

      But, how can one be responsible for an emotion? In this context the word responsible means little more than “blame.” How can you blame someone for how they feel?

      I know it’s tempting in cases like when a person appears to foster a given negative emotion, but you have to understand emotions are chain events. They proceed fairly smoothly from one to the other under normal circumstances, their progression is understandable.

      That why politicians use emotion to steal power because emotion while being uncontrollable for many intents and purposes is also very well understood. In short its easier to control how people feel from the outside than it is for them to control them individually.

      Fear and guilt being the clearest examples of emotions its easy to manipulate from without.

      The practical upshot of this with regard to your comment is the fact that what you speak of as manipulating your emotional state is just a natural progression of them because you felt the need to change them. and THAT feeling you did Not choose.

      Emotions aren’t a function of the will, they ARE the will. Emotive… Motive… To motivate… Impetus. Emotions set the goal, the rest of the brain tries to carry it out. That goal can be “change my emotions” but it simply can not be done directly. You can look at your life, and try to make changes to your setting, or you can choose to go to therapy or take medication which is causing the outside world to change them. But that is only “control” in the most loose, indirect, and contradictory sense.

      Action on the other hand, barring seizures and other nerve/muscle/psychological issues, is fully willful I choose to hit people or not. My emotion has a hand in it, but barring a blackout or emotion actually over whelming the will, as it is designed to do I might add, I had a choice.

      The illusion of fostering an emotion usually comes from a hidden second emotion, usually fear of change.

      I hope this was clear.

  60. @Innman

    “Of course I would love for adults to embrace these things as well but sadly the evidence indicates that adults experience a degree of neurological solidification, at which point new fundamental outlooks become impossible.”

    I completely agree with this statement, the older you are the more set into your ways you become, be them good, bad or indifferent.
    At the age of six weeks, the brain is wired to have chosen either fight or flight. This choice is based on the environment you’re in and the actions around you. There is nothing you can do to change the choice your brain has made. Same goes for your emotions. You can’t choose them, can’t control them, and for the most part can’t completely change them. But I have found in my own life, thus far, that you can guide your emotions but only in slight. Such as you can have the emotional response of happiness, and with thoughts make that emotion more intense, possibly turning it into euphoria. Seeing as these are two similar emotions, just different scales. However, you can’t have the emotion of contempt and turn it into the emotion of happiness. It simply doesn’t work.

    “Understanding breeds the opportunity for manipulation assuming what is being understood is capable of being manipulated. No amount of understanding appears able to reverse entropy for example.”

    That’s exactly what I’ve been screaming at the computer, while reading some other points of views. Except in that, my words were not nearly as composed and censored as yours were. 🙂

    “The proper question is what, not who, is responsible for your emotions, and that is a very important and complicated question.”

    Indeed. However, I believe that a person is responsible for their own emotions and actions. No matter what past acts upon them or around them or what they are conditioned to know, believe, or understand, that may have lead them to emote or act the way in which they have.

    To conclude you list is very inspiring and thoughtful. Thank you for spreading the word, that things, no matter how scary it may seem, can be just out of your control.

    Hope to hear back from you. And read your blogs and comments to come.

    1. @PaytonRiver

      Thank you for your words of encouragement. You have good timing. I was just writing in my journal about how I feel a growing sense of incomprehension among those around me.

      It’s nice to know that some people still understand the things I’m trying to convey and are getting something positive out of it.

      I’m curious about what you mean by the following, considering your earlier words…

      However, I believe that a person is responsible for their own emotions and actions.

      As far as actions go, responsibility should be limited to willful acts. Not willful intentions mind you, but the actions themselves. I think we see eye to eye on that, or at least we understand each other.

      But, how can one be responsible for an emotion? In this context the word responsible means little more than “blame.” How can you blame someone for how they feel?

      I know it’s tempting in cases like when a person appears to foster a given negative emotion, but you have to understand emotions are chain events. They proceed fairly smoothly from one to the other under normal circumstances, their progression is understandable.

      That why politicians use emotion to steal power because emotion while being uncontrollable for many intents and purposes is also very well understood. In short its easier to control how people feel from the outside than it is for them to control them individually.

      Fear and guilt being the clearest examples of emotions its easy to manipulate from without.

      The practical upshot of this with regard to your comment is the fact that what you speak of as manipulating your emotional state is just a natural progression of them because you felt the need to change them. and THAT feeling you did Not choose.

      Emotions aren’t a function of the will, they ARE the will. Emotive… Motive… To motivate… Impetus. Emotions set the goal, the rest of the brain tries to carry it out. That goal can be “change my emotions” but it simply can not be done directly. You can look at your life, and try to make changes to your setting, or you can choose to go to therapy or take medication which is causing the outside world to change them. But that is only “control” in the most loose, indirect, and contradictory sense.

      Action on the other hand, barring seizures and other nerve/muscle/psychological issues, is fully willful I choose to hit people or not. My emotion has a hand in it, but barring a blackout or emotion actually over whelming the will, as it is designed to do I might add, I had a choice.

      The illusion of fostering an emotion usually comes from a hidden second emotion, usually fear of change.

      I hope this was clear.

  61. When I said responsible for their own emotions, I was mostly thinking that although things may be out of their control they still have to own up to them, sometimes no matter how wrong an emotion may seem.

    “In short it’s easier to control how people feel from the outside than it is for them to control them individually.”

    I completely agree with this statement, and you’ve put it very well. I don’t disagree with anything on the list although I may look at them differently than you do, but like number 41 says “You don’t have to be an expert to be right.”

    “Action on the other hand, barring seizures and other nerve/muscle/psychological issues, is fully willful I choose to hit people or not.”

    I agree with this to a point, like I said before, at 6 weeks a Childs brain chooses for them, whether they’re going to be a fighter, ie. hitting, or whether they’re going to be a runner/flight, ie, not hitting. You can make your own decisions but it will also be based on the choice your brain made very early in life. In the exact same way you put it for emotions, if it’s true for one how can it not be true for another? I’m not saying that you can see someone standing there and be forced to hurt them because of this choice, but it will influence the choices you make when in an argument and when confronted with tough decisions.

    I just wanted to mention that anger is a mask emotion, in most situations anger is felt because you’re ashamed to show your true emotion. For example a mother gets angry and upset at their child for running in the road, this emotion seems right, but the real emotion she felt first was fear, not anger. But because fear is not as socially accepted as anger, the fear isn’t show. Often you hear someone explaining their anger with, “Well, I was scared.” Or “I was embarrassed.” Or sometimes even “ I was sad.” Anger is an emotion and a mask, and seems to be used more often as a make than any other emotion.
    And yes your comment to me was clear.

    I appreciate you getting back to me, and I hope I don’t seem to silly messaging you back. I’d enjoy talking to you more. I find it great to find someone willing to think when they’re talking.

    I apologize it if seems that I’m coming on to you at all. I’m not, it’s just refreshing to talk to someone who has an opinion, and isn’t afraid to use it.

    Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.

    1. @PaytonRiver

      When I said responsible for their own emotions, I was mostly thinking that although things may be out of their control they still have to own up to them, sometimes no matter how wrong an emotion may seem.

      Ahh, so you mostly meant approaching them honestly. Well then we’re in complete agreement. But your position creates some questions, not that I expect you to answer them, nor am I saying that just because questions arise you’re somehow wrong, how do you reconcile privacy? Sometimes the very best answers make more questions.

      at 6 weeks a Childs brain chooses for them, whether they’re going to be a fighter, ie. hitting, or whether they’re going to be a runner/flight, ie, not hitting.

      Can you link me to some writeup on that? No saying it’s wrong, but it seems pretty cut and dry and I’m naturally skeptical. When it comes to the working of the brain I tend toward the skeptical end with answers like this. I have this gut feeling that the truth is more complicated, but the thing about the truth is it’s often unexpected. So I’m open.

      if it’s true for one how can it not be true for another?

      Because in this context emotions only have one step (mental state), actions have two(mental state, then action).

      Granted it’s possible for the mental state to demand action outside control, such as reflexes, intense training to link action to emotion directly rendering action a single step, or impulse control issues where again they are single step, but by and large actions are choices. You at least have the chance of stopping yourself on intellectual grounds.

      I just wanted to mention that anger is a mask emotion,

      That creates questions about psychology, categorization, and the philosophy of truth. Think about the anger/fear statement for example, by “real” do you mean real intellectually from outside the mother? How do you quantify her emotions? I tend to think that in your hypothetical both anger and fear are felt, they are closely related because they serve the same purposes. Safety.

      Are you saying emotions are non-subjective, such that a person can feel one be convinced it is one thing and then have it “actually” be another by some objective standard? You’re opening up a huge can of study worthy worms, but what I don’t think that has much bearing on what I mean or is meant by generally the word responsibility.

      As to the concept of a person lying about what they think they feel… absolutely, men have to deal with this constantly. Anger is manly fear is weakness, etc. As a man blessed with a full range of human emotions I’m constantly chafing under the stereotype of my gender. It seems I’m only ever allowed to feel anger, lust, and the elation of victory. Everything else is treated as somehow decadent, something I have to make up for or justify. Fuck that noise.

      And yes your comment to me was clear.

      Superb.

      I appreciate you getting back to me…

      And I appreciate you taking the time to read my work, actually think about it and provide me with feedback. Your comments and conversation are always welcome. My email address is Brandon.Sergent at Gmail.com if you or anyone else has need of it. Just because I’m a recluse doesn’t mean I don’t like talking to people. I run a blog, obviously I like talking.

      I apologize it if seems that I’m coming on to you at all. I’m not, it’s just refreshing to talk to someone who has an opinion, and isn’t afraid to use it.

      Even if you were coming on to me there’s no need to apologize, people should be honest about what they feel remember? Besides, this blog’s content is me at my mental best, so it presents a distortion of what it’s really like to talk to me real time, more or less. Depends on the subject really.

      But I completely understand your desire to apologize and make clear your non-mating intentions. In our society, you absolutely can’t say anything nice to a person of opposing gender and approximate age without tackling the “do they think I am lying to get into bed” problem. I could talk about that and other mating issues all day, just look at the rest of my blog.

      Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.

      Again, No problem, if I don’t have time, I’m not on the computer. The great thing about the Internet is it’s passive. We all talk when we want.

      I never censor anyone and I welcome all feedback from non spamming humans. I will respond personally and completely time and volume permitting. So far that means everyone gets a personal response. Though debates I prefer to have publicly so that others can learn/teach.

  62. When I said responsible for their own emotions, I was mostly thinking that although things may be out of their control they still have to own up to them, sometimes no matter how wrong an emotion may seem.

    “In short it’s easier to control how people feel from the outside than it is for them to control them individually.”

    I completely agree with this statement, and you’ve put it very well. I don’t disagree with anything on the list although I may look at them differently than you do, but like number 41 says “You don’t have to be an expert to be right.”

    “Action on the other hand, barring seizures and other nerve/muscle/psychological issues, is fully willful I choose to hit people or not.”

    I agree with this to a point, like I said before, at 6 weeks a Childs brain chooses for them, whether they’re going to be a fighter, ie. hitting, or whether they’re going to be a runner/flight, ie, not hitting. You can make your own decisions but it will also be based on the choice your brain made very early in life. In the exact same way you put it for emotions, if it’s true for one how can it not be true for another? I’m not saying that you can see someone standing there and be forced to hurt them because of this choice, but it will influence the choices you make when in an argument and when confronted with tough decisions.

    I just wanted to mention that anger is a mask emotion, in most situations anger is felt because you’re ashamed to show your true emotion. For example a mother gets angry and upset at their child for running in the road, this emotion seems right, but the real emotion she felt first was fear, not anger. But because fear is not as socially accepted as anger, the fear isn’t show. Often you hear someone explaining their anger with, “Well, I was scared.” Or “I was embarrassed.” Or sometimes even “ I was sad.” Anger is an emotion and a mask, and seems to be used more often as a make than any other emotion.
    And yes your comment to me was clear.

    I appreciate you getting back to me, and I hope I don’t seem to silly messaging you back. I’d enjoy talking to you more. I find it great to find someone willing to think when they’re talking.

    I apologize it if seems that I’m coming on to you at all. I’m not, it’s just refreshing to talk to someone who has an opinion, and isn’t afraid to use it.

    Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.

    1. @PaytonRiver

      When I said responsible for their own emotions, I was mostly thinking that although things may be out of their control they still have to own up to them, sometimes no matter how wrong an emotion may seem.

      Ahh, so you mostly meant approaching them honestly. Well then we’re in complete agreement. But your position creates some questions, not that I expect you to answer them, nor am I saying that just because questions arise you’re somehow wrong, how do you reconcile privacy? Sometimes the very best answers make more questions.

      at 6 weeks a Childs brain chooses for them, whether they’re going to be a fighter, ie. hitting, or whether they’re going to be a runner/flight, ie, not hitting.

      Can you link me to some writeup on that? No saying it’s wrong, but it seems pretty cut and dry and I’m naturally skeptical. When it comes to the working of the brain I tend toward the skeptical end with answers like this. I have this gut feeling that the truth is more complicated, but the thing about the truth is it’s often unexpected. So I’m open.

      if it’s true for one how can it not be true for another?

      Because in this context emotions only have one step (mental state), actions have two(mental state, then action).

      Granted it’s possible for the mental state to demand action outside control, such as reflexes, intense training to link action to emotion directly rendering action a single step, or impulse control issues where again they are single step, but by and large actions are choices. You at least have the chance of stopping yourself on intellectual grounds.

      I just wanted to mention that anger is a mask emotion,

      That creates questions about psychology, categorization, and the philosophy of truth. Think about the anger/fear statement for example, by “real” do you mean real intellectually from outside the mother? How do you quantify her emotions? I tend to think that in your hypothetical both anger and fear are felt, they are closely related because they serve the same purposes. Safety.

      Are you saying emotions are non-subjective, such that a person can feel one be convinced it is one thing and then have it “actually” be another by some objective standard? You’re opening up a huge can of study worthy worms, but what I don’t think that has much bearing on what I mean or is meant by generally the word responsibility.

      As to the concept of a person lying about what they think they feel… absolutely, men have to deal with this constantly. Anger is manly fear is weakness, etc. As a man blessed with a full range of human emotions I’m constantly chafing under the stereotype of my gender. It seems I’m only ever allowed to feel anger, lust, and the elation of victory. Everything else is treated as somehow decadent, something I have to make up for or justify. Fuck that noise.

      And yes your comment to me was clear.

      Superb.

      I appreciate you getting back to me…

      And I appreciate you taking the time to read my work, actually think about it and provide me with feedback. Your comments and conversation are always welcome. My email address is Brandon.Sergent at Gmail.com if you or anyone else has need of it. Just because I’m a recluse doesn’t mean I don’t like talking to people. I run a blog, obviously I like talking.

      I apologize it if seems that I’m coming on to you at all. I’m not, it’s just refreshing to talk to someone who has an opinion, and isn’t afraid to use it.

      Even if you were coming on to me there’s no need to apologize, people should be honest about what they feel remember? Besides, this blog’s content is me at my mental best, so it presents a distortion of what it’s really like to talk to me real time, more or less. Depends on the subject really.

      But I completely understand your desire to apologize and make clear your non-mating intentions. In our society, you absolutely can’t say anything nice to a person of opposing gender and approximate age without tackling the “do they think I am lying to get into bed” problem. I could talk about that and other mating issues all day, just look at the rest of my blog.

      Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.

      Again, No problem, if I don’t have time, I’m not on the computer. The great thing about the Internet is it’s passive. We all talk when we want.

      I never censor anyone and I welcome all feedback from non spamming humans. I will respond personally and completely time and volume permitting. So far that means everyone gets a personal response. Though debates I prefer to have publicly so that others can learn/teach.

  63. Very amusing list, thanks 🙂
    Some of the statements are definitely true, but I really wish you would spend a bit more time on them and think about the flaws in the others 🙁 Your #35 applies to the majority, context changes everything.

    I really hope your website notifies of responses via email, because I have a tendency to forget to check back, and I’m curious as to your responses.

    I should also mention, I applaud your intentions. 🙂 I just have a problem with some of the statements you use in your means 🙁

    1. No one decides to be mean.
    Definitely not true. All too often people decide to be mean because they want to fit in with a clique, and the whole point of many cliques is to be exclusive. Exclusivity obviously means someone needs to be kept out. Which in and of itself can be interpreted as being mean to the excluded. But beyond that, if the most assertive in the group picks on others to feel superior, then others in the group often make a deliberate choice to be mean so as to fit in.

    6. Those who have more force others to have less.
    Only partially true, for instance someone with more intelligence wouldn’t be forcing someone else to have less. Someone with more family, wouldnt necessarily be forcing someone else to have less. Many people with more money aren’t forcing others to have less, unless you define force as not giving their own away, which is socialist thinking and leads to many more problems.

    7. Angry people are afraid of something.
    Not necessarily, sometimes they have an inbalance in their brain. Sometimes they are just unhappy with their situation. And then of course, sometimes they are just pissed you just destroyed their most prized possession 🙂 Not to mention plenty of other possibilites.

    8. If someone forces you instead of explains, you’re smarter than they are.
    Wrong. There are many reasons that someone might use force instead of explanation, none of which make you necessarily smarter. They might have no time or patience to explain something. They might not respect you, and feel they are above explanations. They might not understand it themselves, but that doesnt mean you understand it either. Remember your own #52 conflicts with this.

    9. People want you to compete because they are afraid of what you can do when you cooperate.
    Wrong. Sometimes people just enjoy competing 🙂 There wouldnt be nearly as many competition games as there are if people didn’t enjoy competition.

    12. No one chooses how they feel.
    You really need to differentiate between emotions and the sense of touch, and chemical changes in the brain.
    Sense of touch is fairly obvious… You can choose whether or not to touch most of the time, but not what impression you get once the touch occurs.
    Chemical changes such as drugs, or endorphins can’t be controlled once they are present, but you can often choose whether or not to start in the first place.
    Emotions are more ambiguous, quite often you can not control the initial impression however by deliberately changing your thinking, you CAN control them however most people do not wish to put in the effort of doing so, and as such their lazy thinking makes them believe its impossible.

    13. Almost everything is a matter of opinion.
    There are many many things that are facts, provable and immutable. Certainly more than I can list here. Granted, there are many things that truely are a matter of opinion, however the majority of things actually do have an answer but the individuals involved don’t take the time to do the research and find the truth of the matter. Your own point #17 even supports this.

    14. Smart people can be wrong.
    The one item that I had to comment on just how right you are!! 🙂

    19. There is a tool or trick to offset every weakness.
    Every is a little extreme, but yes.. many.

    26. Only you know your gender.
    WHAT? Your parents certainly know. Your doctor should know. And for the majority of people gender is going to be visibly apparent. What are you smoking to think this?

    27. Laziness is not a bad thing.
    Very situational. You should phrase it: Laziness is not always a bad thing.

    28. There are always more options.
    A nice sentiment, but not factual 🙁 If your in the desert many miles from anything or anyone, with no food, water or even clothes on your back. No plants anywhere near you and you are suffering from heat exhaustion and a broken leg. You only really have one option, death. And this is just one example. Rephrase to: There are almost always more options. 🙂

    32. People lie because the truth is a threat to them.
    No, people lie for many reasons. That is only one. Sometimes its to make their life easier, sometimes its to make someone else feel better, sometimes its because they are pathological, etc.

    34. Revenge is an attempt to control the past.
    Sometimes, but not always. There are a couple other possiblities, such as attempting to spread the pain to the person who caused it.

    36. Outliving something is better than killing it.
    Most times, but again there are always options. Sometimes outliving something only means that by not killing it yourself, you are allowing it to kill many others. Its all situational.

    55. Writing is nearly immortal and often ignored.
    Highly situational. Its only immortal if the writing survives. If what you write it on is destroyed, its obviously not immortal.

    56. You are always entitled to an explanation that ignores authority.
    Really? Try telling that to any of our armed forces.
    Or how about the government’s decision-making regarding any state secrets.
    Belief in Entitlement is the bane of our society. It’s what socialism is founded on, and by now the flaws in that should be apparent. If they aren’t, then just consider that when people think they are entitled to things they stop trying to better themselves and just use force to get what they think they are entitled to. Once society devolves to that, it becomse self destructive.
    What exactly makes you think that someone else MUST give you what you want?

    60. Poor people exist mainly because rich people sequester wealth.
    Debateable, and ive heard arguments both ways. But I don’t have the knowledge to be able to state with certainty one way or the other.

    63. If they can’t tell you what’s in it for them, it’s a trap.
    Incredible cynical. Sometimes people just want to be nice.

    1. @John

      You make me realize that I need to radically expand this list, explain what I mean by each entry and offer places to argue each point in depth. For now this is the best I can do.

      Your arguments seem not to be a desire to get to the truth so much as a demonstration of clever technical sophistry. Language is limited and holes will always be found. Or put more simply, you know what I meant. This list was intended for children, its vague and simplistic on purpose. Go read the rest of my blog is you want exhaustive explanations. But of course since language itself is flawed I’m sure you’ll find opportunity to play the sophist there as well.

      I well not reply to future sophist elements which I consider to be akin to trolling.

      1. No one decides to be mean.
      Definitely not true. All too often people decide to be mean because they want to fit in with a clique, and the whole point of many cliques is to be exclusive. Exclusivity obviously means someone needs to be kept out. Which in and of itself can be interpreted as being mean to the excluded. But beyond that, if the most assertive in the group picks on others to feel superior, then others in the group often make a deliberate choice to be mean so as to fit in.

      You’re intentionally missing the point. They didn’t choose any of the surrounding conditions that made being mean by any definition a rational choice from their perspective. Rather than get bogged down in your hypothetical I’m simply asking you to take a step back. The immediate choice to take an action which could be labeled as mean, has antecedent conditions, and barring metal illness, no one, all things being equal chooses to be mean for the hell of it.

      Choosing to be mean after weighing consequences isn’t really being mean. By your logic a doctor is choosing to be mean when he gives a life saving injection to a child. Obviously on balance that act was not intended to be mean.

      6. Those who have more force others to have less.
      Only partially true, for instance someone with more intelligence wouldn’t be forcing someone else to have less. Someone with more family, wouldnt necessarily be forcing someone else to have less. Many people with more money aren’t forcing others to have less, unless you define force as not giving their own away, which is socialist thinking and leads to many more problems.

      On an island with ten coconuts, if I have seven of them, I force everyone else to have three. This is axiomatic. I’ve explained my position extensively on other posts, find them and make your argument there. I’ve already answered yours in those places.

      7. Angry people are afraid of something.
      Not necessarily, sometimes they have an inbalance in their brain. Sometimes they are just unhappy with their situation. And then of course, sometimes they are just pissed you just destroyed their most prized possession 🙂 Not to mention plenty of other possibilites.

      Anger comes from fear. Fear of loss or pain usually. Spontaneous anger as a result of brain damage is obviously excluded.

      8. If someone forces you instead of explains, you’re smarter than they are.
      Wrong. There are many reasons that someone might use force instead of explanation, none of which make you necessarily smarter. They might have no time or patience to explain something. They might not respect you, and feel they are above explanations. They might not understand it themselves, but that doesnt mean you understand it either. Remember your own #52 conflicts with this.

      Your pedantry is growing tiresome. Again, you know what I meant. Or are you the type of person that like to hit people in lieu of rational argument? I’m not going to rewrite every statement on this list in some futile attempt to make them all semantically complete and immune to willful misunderstanding or distortion. #52 does not conflict at all. Being ignorant doesn’t have any direct link it either force or stupidity.

      If I punch you instead of rationally responding, then you’ve won. Obviously exceptions can be found but that’s true of everything. “There is an exception to every rule except this one.” Reality itself is in standing paradox, using that fact to tear down a statement of basic truth proves nothing.

      Violence is not an argument.

      9. People want you to compete because they are afraid of what you can do when you cooperate.
      Wrong. Sometimes people just enjoy competing 🙂 There wouldnt be nearly as many competition games as there are if people didn’t enjoy competition.

      People don’t “just” do anything. The illusion of spontaneity is a result of ignorance. All action has reason, all events have antecedents. And they enjoy competition because they seek the thrill of victory. Again, you know what I meant and you’re exploiting brevity to distort intent. The popularity of gaming has no impact on enjoyment of competition. Correlation does not denote causation. For example people could simply have no alternatives, or they could have been trained since the cradle that competition is the only valid means of recreation.

      I’m starting to feel trolled, it’s becoming clear to me as I write these responses that you are strawmanning me and making arguments you know to be false.

      12. No one chooses how they feel.
      You really need to differentiate between emotions and the sense of touch, and chemical changes in the brain.
      Sense of touch is fairly obvious… You can choose whether or not to touch most of the time, but not what impression you get once the touch occurs.
      Chemical changes such as drugs, or endorphins can’t be controlled once they are present, but you can often choose whether or not to start in the first place.
      Emotions are more ambiguous, quite often you can not control the initial impression however by deliberately changing your thinking, you CAN control them however most people do not wish to put in the effort of doing so, and as such their lazy thinking makes them believe its impossible.

      You obviously haven’t read the comments that occurred before yours. More evidence of trolling.

      13. Almost everything is a matter of opinion.
      There are many many things that are facts, provable and immutable. Certainly more than I can list here. Granted, there are many things that truely are a matter of opinion, however the majority of things actually do have an answer but the individuals involved don’t take the time to do the research and find the truth of the matter. Your own point #17 even supports this.

      Did you miss the word almost? I had such high hopes for this set of responses going in.

      19. There is a tool or trick to offset every weakness.
      Every is a little extreme, but yes.. many.

      I suppose it’s a matter of faith about the nature of the universe, and it also depend on how one defines weakness, but once again, you know what I meant.

      26. Only you know your gender.
      WHAT? Your parents certainly know. Your doctor should know. And for the majority of people gender is going to be visibly apparent. What are you smoking to think this?

      Obviously you know nothing about gender politics. I suggest you track down your nearest GLBT support group and ask a few questions.

      27. Laziness is not a bad thing.
      Very situational. You should phrase it: Laziness is not always a bad thing.

      I phrased it like I meant it. I don’t judge laziness itself as bad. The desire for efficiency, that is more product for less work, can be taken to extremes but what can’t? The only way to make laziness bad is to alter your definition of laziness to include bad, which would be dishonest.

      28. There are always more options.
      A nice sentiment, but not factual 🙁 If your in the desert many miles from anything or anyone, with no food, water or even clothes on your back. No plants anywhere near you and you are suffering from heat exhaustion and a broken leg. You only really have one option, death. And this is just one example. Rephrase to: There are almost always more options. 🙂

      The inability to exploit an option is not equal to the absence of that option. If I were to argue your hypothetical like you’ve been arguing my claims I’d say your claim is contradicted since you say “in the desert many miles from anything or anyone” is the desert not a thing? At which point you roll your eyes and say “you know what I meant”. Yes, yes I did.

      I could also comment on the rescue helicopter speeding its way to your hapless desert explorer.

      32. People lie because the truth is a threat to them.
      No, people lie for many reasons. That is only one. Sometimes its to make their life easier, sometimes its to make someone else feel better, sometimes its because they are pathological, etc.

      And how are each of those examples not the evasion of a threat?

      34. Revenge is an attempt to control the past.
      Sometimes, but not always. There are a couple other possiblities, such as attempting to spread the pain to the person who caused it.

      Give me one example where the person taking revenge would not prefer to simply undo the wrong if they had the power to do so. You don’t understand vengeance.

      36. Outliving something is better than killing it.
      Most times, but again there are always options. Sometimes outliving something only means that by not killing it yourself, you are allowing it to kill many others. Its all situational.

      Your injection of third parties changes nothing. The truth of the statement would then apply to them as well.

      55. Writing is nearly immortal and often ignored.
      Highly situational. Its only immortal if the writing survives. If what you write it on is destroyed, its obviously not immortal.

      Did I not say “nearly”?

      56. You are always entitled to an explanation that ignores authority.
      Really? Try telling that to any of our armed forces.
      Or how about the government’s decision-making regarding any state secrets.
      Belief in Entitlement is the bane of our society. It’s what socialism is founded on, and by now the flaws in that should be apparent. If they aren’t, then just consider that when people think they are entitled to things they stop trying to better themselves and just use force to get what they think they are entitled to. Once society devolves to that, it becomse self destructive.
      What exactly makes you think that someone else MUST give you what you want?

      I’m not going to try and talk you out of your religion. All positions on what constitute a basic human right are arbitrary. I might as well argue without you about which color is best. If you want to try and turn respect for evidence over authority into an endorsement of a doomed governmental system with vague patriotic self serving overtones, be my guest.

      60. Poor people exist mainly because rich people sequester wealth.
      Debateable, and ive heard arguments both ways. But I don’t have the knowledge to be able to state with certainty one way or the other.

      And yet you speak anyway. I was tempting to just not reply at all but there is an important less here for the readers. You’re not making arguments. You’re talking to see yourself talk.

      63. If they can’t tell you what’s in it for them, it’s a trap.
      Incredible cynical. Sometimes people just want to be nice.

      Again this mythical “just.” My statement stands. Thinking like yours both creates opportunity for exploitation and acts on it. It’s too late for you. That’s why I aimed this list at children.

      1. “Obviously you know nothing about gender politics. I suggest you track down your nearest GLBT support group and ask a few questions.”

        Sorry, I don’t know how to do quotes. This doesn’t even have to do with the post even. I just seen you say that! well type it. I can’t believe it. I didn’t think i would just be strolling down the comments section and see you talking about ‘groups’. It was just exciting and confusing, and I don’t really know what to say about it.

        Ah, yes I do.

        “BINGO” “I FOUND WALDO”, and “EUREKA”, and one of these “HOLY BAT BALLS BATMAN!”

        that is all.

        1. Shocking isn’t it?

          But to be clear about my opinion, somethings need a support group, some don’t. Having gender issues in a society this obsessed with sexual property and gender roles absolutely does.

          I thank the fates for my gender/sexual identity matching my physical hardware as a matter of course right along with my many other advantages and gifts, such as not having cancer and all the other horrors large and small that could ensnare me. As a rule I try to keep my position in perspective and make it clear that thought I may seek improvement, I am not complacent.

          Though I do feel entitled on the grounds that were I to be given power I would share each entitlement. I think it is exclusive entitlement that should be shunned, not a desire for expanded general human rights, considerations, and abilities.

  64. Very amusing list, thanks 🙂
    Some of the statements are definitely true, but I really wish you would spend a bit more time on them and think about the flaws in the others 🙁 Your #35 applies to the majority, context changes everything.

    I really hope your website notifies of responses via email, because I have a tendency to forget to check back, and I’m curious as to your responses.

    I should also mention, I applaud your intentions. 🙂 I just have a problem with some of the statements you use in your means 🙁

    1. No one decides to be mean.
    Definitely not true. All too often people decide to be mean because they want to fit in with a clique, and the whole point of many cliques is to be exclusive. Exclusivity obviously means someone needs to be kept out. Which in and of itself can be interpreted as being mean to the excluded. But beyond that, if the most assertive in the group picks on others to feel superior, then others in the group often make a deliberate choice to be mean so as to fit in.

    6. Those who have more force others to have less.
    Only partially true, for instance someone with more intelligence wouldn’t be forcing someone else to have less. Someone with more family, wouldnt necessarily be forcing someone else to have less. Many people with more money aren’t forcing others to have less, unless you define force as not giving their own away, which is socialist thinking and leads to many more problems.

    7. Angry people are afraid of something.
    Not necessarily, sometimes they have an inbalance in their brain. Sometimes they are just unhappy with their situation. And then of course, sometimes they are just pissed you just destroyed their most prized possession 🙂 Not to mention plenty of other possibilites.

    8. If someone forces you instead of explains, you’re smarter than they are.
    Wrong. There are many reasons that someone might use force instead of explanation, none of which make you necessarily smarter. They might have no time or patience to explain something. They might not respect you, and feel they are above explanations. They might not understand it themselves, but that doesnt mean you understand it either. Remember your own #52 conflicts with this.

    9. People want you to compete because they are afraid of what you can do when you cooperate.
    Wrong. Sometimes people just enjoy competing 🙂 There wouldnt be nearly as many competition games as there are if people didn’t enjoy competition.

    12. No one chooses how they feel.
    You really need to differentiate between emotions and the sense of touch, and chemical changes in the brain.
    Sense of touch is fairly obvious… You can choose whether or not to touch most of the time, but not what impression you get once the touch occurs.
    Chemical changes such as drugs, or endorphins can’t be controlled once they are present, but you can often choose whether or not to start in the first place.
    Emotions are more ambiguous, quite often you can not control the initial impression however by deliberately changing your thinking, you CAN control them however most people do not wish to put in the effort of doing so, and as such their lazy thinking makes them believe its impossible.

    13. Almost everything is a matter of opinion.
    There are many many things that are facts, provable and immutable. Certainly more than I can list here. Granted, there are many things that truely are a matter of opinion, however the majority of things actually do have an answer but the individuals involved don’t take the time to do the research and find the truth of the matter. Your own point #17 even supports this.

    14. Smart people can be wrong.
    The one item that I had to comment on just how right you are!! 🙂

    19. There is a tool or trick to offset every weakness.
    Every is a little extreme, but yes.. many.

    26. Only you know your gender.
    WHAT? Your parents certainly know. Your doctor should know. And for the majority of people gender is going to be visibly apparent. What are you smoking to think this?

    27. Laziness is not a bad thing.
    Very situational. You should phrase it: Laziness is not always a bad thing.

    28. There are always more options.
    A nice sentiment, but not factual 🙁 If your in the desert many miles from anything or anyone, with no food, water or even clothes on your back. No plants anywhere near you and you are suffering from heat exhaustion and a broken leg. You only really have one option, death. And this is just one example. Rephrase to: There are almost always more options. 🙂

    32. People lie because the truth is a threat to them.
    No, people lie for many reasons. That is only one. Sometimes its to make their life easier, sometimes its to make someone else feel better, sometimes its because they are pathological, etc.

    34. Revenge is an attempt to control the past.
    Sometimes, but not always. There are a couple other possiblities, such as attempting to spread the pain to the person who caused it.

    36. Outliving something is better than killing it.
    Most times, but again there are always options. Sometimes outliving something only means that by not killing it yourself, you are allowing it to kill many others. Its all situational.

    55. Writing is nearly immortal and often ignored.
    Highly situational. Its only immortal if the writing survives. If what you write it on is destroyed, its obviously not immortal.

    56. You are always entitled to an explanation that ignores authority.
    Really? Try telling that to any of our armed forces.
    Or how about the government’s decision-making regarding any state secrets.
    Belief in Entitlement is the bane of our society. It’s what socialism is founded on, and by now the flaws in that should be apparent. If they aren’t, then just consider that when people think they are entitled to things they stop trying to better themselves and just use force to get what they think they are entitled to. Once society devolves to that, it becomse self destructive.
    What exactly makes you think that someone else MUST give you what you want?

    60. Poor people exist mainly because rich people sequester wealth.
    Debateable, and ive heard arguments both ways. But I don’t have the knowledge to be able to state with certainty one way or the other.

    63. If they can’t tell you what’s in it for them, it’s a trap.
    Incredible cynical. Sometimes people just want to be nice.

    1. @John

      You make me realize that I need to radically expand this list, explain what I mean by each entry and offer places to argue each point in depth. For now this is the best I can do.

      Your arguments seem not to be a desire to get to the truth so much as a demonstration of clever technical sophistry. Language is limited and holes will always be found. Or put more simply, you know what I meant. This list was intended for children, its vague and simplistic on purpose. Go read the rest of my blog is you want exhaustive explanations. But of course since language itself is flawed I’m sure you’ll find opportunity to play the sophist there as well.

      I well not reply to future sophist elements which I consider to be akin to trolling.

      1. No one decides to be mean.
      Definitely not true. All too often people decide to be mean because they want to fit in with a clique, and the whole point of many cliques is to be exclusive. Exclusivity obviously means someone needs to be kept out. Which in and of itself can be interpreted as being mean to the excluded. But beyond that, if the most assertive in the group picks on others to feel superior, then others in the group often make a deliberate choice to be mean so as to fit in.

      You’re intentionally missing the point. They didn’t choose any of the surrounding conditions that made being mean by any definition a rational choice from their perspective. Rather than get bogged down in your hypothetical I’m simply asking you to take a step back. The immediate choice to take an action which could be labeled as mean, has antecedent conditions, and barring metal illness, no one, all things being equal chooses to be mean for the hell of it.

      Choosing to be mean after weighing consequences isn’t really being mean. By your logic a doctor is choosing to be mean when he gives a life saving injection to a child. Obviously on balance that act was not intended to be mean.

      6. Those who have more force others to have less.
      Only partially true, for instance someone with more intelligence wouldn’t be forcing someone else to have less. Someone with more family, wouldnt necessarily be forcing someone else to have less. Many people with more money aren’t forcing others to have less, unless you define force as not giving their own away, which is socialist thinking and leads to many more problems.

      On an island with ten coconuts, if I have seven of them, I force everyone else to have three. This is axiomatic. I’ve explained my position extensively on other posts, find them and make your argument there. I’ve already answered yours in those places.

      7. Angry people are afraid of something.
      Not necessarily, sometimes they have an inbalance in their brain. Sometimes they are just unhappy with their situation. And then of course, sometimes they are just pissed you just destroyed their most prized possession 🙂 Not to mention plenty of other possibilites.

      Anger comes from fear. Fear of loss or pain usually. Spontaneous anger as a result of brain damage is obviously excluded.

      8. If someone forces you instead of explains, you’re smarter than they are.
      Wrong. There are many reasons that someone might use force instead of explanation, none of which make you necessarily smarter. They might have no time or patience to explain something. They might not respect you, and feel they are above explanations. They might not understand it themselves, but that doesnt mean you understand it either. Remember your own #52 conflicts with this.

      Your pedantry is growing tiresome. Again, you know what I meant. Or are you the type of person that like to hit people in lieu of rational argument? I’m not going to rewrite every statement on this list in some futile attempt to make them all semantically complete and immune to willful misunderstanding or distortion. #52 does not conflict at all. Being ignorant doesn’t have any direct link it either force or stupidity.

      If I punch you instead of rationally responding, then you’ve won. Obviously exceptions can be found but that’s true of everything. “There is an exception to every rule except this one.” Reality itself is in standing paradox, using that fact to tear down a statement of basic truth proves nothing.

      Violence is not an argument.

      9. People want you to compete because they are afraid of what you can do when you cooperate.
      Wrong. Sometimes people just enjoy competing 🙂 There wouldnt be nearly as many competition games as there are if people didn’t enjoy competition.

      People don’t “just” do anything. The illusion of spontaneity is a result of ignorance. All action has reason, all events have antecedents. And they enjoy competition because they seek the thrill of victory. Again, you know what I meant and you’re exploiting brevity to distort intent. The popularity of gaming has no impact on enjoyment of competition. Correlation does not denote causation. For example people could simply have no alternatives, or they could have been trained since the cradle that competition is the only valid means of recreation.

      I’m starting to feel trolled, it’s becoming clear to me as I write these responses that you are strawmanning me and making arguments you know to be false.

      12. No one chooses how they feel.
      You really need to differentiate between emotions and the sense of touch, and chemical changes in the brain.
      Sense of touch is fairly obvious… You can choose whether or not to touch most of the time, but not what impression you get once the touch occurs.
      Chemical changes such as drugs, or endorphins can’t be controlled once they are present, but you can often choose whether or not to start in the first place.
      Emotions are more ambiguous, quite often you can not control the initial impression however by deliberately changing your thinking, you CAN control them however most people do not wish to put in the effort of doing so, and as such their lazy thinking makes them believe its impossible.

      You obviously haven’t read the comments that occurred before yours. More evidence of trolling.

      13. Almost everything is a matter of opinion.
      There are many many things that are facts, provable and immutable. Certainly more than I can list here. Granted, there are many things that truely are a matter of opinion, however the majority of things actually do have an answer but the individuals involved don’t take the time to do the research and find the truth of the matter. Your own point #17 even supports this.

      Did you miss the word almost? I had such high hopes for this set of responses going in.

      19. There is a tool or trick to offset every weakness.
      Every is a little extreme, but yes.. many.

      I suppose it’s a matter of faith about the nature of the universe, and it also depend on how one defines weakness, but once again, you know what I meant.

      26. Only you know your gender.
      WHAT? Your parents certainly know. Your doctor should know. And for the majority of people gender is going to be visibly apparent. What are you smoking to think this?

      Obviously you know nothing about gender politics. I suggest you track down your nearest GLBT support group and ask a few questions.

      27. Laziness is not a bad thing.
      Very situational. You should phrase it: Laziness is not always a bad thing.

      I phrased it like I meant it. I don’t judge laziness itself as bad. The desire for efficiency, that is more product for less work, can be taken to extremes but what can’t? The only way to make laziness bad is to alter your definition of laziness to include bad, which would be dishonest.

      28. There are always more options.
      A nice sentiment, but not factual 🙁 If your in the desert many miles from anything or anyone, with no food, water or even clothes on your back. No plants anywhere near you and you are suffering from heat exhaustion and a broken leg. You only really have one option, death. And this is just one example. Rephrase to: There are almost always more options. 🙂

      The inability to exploit an option is not equal to the absence of that option. If I were to argue your hypothetical like you’ve been arguing my claims I’d say your claim is contradicted since you say “in the desert many miles from anything or anyone” is the desert not a thing? At which point you roll your eyes and say “you know what I meant”. Yes, yes I did.

      I could also comment on the rescue helicopter speeding its way to your hapless desert explorer.

      32. People lie because the truth is a threat to them.
      No, people lie for many reasons. That is only one. Sometimes its to make their life easier, sometimes its to make someone else feel better, sometimes its because they are pathological, etc.

      And how are each of those examples not the evasion of a threat?

      34. Revenge is an attempt to control the past.
      Sometimes, but not always. There are a couple other possiblities, such as attempting to spread the pain to the person who caused it.

      Give me one example where the person taking revenge would not prefer to simply undo the wrong if they had the power to do so. You don’t understand vengeance.

      36. Outliving something is better than killing it.
      Most times, but again there are always options. Sometimes outliving something only means that by not killing it yourself, you are allowing it to kill many others. Its all situational.

      Your injection of third parties changes nothing. The truth of the statement would then apply to them as well.

      55. Writing is nearly immortal and often ignored.
      Highly situational. Its only immortal if the writing survives. If what you write it on is destroyed, its obviously not immortal.

      Did I not say “nearly”?

      56. You are always entitled to an explanation that ignores authority.
      Really? Try telling that to any of our armed forces.
      Or how about the government’s decision-making regarding any state secrets.
      Belief in Entitlement is the bane of our society. It’s what socialism is founded on, and by now the flaws in that should be apparent. If they aren’t, then just consider that when people think they are entitled to things they stop trying to better themselves and just use force to get what they think they are entitled to. Once society devolves to that, it becomse self destructive.
      What exactly makes you think that someone else MUST give you what you want?

      I’m not going to try and talk you out of your religion. All positions on what constitute a basic human right are arbitrary. I might as well argue without you about which color is best. If you want to try and turn respect for evidence over authority into an endorsement of a doomed governmental system with vague patriotic self serving overtones, be my guest.

      60. Poor people exist mainly because rich people sequester wealth.
      Debateable, and ive heard arguments both ways. But I don’t have the knowledge to be able to state with certainty one way or the other.

      And yet you speak anyway. I was tempting to just not reply at all but there is an important less here for the readers. You’re not making arguments. You’re talking to see yourself talk.

      63. If they can’t tell you what’s in it for them, it’s a trap.
      Incredible cynical. Sometimes people just want to be nice.

      Again this mythical “just.” My statement stands. Thinking like yours both creates opportunity for exploitation and acts on it. It’s too late for you. That’s why I aimed this list at children.

  65. @Innomen

    You make me realize that I need to radically expand this list, explain what I mean by each entry and offer places to argue each point in depth. For now this is the best I can do.

    That would be nice 🙂

    Your arguments seem not to be a desire to get to the truth so much as a demonstration of clever technical sophistry. Language is limited and holes will always be found. Or put more simply, you know what I meant. This list was intended for children, its vague and simplistic on purpose. Go read the rest of my blog is you want exhaustive explanations. But of course since language itself is flawed I’m sure you’ll find opportunity to play the sophist there as well.
    I well not reply to future sophist elements which I consider to be akin to trolling.

    No, actually your interpreting a meaning that doesnt exist 🙁 First, I do have a desire to get at the truth. 2nd, I have an intense dislike of absolute statements when they don’t apply. For instance, 2+2=4 is an absolute and I wouldnt mind it. But too often people say “always” or “never”, and I get a bit pendantic about it. I’m sorry if I pushed that too far.
    I do agree that language is sometimes flawed, and leads to miscommunications 🙁

    You’re intentionally missing the point.

    No, I wasn’t intentionally missing anything – what I stated had direct relevance to your point as I see it.

    They didn’t choose any of the surrounding conditions that made being mean by any definition a rational choice from their perspective. Rather than get bogged down in your hypothetical I’m simply asking you to take a step back. The immediate choice to take an action which could be labeled as mean, has antecedent conditions, and barring metal illness, no one, all things being equal chooses to be mean for the hell of it.

    I agree they didn’t choose any of the surrounding conditions, but by saying they aren’t choosing it you are in essence giving them a free pass for being mean.
    I could also ask, what is trolling if not being mean for the sake of it? Trolls intentionally try to piss people off to get a response. Then there are tons of pranks that people pull with the intention of being mean, because they see humor in it. The object of the pranks only see it as a mean act.
    So I still think that in the case that circumstances leading to it, its a poor thing to teach a child that the other person didn’t have a choice and is thereby excused. Additionally, there are plenty of cases where the only circumstances that lead up to it is the fact that we live in a flawed world.

    Choosing to be mean after weighing consequences isn’t really being mean. By your logic a doctor is choosing to be mean when he gives a life saving injection to a child. Obviously on balance that act was not intended to be mean.

    Oh, it most certainly is. It just means that the person who weighed the consequences thought their own popularity (in this case) outweight the rights of the target. That is still choosing to be mean, for no benefit whatsoever to the target.
    A doctor on the other hand, has the persons best interest at heart and that is completely different.

    On an island with ten coconuts, if I have seven of them, I force everyone else to have three. This is axiomatic. I’ve explained my position extensively on other posts, find them and make your argument there. I’ve already answered yours in those places.

    Part of my point was that it only applies to limited resources, that was me hating absolute statements again 🙂 Thats why I said you were partially correct. Beyond that, I’ll go look for your other posts.

    Anger comes from fear. Fear of loss or pain usually. Spontaneous anger as a result of brain damage is obviously excluded.

    Ok, IMO we have a language problem. I don’t believe you can be afraid of something that has already happened. You can be afraid of it happening again in some circumstances, but fear is all about negative anticipation. Given that, please reread what I said… And post your understanding of the meaning of fear.

    Your pedantry is growing tiresome. Again, you know what I meant. Or are you the type of person that like to hit people in lieu of rational argument? I’m not going to rewrite every statement on this list in some futile attempt to make them all semantically complete and immune to willful misunderstanding or distortion. #52 does not conflict at all. Being ignorant doesn’t have any direct link it either force or stupidity.

    If I punch you instead of rationally responding, then you’ve won. Obviously exceptions can be found but that’s true of everything. “There is an exception to every rule except this one.” Reality itself is in standing paradox, using that fact to tear down a statement of basic truth proves nothing.

    Violence is not an argument.

    Wait, WHAT? I wasn’t talking about violence at all where did that come from? I very much ENJOY a good argument, because I love to come to an understanding of the difference between two points of view and possibly gain more comprehension on my own.
    I know that you meant to say something indicating that in most circumstances forcing a person to do X is a poorer choice than giving an explanation on why they should do X. But, you said you are talking to children – I do not believe most of them would get from what you said to what I think you had in mind, I don’t even know that IS what you had in mind I just assume it. This was not willful misunderstanding or distortion, I’m saying that your statement “as is”, is just wrong, not merely flawed. I attempted to provide samples pointing out where it doesnt apply in order that you would understand where I was coming from, I’m sorry if you see that as pedantry. It’s just my prefered method of trying to get a point across.

    I’m starting to feel trolled, it’s becoming clear to me as I write these responses that you are strawmanning me and making arguments you know to be false.

    First, no I definitely am not – I don’t troll. I just apparently have diametrically opposed viewpoints from you in many areas. That doesnt make either of us automatically right or wrong. But your response really makes me think that you believe its impossible for you to be wrong, and that makes me sad, as it indicates you have quite trying to verify that your own beliefs are true I hope I’m incorrect about this assumption.

    People don’t “just” do anything. The illusion of spontaneity is a result of ignorance. All action has reason, all events have antecedents.

    I disagree completely, I know that on many occasions I have decided spontaniously to do something. I don’t always have a reason. I find it difficult to believe that you would think that its possible to know that every person in the word always has a reason for doing something, and actually believe that. You state this as if it were fact, at least provide some supporting evidence for this statement.

    And they enjoy competition because they seek the thrill of victory. Again, you know what I meant and you’re exploiting brevity to distort intent. The popularity of gaming has no impact on enjoyment of competition. Correlation does not denote causation. For example people could simply have no alternatives, or they could have been trained since the cradle that competition is the only valid means of recreation.

    This statement I will have to say was the result of my dislike of absolutes, or pedantry as you call it.

    You obviously haven’t read the comments that occurred before yours. More evidence of trolling.

    Actually, I did read them, in detail. I did my best to keep in brief because I knew you had already had several discussions on that, and tried to clarify the other point of view since you didn’t appear to be comprehending the others who apparently gave up trying.

    Did you miss the word almost? I had such high hopes for this set of responses going in.

    Actually, I believe I did 🙁 My appologies.

    I suppose it’s a matter of faith about the nature of the universe, and it also depend on how one defines weakness, but once again, you know what I meant.

    Yes, I did know what you meant. I was just saying I felt you put it a little strongly, but I did agree with you in the main.

    Obviously you know nothing about gender politics. I suggest you track down your nearest GLBT support group and ask a few questions.

    Your right, I don’t know anything about gender politics. I wasn’t aware that there was such a thing, are you telling me that there are people that don’t understand the physical differences between the genders??? I know there is lots of debate on what the various genders are capable of, or what gender a person prefers as a partner, etc.. but now I think you just blew my mind.

    I phrased it like I meant it. I don’t judge laziness itself as bad. The desire for efficiency, that is more product for less work, can be taken to extremes but what can’t? The only way to make laziness bad is to alter your definition of laziness to include bad, which would be dishonest.

    Hmm, my dislike of absolutes again, or pedantry as you say. Not worth pursuing.

    The inability to exploit an option is not equal to the absence of that option.

    I think we have a language problem again. I wouldn’t consider something an option in the first place, if you were unable to exploit it. How exactly are you defining option?

    No, people lie for many reasons. That is only one. Sometimes its to make their life easier, sometimes its to make someone else feel better, sometimes its because they are pathological, etc.

    And how are each of those examples not the evasion of a threat?

    Possibly a language issue again, I would consider a threat as being strong enough to affect life, limb or long term happiness.
    The pathalogical option I mentioned was again my dislike of absolutes 🙂 I really shouldn’t have put those in there, as it wasn’t fair to you – but, my dislike (verging on obsession) overcame my common sense apparently 🙁

    Give me one example where the person taking revenge would not prefer to simply undo the wrong if they had the power to do so. You don’t understand vengeance.

    I think language issue again. I never said they wouldn’t prefer to undo the wrong, but that’s not an option and any sane person is going to be aware that vengence isn’t going to change it. Which brings me back to my point, they want to make sure the other person suffers the same pain. I wouldn’t call that attempting to control the past, being influenced by it certainly.. but we have a problem on the definition of control.

    Your injection of third parties changes nothing. The truth of the statement would then apply to them as well.

    Absolutes again… enough said (written?).

    Highly situational. Its only immortal if the writing survives. If what you write it on is destroyed, its obviously not immortal.

    Did I not say “nearly”?

    Absolutes again… I would have added a qualifier before the word writing. But, dropping it for reasons I mentioned before.

    I’m not going to try and talk you out of your religion. All positions on what constitute a basic human right are arbitrary. I might as well argue without you about which color is best. If you want to try and turn respect for evidence over authority into an endorsement of a doomed governmental system with vague patriotic self serving overtones, be my guest.

    I never brought up religion, for exactly the reason that its highly unlikely either of us would convince the other and additionally, there is no way to prove one way or the other.

    What I was referring to, is twofold.

    First, that legally people are not always entitled to an explanation. I pointed out governmental state secrets and the heirarchical armed forces as supporting facts.
    Second, realistically speaking (not sure how else to put it) human nature is such that belief in entitlement leads directly to ruin. It’s a direct consequence of the observed behaviour of people. This is I think a great flaw in socialist government.

    And as an additional point, please don’t make the assumption that I endorse our government. There are too many things wrong with it at this point, and I agree completely that it is doomed. I DO think that it’s the best government that has existed to this point, I just think that people have abused it to the point where it’s in a gradual (but inevitable) decline.

    I do happen to think that it is impossible for a government to be perfect, and that eventually they will all fall. I just think socialism has more and more egregious faults than most other forms of government.

    And yet you speak anyway. I was tempting to just not reply at all but there is an important less here for the readers. You’re not making arguments. You’re talking to see yourself talk.

    I don’t appreciate attacks like that. I don’t recall ever making personal attacks on you.

    I stated that, because you put these forth as “Things every kid should know”. Something this debatable really shouldn’t be in a list like that IMO.

    Again this mythical “just.” My statement stands. Thinking like yours both creates opportunity for exploitation and acts on it. It’s too late for you. That’s why I aimed this list at children.

    And that’s why I posted a response to it in the first place, that type of statement shouldn’t be aimed at children. It’s too inclined to warp them, IMO.

    I’m not aware of how “just” is mythical, its only a word I used to connect parts of the sentance. The sentence could stand without it just as well, but without some of the “flavor”.

    I agree, it does create an opportunity for exploitation. I’m unaware of how it could “act on” exploitation. But, what you need to realize is that without an opening nothing can get in. Yes, this means you can’t be hurt, but it also means you can’t be helped. Its the same with love, if you never allow yourself to love another person, then you can’t be rejected but you also won’t fully feel love in return.

    1. @John

      I agree they didn’t choose any of the surrounding conditions, but by saying they aren’t choosing it you are in essence giving them a free pass for being mean.

      I’m saying what I said. If you want to continue assigning blame in preponderance of the facts I’ve presented that’s your business. I’m sorry if the facts make your desire to blame and punish seem petty, but I didn’t invent them. I’m simply pointing them out.

      And the cultural inconvenience is frankly not my problem. I don’t participate or profit from revenge culture. I don’t have victims in need of blaming. I don’t need society to be like it is today for all time. I can picture a different world, I’m sorry you can’t. But your first step has to be an honest appraisal of the facts. And the fact is people have motives for what they do that are well beyond their control.

      Would it make you feel better if I told you that I’m not saying no one is to blame but rather that different people are to blame?

      I could also ask, what is trolling if not being mean for the sake of it?

      Trolling is intellectual masturbation at the expense of others and truth. Trolling is making inflammatory claims neither party truly believes to “get a rise” out of someone. It’s done when people encounter an uncomfortable truth that they subconsciously or otherwise see the logic behind.

      I don’t feel the need to punish you for being a troll, nor do I think you’re a bad person for doing it. I completely understand your motivations. That doesn’t mean I want you to continue. But I can’t rationally stop you.

      That’s what makes crime and evil a problem, there IS no clean and simple solution. And we so desperately want one. We want to beat the problem until it goes away, but you can’t execute crime with a switch or a needle, you can only execute criminals that way. It’s a pain in the ass but it’s also a fact.

      Deal with it.

      Then there are tons of pranks that people pull with the intention of being mean, because they see humor in it.

      You don’t understand what humor is or what fun is for what amounts to a chimp with an imagination. A prank is effectively a non lethal trap or an attack on social standing. Pranks are assertions of authority. Dominance games that evolved in the presence of social structures that forbid outright conflict, just like sports. It’s only “fun” because people are doing what they’ve been instinctively programmed to do.

      Pranks are one of the many human antler bashing equivalents.

      its a poor thing to teach a child that the other person didn’t have a choice and is thereby excused.

      Perhaps, but luckily that’s not what I’m saying, I’m simply saying they didn’t have a choice. You’re perfectly free to continue to advocate that people who have no complicity are still held responsible. My country has a long and proud tradition of executing the retarded and mentally ill.

      I have no primitive eye for an eye mentality when it comes to approaching the problems that face society. I am not so lazy nor delusional as to say that just because it’s a pain in the ass the facts should be ignored.

      If you give me complete control of the context of your life I can make you do anything I want you to do. I’m sorry if that frightens you, but that’s the way it is.

      If you want to pretend you’re absolutely free, be my guest. Sadly you only have two choices. You’re either random, or determined. Neither religion nor science leaves room for freedom. And that’s why we need to teach philosophy in school, because as much of a social or cultural problem these facts create, they don’t care. They are and there’s nothing you can do about it except lie to yourself.

      The great irony is this belief, used to justify punishment, contradicts itself, because punishment itself is an outside control! It like the idea of heaven and hell, if being a good person is done to gain bribery or avoid punishment then how in the world is it a free choice?

      The bottom line is people like you want an excuse to toss apples, you want the poor sap being raped right now to have deserved it to absolve you of complicity, and again with great irony you demand the complicity of others to do this.

      I don’t believe you can be afraid of something that has already happened.

      The human animal doesn’t know the future and events in the past strongly indicate repetition in the future. That’s the whole basis for intelligence. When we lose our son to violence we are angry because we are programmed to fear both the future loss of our potential future son and the future potential loss of sons of the tribe.

      Setting that aside you’re obviously unaware of post traumatic stress disorder. For many people the past is the scariest thing of all.

      I love to come to an understanding of the difference between two points of view and possibly gain more comprehension on my own.

      Glad to hear it. I will admit this set of responses is closer to the mark but your first set had more troll in it than a WoW server.

      I don’t even know that IS what you had in mind I just assume i

      You didn’t assume, you chose the most easily attack misinterpretation because I failed to spend 15 paragraphs per entry in a futile attempt to prevent future misunderstanding. I will not bloat my words to evade potential misunderstanding because if history has taught us anything, its that no matter how clear something is, someone somewhere will not get it.

      But your response really makes me think that you believe its impossible for you to be wrong, and that makes me sad, as it indicates

      Ahh yes the old saw “you could be wrong so act wrong while I keep acting right.” No. I will not. I have demonstrated my position and defended it, and I am defending it now. You’re going to have to present an actual argument. I will not be guilted into some kind of hat in hand qualification fest. If people don’t know how to read critically that’s their failing not mine.

      I’m not trying to found a religion here. You could be wrong too. You seem confident in your position too. The hat in hand approach makes me sick because its intellectually devoid of honor and its also classist garbage. #40. Knowing you could be wrong does not mean you are.

      I’m going to act like I’m right so long as I have every reason to believe I’m right. Sure I could be wrong, but gravity could reverse itself in the next 30 seconds also, that doesn’t mean I’m going to spend the day standing on my head.

      I disagree completely, I know that on many occasions I have decided spontaneously to do something.

      You Believe that on many occasions. You’d have to define and prove free will before you could even approach making that statement. Also the organism that you call you, your higher brain functions and judgments exist on top other animal brain types, from lizard up through chimp. You seriously misunderstand the neurological nature of the typical human animal. You really need to understand the concept of an illusion.

      you didn’t appear to be comprehending the others who apparently gave up trying.

      Heh, no room for me being right? Now how’s being closed minded. I’m not going to play he said she said. I’ve crushed the point because it’s as frail as a snow flake. It’s a flimsy self serving justification to absolve people of even thinking about real problems or the suffering of the people who have to work to death to keep them in their current style of life.

      Emotion is beyond willful control, period. The end. If you wish to choose to ignore the nature of the brain the logical problems of free will the nature of physics and the vast body of knowledge amassed by the medical community on mood disorders that’s your business. The arguments are made they have yet to be answered.

      are you telling me that there are people that don’t understand the physical differences between the genders??

      Google. Wiki. I’m telling you the most significant component to gender goes beyond the reproductive hardware. Are you seriously so sheltered you’ve never heard of a woman trapped in a man’s body or vice versa? I guess that’s what happens when you grow up on a steady diet of TV and public school.

      How exactly are you defining option?

      Option: A potential action to take or a potential solution to a given problem. the existence of hidden options is why we bother having science. If all the options were immediately visible then we wouldn’t even need language.

      I would consider a threat as being strong enough to affect life, limb or long term happiness.

      There are emotional threats as well. We routinely coddle our fears and jealousies with policy decisions for example.

      they want to make sure the other person suffers the same pain. I wouldn’t call that attempting to control the past

      You make my point for me. It’s a stop gap, they attempt to add pain to the current side of the equation to balance their pain on the other side. It’s the only way people know of to reach into the past. They’re changing the character of the event from an injustice to a tragedy, from a murder into a hurricane. Something they can move past because now they know it’s utterly beyond further control.

      There are interesting studies about happiness and options, check out TED talks on the subject of happiness.

      I never brought up religion

      Various beliefs you’ve shared are akin to religion. No amount of data is going to change your mind on some subjects.

      For example you think governments define entitlement rather than seeing it as a primary. human rights aren’t human rights because uncle sam says so.

      human nature is such that belief in entitlement leads directly to ruin.

      That’s the most ignorant thing you’ve said in this “debate”. Our tribal nature which is founded on entitlement is the whole reason we survived the ice age. We believe that humans generally deserve certain considerations by default, that’s the essence of the social contract.

      Compassion is why we’re still alive and there simply is no excuse for thinking otherwise. I personally know hundreds of people who are alive today only because I believe they by default have a right to live.

      It’s too inclined to warp them, IMO.

      And the irony meter explodes. You’re the one demanding that we train them like slaves to fit in. Every item on my list is designed to make children resistant to warpage and tampering. You have a very specific goal in mind for children and it has nothing to do with their freedom until AFTER they’ve turned out like you expect.

      I’m not aware of how “just” is mythical, its only a word I used to connect parts of the sentence.

      It’s a word you’re using to imply that some actions occur spontaneously without cause because the causes crush your arguments and undermine your self serving positions.

  66. @Innomen

    You make me realize that I need to radically expand this list, explain what I mean by each entry and offer places to argue each point in depth. For now this is the best I can do.

    That would be nice 🙂

    Your arguments seem not to be a desire to get to the truth so much as a demonstration of clever technical sophistry. Language is limited and holes will always be found. Or put more simply, you know what I meant. This list was intended for children, its vague and simplistic on purpose. Go read the rest of my blog is you want exhaustive explanations. But of course since language itself is flawed I’m sure you’ll find opportunity to play the sophist there as well.
    I well not reply to future sophist elements which I consider to be akin to trolling.

    No, actually your interpreting a meaning that doesnt exist 🙁 First, I do have a desire to get at the truth. 2nd, I have an intense dislike of absolute statements when they don’t apply. For instance, 2+2=4 is an absolute and I wouldnt mind it. But too often people say “always” or “never”, and I get a bit pendantic about it. I’m sorry if I pushed that too far.
    I do agree that language is sometimes flawed, and leads to miscommunications 🙁

    You’re intentionally missing the point.

    No, I wasn’t intentionally missing anything – what I stated had direct relevance to your point as I see it.

    They didn’t choose any of the surrounding conditions that made being mean by any definition a rational choice from their perspective. Rather than get bogged down in your hypothetical I’m simply asking you to take a step back. The immediate choice to take an action which could be labeled as mean, has antecedent conditions, and barring metal illness, no one, all things being equal chooses to be mean for the hell of it.

    I agree they didn’t choose any of the surrounding conditions, but by saying they aren’t choosing it you are in essence giving them a free pass for being mean.
    I could also ask, what is trolling if not being mean for the sake of it? Trolls intentionally try to piss people off to get a response. Then there are tons of pranks that people pull with the intention of being mean, because they see humor in it. The object of the pranks only see it as a mean act.
    So I still think that in the case that circumstances leading to it, its a poor thing to teach a child that the other person didn’t have a choice and is thereby excused. Additionally, there are plenty of cases where the only circumstances that lead up to it is the fact that we live in a flawed world.

    Choosing to be mean after weighing consequences isn’t really being mean. By your logic a doctor is choosing to be mean when he gives a life saving injection to a child. Obviously on balance that act was not intended to be mean.

    Oh, it most certainly is. It just means that the person who weighed the consequences thought their own popularity (in this case) outweight the rights of the target. That is still choosing to be mean, for no benefit whatsoever to the target.
    A doctor on the other hand, has the persons best interest at heart and that is completely different.

    On an island with ten coconuts, if I have seven of them, I force everyone else to have three. This is axiomatic. I’ve explained my position extensively on other posts, find them and make your argument there. I’ve already answered yours in those places.

    Part of my point was that it only applies to limited resources, that was me hating absolute statements again 🙂 Thats why I said you were partially correct. Beyond that, I’ll go look for your other posts.

    Anger comes from fear. Fear of loss or pain usually. Spontaneous anger as a result of brain damage is obviously excluded.

    Ok, IMO we have a language problem. I don’t believe you can be afraid of something that has already happened. You can be afraid of it happening again in some circumstances, but fear is all about negative anticipation. Given that, please reread what I said… And post your understanding of the meaning of fear.

    Your pedantry is growing tiresome. Again, you know what I meant. Or are you the type of person that like to hit people in lieu of rational argument? I’m not going to rewrite every statement on this list in some futile attempt to make them all semantically complete and immune to willful misunderstanding or distortion. #52 does not conflict at all. Being ignorant doesn’t have any direct link it either force or stupidity.

    If I punch you instead of rationally responding, then you’ve won. Obviously exceptions can be found but that’s true of everything. “There is an exception to every rule except this one.” Reality itself is in standing paradox, using that fact to tear down a statement of basic truth proves nothing.

    Violence is not an argument.

    Wait, WHAT? I wasn’t talking about violence at all where did that come from? I very much ENJOY a good argument, because I love to come to an understanding of the difference between two points of view and possibly gain more comprehension on my own.
    I know that you meant to say something indicating that in most circumstances forcing a person to do X is a poorer choice than giving an explanation on why they should do X. But, you said you are talking to children – I do not believe most of them would get from what you said to what I think you had in mind, I don’t even know that IS what you had in mind I just assume it. This was not willful misunderstanding or distortion, I’m saying that your statement “as is”, is just wrong, not merely flawed. I attempted to provide samples pointing out where it doesnt apply in order that you would understand where I was coming from, I’m sorry if you see that as pedantry. It’s just my prefered method of trying to get a point across.

    I’m starting to feel trolled, it’s becoming clear to me as I write these responses that you are strawmanning me and making arguments you know to be false.

    First, no I definitely am not – I don’t troll. I just apparently have diametrically opposed viewpoints from you in many areas. That doesnt make either of us automatically right or wrong. But your response really makes me think that you believe its impossible for you to be wrong, and that makes me sad, as it indicates you have quite trying to verify that your own beliefs are true I hope I’m incorrect about this assumption.

    People don’t “just” do anything. The illusion of spontaneity is a result of ignorance. All action has reason, all events have antecedents.

    I disagree completely, I know that on many occasions I have decided spontaniously to do something. I don’t always have a reason. I find it difficult to believe that you would think that its possible to know that every person in the word always has a reason for doing something, and actually believe that. You state this as if it were fact, at least provide some supporting evidence for this statement.

    And they enjoy competition because they seek the thrill of victory. Again, you know what I meant and you’re exploiting brevity to distort intent. The popularity of gaming has no impact on enjoyment of competition. Correlation does not denote causation. For example people could simply have no alternatives, or they could have been trained since the cradle that competition is the only valid means of recreation.

    This statement I will have to say was the result of my dislike of absolutes, or pedantry as you call it.

    You obviously haven’t read the comments that occurred before yours. More evidence of trolling.

    Actually, I did read them, in detail. I did my best to keep in brief because I knew you had already had several discussions on that, and tried to clarify the other point of view since you didn’t appear to be comprehending the others who apparently gave up trying.

    Did you miss the word almost? I had such high hopes for this set of responses going in.

    Actually, I believe I did 🙁 My appologies.

    I suppose it’s a matter of faith about the nature of the universe, and it also depend on how one defines weakness, but once again, you know what I meant.

    Yes, I did know what you meant. I was just saying I felt you put it a little strongly, but I did agree with you in the main.

    Obviously you know nothing about gender politics. I suggest you track down your nearest GLBT support group and ask a few questions.

    Your right, I don’t know anything about gender politics. I wasn’t aware that there was such a thing, are you telling me that there are people that don’t understand the physical differences between the genders??? I know there is lots of debate on what the various genders are capable of, or what gender a person prefers as a partner, etc.. but now I think you just blew my mind.

    I phrased it like I meant it. I don’t judge laziness itself as bad. The desire for efficiency, that is more product for less work, can be taken to extremes but what can’t? The only way to make laziness bad is to alter your definition of laziness to include bad, which would be dishonest.

    Hmm, my dislike of absolutes again, or pedantry as you say. Not worth pursuing.

    The inability to exploit an option is not equal to the absence of that option.

    I think we have a language problem again. I wouldn’t consider something an option in the first place, if you were unable to exploit it. How exactly are you defining option?

    No, people lie for many reasons. That is only one. Sometimes its to make their life easier, sometimes its to make someone else feel better, sometimes its because they are pathological, etc.

    And how are each of those examples not the evasion of a threat?

    Possibly a language issue again, I would consider a threat as being strong enough to affect life, limb or long term happiness.
    The pathalogical option I mentioned was again my dislike of absolutes 🙂 I really shouldn’t have put those in there, as it wasn’t fair to you – but, my dislike (verging on obsession) overcame my common sense apparently 🙁

    Give me one example where the person taking revenge would not prefer to simply undo the wrong if they had the power to do so. You don’t understand vengeance.

    I think language issue again. I never said they wouldn’t prefer to undo the wrong, but that’s not an option and any sane person is going to be aware that vengence isn’t going to change it. Which brings me back to my point, they want to make sure the other person suffers the same pain. I wouldn’t call that attempting to control the past, being influenced by it certainly.. but we have a problem on the definition of control.

    Your injection of third parties changes nothing. The truth of the statement would then apply to them as well.

    Absolutes again… enough said (written?).

    Highly situational. Its only immortal if the writing survives. If what you write it on is destroyed, its obviously not immortal.

    Did I not say “nearly”?

    Absolutes again… I would have added a qualifier before the word writing. But, dropping it for reasons I mentioned before.

    I’m not going to try and talk you out of your religion. All positions on what constitute a basic human right are arbitrary. I might as well argue without you about which color is best. If you want to try and turn respect for evidence over authority into an endorsement of a doomed governmental system with vague patriotic self serving overtones, be my guest.

    I never brought up religion, for exactly the reason that its highly unlikely either of us would convince the other and additionally, there is no way to prove one way or the other.

    What I was referring to, is twofold.

    First, that legally people are not always entitled to an explanation. I pointed out governmental state secrets and the heirarchical armed forces as supporting facts.
    Second, realistically speaking (not sure how else to put it) human nature is such that belief in entitlement leads directly to ruin. It’s a direct consequence of the observed behaviour of people. This is I think a great flaw in socialist government.

    And as an additional point, please don’t make the assumption that I endorse our government. There are too many things wrong with it at this point, and I agree completely that it is doomed. I DO think that it’s the best government that has existed to this point, I just think that people have abused it to the point where it’s in a gradual (but inevitable) decline.

    I do happen to think that it is impossible for a government to be perfect, and that eventually they will all fall. I just think socialism has more and more egregious faults than most other forms of government.

    And yet you speak anyway. I was tempting to just not reply at all but there is an important less here for the readers. You’re not making arguments. You’re talking to see yourself talk.

    I don’t appreciate attacks like that. I don’t recall ever making personal attacks on you.

    I stated that, because you put these forth as “Things every kid should know”. Something this debatable really shouldn’t be in a list like that IMO.

    Again this mythical “just.” My statement stands. Thinking like yours both creates opportunity for exploitation and acts on it. It’s too late for you. That’s why I aimed this list at children.

    And that’s why I posted a response to it in the first place, that type of statement shouldn’t be aimed at children. It’s too inclined to warp them, IMO.

    I’m not aware of how “just” is mythical, its only a word I used to connect parts of the sentance. The sentence could stand without it just as well, but without some of the “flavor”.

    I agree, it does create an opportunity for exploitation. I’m unaware of how it could “act on” exploitation. But, what you need to realize is that without an opening nothing can get in. Yes, this means you can’t be hurt, but it also means you can’t be helped. Its the same with love, if you never allow yourself to love another person, then you can’t be rejected but you also won’t fully feel love in return.

    1. @John

      I agree they didn’t choose any of the surrounding conditions, but by saying they aren’t choosing it you are in essence giving them a free pass for being mean.

      I’m saying what I said. If you want to continue assigning blame in preponderance of the facts I’ve presented that’s your business. I’m sorry if the facts make your desire to blame and punish seem petty, but I didn’t invent them. I’m simply pointing them out.

      And the cultural inconvenience is frankly not my problem. I don’t participate or profit from revenge culture. I don’t have victims in need of blaming. I don’t need society to be like it is today for all time. I can picture a different world, I’m sorry you can’t. But your first step has to be an honest appraisal of the facts. And the fact is people have motives for what they do that are well beyond their control.

      Would it make you feel better if I told you that I’m not saying no one is to blame but rather that different people are to blame?

      I could also ask, what is trolling if not being mean for the sake of it?

      Trolling is intellectual masturbation at the expense of others and truth. Trolling is making inflammatory claims neither party truly believes to “get a rise” out of someone. It’s done when people encounter an uncomfortable truth that they subconsciously or otherwise see the logic behind.

      I don’t feel the need to punish you for being a troll, nor do I think you’re a bad person for doing it. I completely understand your motivations. That doesn’t mean I want you to continue. But I can’t rationally stop you.

      That’s what makes crime and evil a problem, there IS no clean and simple solution. And we so desperately want one. We want to beat the problem until it goes away, but you can’t execute crime with a switch or a needle, you can only execute criminals that way. It’s a pain in the ass but it’s also a fact.

      Deal with it.

      Then there are tons of pranks that people pull with the intention of being mean, because they see humor in it.

      You don’t understand what humor is or what fun is for what amounts to a chimp with an imagination. A prank is effectively a non lethal trap or an attack on social standing. Pranks are assertions of authority. Dominance games that evolved in the presence of social structures that forbid outright conflict, just like sports. It’s only “fun” because people are doing what they’ve been instinctively programmed to do.

      Pranks are one of the many human antler bashing equivalents.

      its a poor thing to teach a child that the other person didn’t have a choice and is thereby excused.

      Perhaps, but luckily that’s not what I’m saying, I’m simply saying they didn’t have a choice. You’re perfectly free to continue to advocate that people who have no complicity are still held responsible. My country has a long and proud tradition of executing the retarded and mentally ill.

      I have no primitive eye for an eye mentality when it comes to approaching the problems that face society. I am not so lazy nor delusional as to say that just because it’s a pain in the ass the facts should be ignored.

      If you give me complete control of the context of your life I can make you do anything I want you to do. I’m sorry if that frightens you, but that’s the way it is.

      If you want to pretend you’re absolutely free, be my guest. Sadly you only have two choices. You’re either random, or determined. Neither religion nor science leaves room for freedom. And that’s why we need to teach philosophy in school, because as much of a social or cultural problem these facts create, they don’t care. They are and there’s nothing you can do about it except lie to yourself.

      The great irony is this belief, used to justify punishment, contradicts itself, because punishment itself is an outside control! It like the idea of heaven and hell, if being a good person is done to gain bribery or avoid punishment then how in the world is it a free choice?

      The bottom line is people like you want an excuse to toss apples, you want the poor sap being raped right now to have deserved it to absolve you of complicity, and again with great irony you demand the complicity of others to do this.

      I don’t believe you can be afraid of something that has already happened.

      The human animal doesn’t know the future and events in the past strongly indicate repetition in the future. That’s the whole basis for intelligence. When we lose our son to violence we are angry because we are programmed to fear both the future loss of our potential future son and the future potential loss of sons of the tribe.

      Setting that aside you’re obviously unaware of post traumatic stress disorder. For many people the past is the scariest thing of all.

      I love to come to an understanding of the difference between two points of view and possibly gain more comprehension on my own.

      Glad to hear it. I will admit this set of responses is closer to the mark but your first set had more troll in it than a WoW server.

      I don’t even know that IS what you had in mind I just assume i

      You didn’t assume, you chose the most easily attack misinterpretation because I failed to spend 15 paragraphs per entry in a futile attempt to prevent future misunderstanding. I will not bloat my words to evade potential misunderstanding because if history has taught us anything, its that no matter how clear something is, someone somewhere will not get it.

      But your response really makes me think that you believe its impossible for you to be wrong, and that makes me sad, as it indicates

      Ahh yes the old saw “you could be wrong so act wrong while I keep acting right.” No. I will not. I have demonstrated my position and defended it, and I am defending it now. You’re going to have to present an actual argument. I will not be guilted into some kind of hat in hand qualification fest. If people don’t know how to read critically that’s their failing not mine.

      I’m not trying to found a religion here. You could be wrong too. You seem confident in your position too. The hat in hand approach makes me sick because its intellectually devoid of honor and its also classist garbage. #40. Knowing you could be wrong does not mean you are.

      I’m going to act like I’m right so long as I have every reason to believe I’m right. Sure I could be wrong, but gravity could reverse itself in the next 30 seconds also, that doesn’t mean I’m going to spend the day standing on my head.

      I disagree completely, I know that on many occasions I have decided spontaneously to do something.

      You Believe that on many occasions. You’d have to define and prove free will before you could even approach making that statement. Also the organism that you call you, your higher brain functions and judgments exist on top other animal brain types, from lizard up through chimp. You seriously misunderstand the neurological nature of the typical human animal. You really need to understand the concept of an illusion.

      you didn’t appear to be comprehending the others who apparently gave up trying.

      Heh, no room for me being right? Now how’s being closed minded. I’m not going to play he said she said. I’ve crushed the point because it’s as frail as a snow flake. It’s a flimsy self serving justification to absolve people of even thinking about real problems or the suffering of the people who have to work to death to keep them in their current style of life.

      Emotion is beyond willful control, period. The end. If you wish to choose to ignore the nature of the brain the logical problems of free will the nature of physics and the vast body of knowledge amassed by the medical community on mood disorders that’s your business. The arguments are made they have yet to be answered.

      are you telling me that there are people that don’t understand the physical differences between the genders??

      Google. Wiki. I’m telling you the most significant component to gender goes beyond the reproductive hardware. Are you seriously so sheltered you’ve never heard of a woman trapped in a man’s body or vice versa? I guess that’s what happens when you grow up on a steady diet of TV and public school.

      How exactly are you defining option?

      Option: A potential action to take or a potential solution to a given problem. the existence of hidden options is why we bother having science. If all the options were immediately visible then we wouldn’t even need language.

      I would consider a threat as being strong enough to affect life, limb or long term happiness.

      There are emotional threats as well. We routinely coddle our fears and jealousies with policy decisions for example.

      they want to make sure the other person suffers the same pain. I wouldn’t call that attempting to control the past

      You make my point for me. It’s a stop gap, they attempt to add pain to the current side of the equation to balance their pain on the other side. It’s the only way people know of to reach into the past. They’re changing the character of the event from an injustice to a tragedy, from a murder into a hurricane. Something they can move past because now they know it’s utterly beyond further control.

      There are interesting studies about happiness and options, check out TED talks on the subject of happiness.

      I never brought up religion

      Various beliefs you’ve shared are akin to religion. No amount of data is going to change your mind on some subjects.

      For example you think governments define entitlement rather than seeing it as a primary. human rights aren’t human rights because uncle sam says so.

      human nature is such that belief in entitlement leads directly to ruin.

      That’s the most ignorant thing you’ve said in this “debate”. Our tribal nature which is founded on entitlement is the whole reason we survived the ice age. We believe that humans generally deserve certain considerations by default, that’s the essence of the social contract.

      Compassion is why we’re still alive and there simply is no excuse for thinking otherwise. I personally know hundreds of people who are alive today only because I believe they by default have a right to live.

      It’s too inclined to warp them, IMO.

      And the irony meter explodes. You’re the one demanding that we train them like slaves to fit in. Every item on my list is designed to make children resistant to warpage and tampering. You have a very specific goal in mind for children and it has nothing to do with their freedom until AFTER they’ve turned out like you expect.

      I’m not aware of how “just” is mythical, its only a word I used to connect parts of the sentence.

      It’s a word you’re using to imply that some actions occur spontaneously without cause because the causes crush your arguments and undermine your self serving positions.

  67. I am sure it has been said somewhere in these comments but, at 57 I found a lot of truth here. And I find the title ironic cause I still don’t know what I want to be when I grow up. We all learn as we move forward, we just process it differently.
    Take care dude

    1. My dad tells me a story about career choice that I’m sure barring heavy brain damage will stick with me till the end of my days.

      He was asked by a teacher as a child what he wanted to be when he grew up, and his answer was “silly.” That is probably the wisest thing I’ve ever heard anyone say.

      Not knowing where you are going leaves you open to discover wonderful things.

      I’m glad you liked the list, I appreciate you speaking up about it.

      Have a great day. 🙂

  68. My dad tells me a story about career choice that I’m sure barring heavy brain damage will stick with me till the end of my days.

    He was asked by a teacher as a child what he wanted to be when he grew up, and his answer was “silly.” That is probably the wisest thing I’ve ever heard anyone say.

    Not knowing where you are going leaves you open to discover wonderful things.

    I’m glad you liked the list, I appreciate you speaking up about it.

    Have a great day. 🙂

  69. @Innomen
    I was going to chastise you for so diligently replying to all the mind-numbing inanity with which many of your readers are objecting to your thoughtful commentary on the irrational and detrimental mores of mainstream society, but I thought I’d come off less spiteful if I expressed my judgment using a self referential semantic.

    really though, great list, and even better defense of said list. I’m tempted to join in the defense of the very true and very liberating #12 but I don’t really have the time or mental agility to construct a satisfactory argument. Besides I’d probably be redundant in light of your own expounding.

    Anyway, I don’t want to even think about what my life might have been like if I had been raised by people who understood truths listed above. Thanks for taking the time to accumulate and post it.

    Also, I’ve been reading a bit of the rest of your blog and I’m enamored with your brilliant and eloquent prose. Props

  70. @Innomen
    I was going to chastise you for so diligently replying to all the mind-numbing inanity with which many of your readers are objecting to your thoughtful commentary on the irrational and detrimental mores of mainstream society, but I thought I’d come off less spiteful if I expressed my judgment using a self referential semantic.

    really though, great list, and even better defense of said list. I’m tempted to join in the defense of the very true and very liberating #12 but I don’t really have the time or mental agility to construct a satisfactory argument. Besides I’d probably be redundant in light of your own expounding.

    Anyway, I don’t want to even think about what my life might have been like if I had been raised by people who understood truths listed above. Thanks for taking the time to accumulate and post it.

    Also, I’ve been reading a bit of the rest of your blog and I’m enamored with your brilliant and eloquent prose. Props

  71. @Jack

    I’m flat out humbled by your expression of support. And I’m also pleasantly surprised. As you can see I get a fair bit of hate, and while the ratio is improving of late wheven I see that I have comments to moderate (which I do only to assure response and lack of spam)I mentally prepare myself for a hate rant.

    To get such glowing (and well spoken I might add) praise is a breath of fresh air after climbing free of the sewer.

    Thank you, and I’m glad you enjoyed what you’ve read.

    P.S. Even if you think you’d fail, feel free to chime in with defenses. Even if it is a duplication of effort, you may clarify something by saying it in a different way.

    That reluctantly must also go to my detractors as well, in the interests of fairness and intellectual honesty. Redundant messages from either side my be ignored but they will always be posted and will never be censored.

  72. @Jack

    I’m flat out humbled by your expression of support. And I’m also pleasantly surprised. As you can see I get a fair bit of hate, and while the ratio is improving of late wheven I see that I have comments to moderate (which I do only to assure response and lack of spam)I mentally prepare myself for a hate rant.

    To get such glowing (and well spoken I might add) praise is a breath of fresh air after climbing free of the sewer.

    Thank you, and I’m glad you enjoyed what you’ve read.

    P.S. Even if you think you’d fail, feel free to chime in with defenses. Even if it is a duplication of effort, you may clarify something by saying it in a different way.

    That reluctantly must also go to my detractors as well, in the interests of fairness and intellectual honesty. Redundant messages from either side my be ignored but they will always be posted and will never be censored.

  73. This is wonderful!
    You’ve gotten people to thinking about the consequences of what is said and/or done to the youngest of our people.
    They ARE People, too! So many forget that and treat them like a more intelligent pet that has to be ‘trained’!!! No one would ever admit to nor want to be treated like a pet after being respected as a person.
    When it comes to our youngest people, it is so apropos: “reap what you sow”.
    Innomen, you are a shinning example of that and what it means to be a Modern Day Knight. Aside from the references to the pretend-friend/deity the sacred oaths of combat were combined with the ideals of chivalry and with strict rules of etiquette and conduct. Some of which you hold as ‘sacred’: Charity, Justice, Sagacity, Prudence, Temperance, Resolution, Truth, Liberality, Diligence, Hope and Valor. Jack is right to give you props on your eloquence and brilliance at defending your position without, I must add, malice.

  74. This is wonderful!
    You’ve gotten people to thinking about the consequences of what is said and/or done to the youngest of our people.
    They ARE People, too! So many forget that and treat them like a more intelligent pet that has to be ‘trained’!!! No one would ever admit to nor want to be treated like a pet after being respected as a person.
    When it comes to our youngest people, it is so apropos: “reap what you sow”.
    Innomen, you are a shinning example of that and what it means to be a Modern Day Knight. Aside from the references to the pretend-friend/deity the sacred oaths of combat were combined with the ideals of chivalry and with strict rules of etiquette and conduct. Some of which you hold as ‘sacred’: Charity, Justice, Sagacity, Prudence, Temperance, Resolution, Truth, Liberality, Diligence, Hope and Valor. Jack is right to give you props on your eloquence and brilliance at defending your position without, I must add, malice.

  75. There is a REASON why we fight wars!
    we dont just go to other countries and kill people for the hell of it! or out of the coldness of our hearts.
    there is a reason. plus, its not like we dragged our troops over there. they volunteered! so stop saying bring the troops home.
    damn

    1. @ned

      Yeah and that reason 99 times out of 100 is a half truth or an outright lie. And don’t feed me that crap about volunteering either. The VAST majority of army recruits come from low income areas. Don’t act like they signed up out of patriotic duty. The bulk of them sign up trying to escape from poverty.

      They are lured in with lies about on the job training and education funding or they simply have families to take care of and no other jobs are available. And once they’re in they don’t get to leave at will. Sometimes they don’t even get to leave when they were told they’d get to leave. Do your research before you open your mouth.

      And whats this WE shit? Are you telling me you’ve carried a rifle? Or do you just watch a lot of fox news and have an extensive ribbon collection?

      Our soldiers deserve to die for something more noble than stock prices and profit margins. Eisenhower warned us about this shit and I’m quite sure you have no idea what he was talking about because we ignored his warning.

  76. There is a REASON why we fight wars!
    we dont just go to other countries and kill people for the hell of it! or out of the coldness of our hearts.
    there is a reason. plus, its not like we dragged our troops over there. they volunteered! so stop saying bring the troops home.
    damn

    1. @ned

      Yeah and that reason 99 times out of 100 is a half truth or an outright lie. And don’t feed me that crap about volunteering either. The VAST majority of army recruits come from low income areas. Don’t act like they signed up out of patriotic duty. The bulk of them sign up trying to escape from poverty.

      They are lured in with lies about on the job training and education funding or they simply have families to take care of and no other jobs are available. And once they’re in they don’t get to leave at will. Sometimes they don’t even get to leave when they were told they’d get to leave. Do your research before you open your mouth.

      And whats this WE shit? Are you telling me you’ve carried a rifle? Or do you just watch a lot of fox news and have an extensive ribbon collection?

      Our soldiers deserve to die for something more noble than stock prices and profit margins. Eisenhower warned us about this shit and I’m quite sure you have no idea what he was talking about because we ignored his warning.

  77. As a mother who homeschools, I think this list would make a great subject (Life 101, possibly). Maybe I could make each one a lesson and find examples in history or films. If you do expound on your list I could incorporate your blog.

    Reading the comments on here solidifies my decision to keep my daughter out of American public schools. I do not want her to become like many of the automatons that seem to disagree with this post.

    I get perpetual guff from others for teaching my daughter to be independent and understanding of others. They say she is unruly, disrespectful to adults, weird, has ADHD, etc. The truth is, I promote independent thinking and imagination. I tell her she can say “No”. I do not censor the world in which she lives. I do not force her to hang out in a room with kids her age who have the same background financially and culturally and tell her she is learning about the “real world”.

    They also look down on the fact that she spends a majority of her time with adults. “She needs to hang out with kids her age.” Why so she can learn that babies come from storks or that hitting is a legitimate argument? Not that it’s those kid’s faults for thinking like that, obviously the parents implant these ideas in their head. I just don’t want my daughter to be forced to hang out with these ignoramuses if she doesn’t care to. I completely understand why she prefers the company of adults.

    This post made me feel like I wasn’t alone and that there are many people out there that see the importance in thinking logically and having an understanding of philosophy, psychology and how the brain functions.

    Anyway, I really enjoyed this post and I’m going to check out the rest of your blog now.

    I love stumble!

    1. @Shay

      That you would even consider incorporating any of my work into the body of knowledge you see as fit for your child’s primary education is perhaps the greatest achievement my work has yet earned.

      You have deeply humbled and flattered me.

      I will most certainly step up the time table on my plans to expound on and greater explain each entry.

      If you would like to collaborate on the structure and form the expansion should take I’m open to suggestions.

      I threw the list together in a single day, minus the 5 or so stragglers, and the later minor edits, so it has no organization.

      From what you’ve told me it sounds like your (in the associative not the possessive tense) child is being well prepared for actual life. You’re doing a grand service to her, yourself and to the future.

      Bravo.

      Edit: If you’re going to look at my other work, check this out.

      http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=558 It’s called “New School” and I think it’s relevant.

  78. As a mother who homeschools, I think this list would make a great subject (Life 101, possibly). Maybe I could make each one a lesson and find examples in history or films. If you do expound on your list I could incorporate your blog.

    Reading the comments on here solidifies my decision to keep my daughter out of American public schools. I do not want her to become like many of the automatons that seem to disagree with this post.

    I get perpetual guff from others for teaching my daughter to be independent and understanding of others. They say she is unruly, disrespectful to adults, weird, has ADHD, etc. The truth is, I promote independent thinking and imagination. I tell her she can say “No”. I do not censor the world in which she lives. I do not force her to hang out in a room with kids her age who have the same background financially and culturally and tell her she is learning about the “real world”.

    They also look down on the fact that she spends a majority of her time with adults. “She needs to hang out with kids her age.” Why so she can learn that babies come from storks or that hitting is a legitimate argument? Not that it’s those kid’s faults for thinking like that, obviously the parents implant these ideas in their head. I just don’t want my daughter to be forced to hang out with these ignoramuses if she doesn’t care to. I completely understand why she prefers the company of adults.

    This post made me feel like I wasn’t alone and that there are many people out there that see the importance in thinking logically and having an understanding of philosophy, psychology and how the brain functions.

    Anyway, I really enjoyed this post and I’m going to check out the rest of your blog now.

    I love stumble!

    1. @Shay

      That you would even consider incorporating any of my work into the body of knowledge you see as fit for your child’s primary education is perhaps the greatest achievement my work has yet earned.

      You have deeply humbled and flattered me.

      I will most certainly step up the time table on my plans to expound on and greater explain each entry.

      If you would like to collaborate on the structure and form the expansion should take I’m open to suggestions.

      I threw the list together in a single day, minus the 5 or so stragglers, and the later minor edits, so it has no organization.

      From what you’ve told me it sounds like your (in the associative not the possessive tense) child is being well prepared for actual life. You’re doing a grand service to her, yourself and to the future.

      Bravo.

      Edit: If you’re going to look at my other work, check this out.

      http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=558 It’s called “New School” and I think it’s relevant.

  79. #9 is both wrong, and a false dichotomy. Competition is what ensures actual quality, and certainly does not preclude cooperation.
    EX: In soviet russia, there was only one car company. Their cars were crappy, in extremely limited supply, and it took more than HALF A DECADE for anyone who ordered one to get one.
    Why? Because a monopoly existed. Cooperation is a good thing-in moderation
    If no one’s competing with you, then no one is THREATENING the status quo. This is called stagnation, and has a horrible, horrible impact on society

    1. @inigo

      Competition in the context of innovation is actually the suppression of cooperation, via law. Innovation is the cooperation of many humans against a common problem. Monopoly is a result of competition of humans against each other and one person or group preventing the formation of competitors. This attitude is caused by the ethic of competition itself, not cured by it.

      The entire Soviet state was the result of global competition between between nations. We have no way of knowing what planet Russia would have looked like beyond the competing propaganda of the USA and the USSR, 1984 and Utopia respectivly. I fully understand what you are trying to say but in my opinion you’ve misunderstood the originating elements and the scale of my contention.

      I think you’re making the common mistake of equating competition with diversity. Ironically I feel that it is you who are afflicted with a false dichotomy, that of stagnation or competition. Perhaps not so clearly, the two can exist simultaneously. Ironically, Orwell’s 1984, itself an indictment of communism, explored how the attitudes and social systems necessarily spawned by competition can result in horrific cyclic stagnation; “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.”

      The competition therein is the illusory one between the three states which was set up to facilitate the real one between human nature and the the state. Oceania is competition taken to its logical extreme. It’s what happens when a system based on total competition finally produces a winner.

      The important question is, do we want that winner to think like you or think like me? Do we want a winner who got there by competition without understanding what competition is beyond an axiomatic dogma “competition is good,” one who sees diversity as a threat? Or do we want that system, thing, or person to think like me and see diversity as an opportunity to learn and improve quality of life? Should we compete and annihilate each other’s effort or should we work together for the good of us both?

      In the context of your objection, my definition of cooperation, is your definition of competition between humanity and problems. We both apparently understand that in diversity and freedom there is strength. But that is not competition in and of itself. What you mean by competition is in effect using contests to achieve a specific goal, human advancement, and I couldn’t agree more with the goal being that I’m human. I’m simply issuing a warning about the dangers of deifying the method while losing sight of the goal.

      We (dangerously) fail to recognize that, and as a result elevate the tradition and stopgap of competition to the level of axiomatic dogma. Competition as root good, in and of itself, to the point of creating it when none is or need be present, as with sports and war, and arbitrary hierarchical command structures in synthetic environments.

      In short we no longer need to be tricked into evolving like a dog and his medicine buried in a treat, which is what natural selection is; competition between discrete biological elements for the purposes of advancing the cellular and organizational technology of the entire system with the solitary goal of keeping it alive. Evolution, like competition, is in fact a means to an end. And I submit that once intelligence is applied to that system and willful planning and execution of those plans via the simulations of thought and imagination enter the fray, competition and it’s logical extension, natural selection, become liabilities.

      This I why I am a transhumanist. I don’t want my descendants to be viruses.

      Indeed humanity’s cyclic competitive future has long been feared. Two examples that spring to mind of this are the movie Idiocracy, which explores the devaluation of intellect in the face of natural selection’s demands, and Einstein’s classic warning about the technology of war. “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” which would seem the begging of a loop.

      Competition ultimately leads to the death of intelligence, one way or another. Fittest is not always best, it is simply fittest. In the context of natural selection fittest often leads to the over glorification of the only traits required for propagation, this leads to absurd and soul crushing over specialization throughout the biological world, from the tunicate that eats its own brain, to the mayfly, to the virus. Lethality and durability, in a cosmos that clearly contains sentient beings are not the chief virtues a life form can attain yet they are the only ones selected for in a system based on competition.

      A more sociological example is how money and sex appeal are selected for while other some would call more important human traits are neglected in competitive human mating systems. (Paris Hilton?) for the record, in my opinion, eugenics and monogamy are two sides of the same coin. We need a new currency.

      Competition in the long term is a threat to evolution in the human improvement sense of the word. It leads to insects and stagnation on a scale beyond the framework of your argument. Or put another way you aren’t looking at the big picture.

      I hope this clarified my position.

  80. #9 is both wrong, and a false dichotomy. Competition is what ensures actual quality, and certainly does not preclude cooperation.
    EX: In soviet russia, there was only one car company. Their cars were crappy, in extremely limited supply, and it took more than HALF A DECADE for anyone who ordered one to get one.
    Why? Because a monopoly existed. Cooperation is a good thing-in moderation
    If no one’s competing with you, then no one is THREATENING the status quo. This is called stagnation, and has a horrible, horrible impact on society

    1. @inigo

      Competition in the context of innovation is actually the suppression of cooperation, via law. Innovation is the cooperation of many humans against a common problem. Monopoly is a result of competition of humans against each other and one person or group preventing the formation of competitors. This attitude is caused by the ethic of competition itself, not cured by it.

      The entire Soviet state was the result of global competition between between nations. We have no way of knowing what planet Russia would have looked like beyond the competing propaganda of the USA and the USSR, 1984 and Utopia respectivly. I fully understand what you are trying to say but in my opinion you’ve misunderstood the originating elements and the scale of my contention.

      I think you’re making the common mistake of equating competition with diversity. Ironically I feel that it is you who are afflicted with a false dichotomy, that of stagnation or competition. Perhaps not so clearly, the two can exist simultaneously. Ironically, Orwell’s 1984, itself an indictment of communism, explored how the attitudes and social systems necessarily spawned by competition can result in horrific cyclic stagnation; “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.”

      The competition therein is the illusory one between the three states which was set up to facilitate the real one between human nature and the the state. Oceania is competition taken to its logical extreme. It’s what happens when a system based on total competition finally produces a winner.

      The important question is, do we want that winner to think like you or think like me? Do we want a winner who got there by competition without understanding what competition is beyond an axiomatic dogma “competition is good,” one who sees diversity as a threat? Or do we want that system, thing, or person to think like me and see diversity as an opportunity to learn and improve quality of life? Should we compete and annihilate each other’s effort or should we work together for the good of us both?

      In the context of your objection, my definition of cooperation, is your definition of competition between humanity and problems. We both apparently understand that in diversity and freedom there is strength. But that is not competition in and of itself. What you mean by competition is in effect using contests to achieve a specific goal, human advancement, and I couldn’t agree more with the goal being that I’m human. I’m simply issuing a warning about the dangers of deifying the method while losing sight of the goal.

      We (dangerously) fail to recognize that, and as a result elevate the tradition and stopgap of competition to the level of axiomatic dogma. Competition as root good, in and of itself, to the point of creating it when none is or need be present, as with sports and war, and arbitrary hierarchical command structures in synthetic environments.

      In short we no longer need to be tricked into evolving like a dog and his medicine buried in a treat, which is what natural selection is; competition between discrete biological elements for the purposes of advancing the cellular and organizational technology of the entire system with the solitary goal of keeping it alive. Evolution, like competition, is in fact a means to an end. And I submit that once intelligence is applied to that system and willful planning and execution of those plans via the simulations of thought and imagination enter the fray, competition and it’s logical extension, natural selection, become liabilities.

      This I why I am a transhumanist. I don’t want my descendants to be viruses.

      Indeed humanity’s cyclic competitive future has long been feared. Two examples that spring to mind of this are the movie Idiocracy, which explores the devaluation of intellect in the face of natural selection’s demands, and Einstein’s classic warning about the technology of war. “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” which would seem the begging of a loop.

      Competition ultimately leads to the death of intelligence, one way or another. Fittest is not always best, it is simply fittest. In the context of natural selection fittest often leads to the over glorification of the only traits required for propagation, this leads to absurd and soul crushing over specialization throughout the biological world, from the tunicate that eats its own brain, to the mayfly, to the virus. Lethality and durability, in a cosmos that clearly contains sentient beings are not the chief virtues a life form can attain yet they are the only ones selected for in a system based on competition.

      A more sociological example is how money and sex appeal are selected for while other some would call more important human traits are neglected in competitive human mating systems. (Paris Hilton?) for the record, in my opinion, eugenics and monogamy are two sides of the same coin. We need a new currency.

      Competition in the long term is a threat to evolution in the human improvement sense of the word. It leads to insects and stagnation on a scale beyond the framework of your argument. Or put another way you aren’t looking at the big picture.

      I hope this clarified my position.

  81. You forgot the very important Rule #66: Somebody has to work at McDonald’s.

    And as a member of the American military I have to comment on the “I want you” pic. It makes me fairly uncomfortable when people call me a hero. I haven’t done anything heroic. Well, I tackled a purse snatcher in a dark alley one time, but that was long before I enlisted.

    Keep up the good work.

    1. @Dogmeat

      Well on behalf of the purse owner, thank you. Sadly the military consumes people like you and tries to turn them into flag waving weapons. I’m pleased to see you retained your self image. The attitude of doing good for its own sake often does not survive the indoctrination of heroism where in you learn to accept the definition of what constitutes good from your “superiors”.

      I’m not sure if you meant #66 seriously or not but some do, so I’ll answer briefly for the record.

      The structure of society does indeed demand wage slaves, but I’d be willing to forgo McDonald’s existence if if meant no wage slaves. Since others would not, and that’s sidestepping the issue, I have two answers.

      1. Robots. Nuff said.

      2. http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm

      It is ethically urgent that we struggle to innovate slavery and drudgery out of existence either technologically or socially.

      Indeed I say we take it a step further and delete as another other than concepts both suffering and death.

      Edit: I don’t know what I was intending to type in the sentence above but obviously I screwed up. I use a hotkey spelling corrector and t makes corrections without informing me, I think one of my entries was broken and it replaced a few words with totally different words (that actually happens a lot but it still saves me time over all)

      I imagine, knowing my opinions pretty well, and judging from context, that I was trying to say that in addition to wiping out drudgery and slavery we also wipe out suffering and death.

      ( http://www.hedweb.com/huxley/ and http://www.sens.org/ respectively )

  82. You forgot the very important Rule #66: Somebody has to work at McDonald’s.

    And as a member of the American military I have to comment on the “I want you” pic. It makes me fairly uncomfortable when people call me a hero. I haven’t done anything heroic. Well, I tackled a purse snatcher in a dark alley one time, but that was long before I enlisted.

    Keep up the good work.

    1. @Dogmeat

      Well on behalf of the purse owner, thank you. Sadly the military consumes people like you and tries to turn them into flag waving weapons. I’m pleased to see you retained your self image. The attitude of doing good for its own sake often does not survive the indoctrination of heroism where in you learn to accept the definition of what constitutes good from your “superiors”.

      I’m not sure if you meant #66 seriously or not but some do, so I’ll answer briefly for the record.

      The structure of society does indeed demand wage slaves, but I’d be willing to forgo McDonald’s existence if if meant no wage slaves. Since others would not, and that’s sidestepping the issue, I have two answers.

      1. Robots. Nuff said.

      2. http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm

      It is ethically urgent that we struggle to innovate slavery and drudgery out of existence either technologically or socially.

      Indeed I say we take it a step further and delete as another other than concepts both suffering and death.

      Edit: I don’t know what I was intending to type in the sentence above but obviously I screwed up. I use a hotkey spelling corrector and t makes corrections without informing me, I think one of my entries was broken and it replaced a few words with totally different words (that actually happens a lot but it still saves me time over all)

      I imagine, knowing my opinions pretty well, and judging from context, that I was trying to say that in addition to wiping out drudgery and slavery we also wipe out suffering and death.

      ( http://www.hedweb.com/huxley/ and http://www.sens.org/ respectively )

  83. You are a pompous a-hole,That needs to step into reality. Anyone taking a life meaning out of a friggin Star Wars episode exibits immaturity.You try to hide your lack of common sense with the use of obtuse and totally unneccesary verbage. Who are you trying to impress? It sounds to me like you had some issues when you were a child that have went unresolved.In my opinion your totally off base with your little list.And you probably will never understand real life until you come out and live it.

    1. @mark

      Where to begin?

      Do you have a specific objection?

      You are a pompous a-hole,That needs to step into reality.

      Being a pompous asshole doesn’t necessarily make me wrong.

      Anyone taking a life meaning out of a friggin Star Wars episode exibits immaturity.

      Did you mean Star Trek? Did it ever occur to you that someone may have taken a “life meaning” from some source you’d consider more acceptable and then injected it into Star Trek wherein I found it?

      If you can find no life meanings in your chosen media that says more about you than it does about me. Am I seriously to be scolded for choosing to consume entertainment that isn’t devoid of meaning? I suppose so in a society that lauds conformity above all else.

      You try to hide your lack of common sense with the use of obtuse and totally unneccesary verbage.

      “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” – Albert Einstein

      I don’t doubt I could say what I’m trying to say more simply, ironically that’s the point of this list, but I’d rather err on the side of elaboration when it comes time to explain myself if it preserves clarity. If you have a specific suggestion, please share it.

      On a personal note people have been asking me “why do you talk like that” my whole life. My answer is because I think like that. I assure you I’m not showing off. Indeed I’m rather self conscious of it. To the point that how I speak has grown rather different from how I type. But how I type is the more faithful recreation of my thought process.

      It might interest you to know that there has been speculation which I tend to agree with about me having aspergers, or something similar. And as such my verbiage could be construed as a symptom. Though I personally see it as a gift.

      Who are you trying to impress?

      No one. I do this for fun. It’s kind of like an unpaid career, or a religious thing for me. Why? Who are You trying to impress?

      It sounds to me like you had some issues when you were a child that have went unresolved.

      I’m sure. Again, I don’t have to be perfectly adjusted to have a point, that’s why attacking the messenger is a logically flawed argument. The validity of a claim is independent of its claimant. Unless of course the claim itself is about it’s claimant. But that’s a semantic trick.

      In my opinion your totally off base with your little list.

      That’s “you’re” and is my list really so little? And again, specifics. You surly don’t disagree with all of it. #14 for example? 🙂

      And you probably will never understand real life until you come out and live it.

      There is indeed knowledge to be found in experience, but I caution those of similar thinking to consider that one can also learn things via distance. There is such a thing as being too close to a problem, and objective detachment while not the end all be all of understanding is a useful tool.

      A good example is me not having to be a mother to know that the death of a child is something to be avoided.

      One could argue that the chief achievement of humanity is it’s ability to profit from conceptual mistakes, without having to actually go make them.

  84. You are a pompous a-hole,That needs to step into reality. Anyone taking a life meaning out of a friggin Star Wars episode exibits immaturity.You try to hide your lack of common sense with the use of obtuse and totally unneccesary verbage. Who are you trying to impress? It sounds to me like you had some issues when you were a child that have went unresolved.In my opinion your totally off base with your little list.And you probably will never understand real life until you come out and live it.

    1. @mark

      Where to begin?

      Do you have a specific objection?

      You are a pompous a-hole,That needs to step into reality.

      Being a pompous asshole doesn’t necessarily make me wrong.

      Anyone taking a life meaning out of a friggin Star Wars episode exibits immaturity.

      Did you mean Star Trek? Did it ever occur to you that someone may have taken a “life meaning” from some source you’d consider more acceptable and then injected it into Star Trek wherein I found it?

      If you can find no life meanings in your chosen media that says more about you than it does about me. Am I seriously to be scolded for choosing to consume entertainment that isn’t devoid of meaning? I suppose so in a society that lauds conformity above all else.

      You try to hide your lack of common sense with the use of obtuse and totally unneccesary verbage.

      “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” – Albert Einstein

      I don’t doubt I could say what I’m trying to say more simply, ironically that’s the point of this list, but I’d rather err on the side of elaboration when it comes time to explain myself if it preserves clarity. If you have a specific suggestion, please share it.

      On a personal note people have been asking me “why do you talk like that” my whole life. My answer is because I think like that. I assure you I’m not showing off. Indeed I’m rather self conscious of it. To the point that how I speak has grown rather different from how I type. But how I type is the more faithful recreation of my thought process.

      It might interest you to know that there has been speculation which I tend to agree with about me having aspergers, or something similar. And as such my verbiage could be construed as a symptom. Though I personally see it as a gift.

      Who are you trying to impress?

      No one. I do this for fun. It’s kind of like an unpaid career, or a religious thing for me. Why? Who are You trying to impress?

      It sounds to me like you had some issues when you were a child that have went unresolved.

      I’m sure. Again, I don’t have to be perfectly adjusted to have a point, that’s why attacking the messenger is a logically flawed argument. The validity of a claim is independent of its claimant. Unless of course the claim itself is about it’s claimant. But that’s a semantic trick.

      In my opinion your totally off base with your little list.

      That’s “you’re” and is my list really so little? And again, specifics. You surly don’t disagree with all of it. #14 for example? 🙂

      And you probably will never understand real life until you come out and live it.

      There is indeed knowledge to be found in experience, but I caution those of similar thinking to consider that one can also learn things via distance. There is such a thing as being too close to a problem, and objective detachment while not the end all be all of understanding is a useful tool.

      A good example is me not having to be a mother to know that the death of a child is something to be avoided.

      One could argue that the chief achievement of humanity is it’s ability to profit from conceptual mistakes, without having to actually go make them.

  85. Not that it has any relation to this post, but after reading your blog and responses I find myself interested in what you would do to change the shortcomings of our society. For example, as president would you tear down the system or attempt to resolve it using the current process. Just a thought…

    1. @observer

      Both. I would use the system to attempt to create a setting where it is no longer required.

      http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=663

      My first act as president would be to establish a system where by citizens could goto whitehouse.gov to propose and vote on new laws and the repeal of old laws. This system would have no official power of course but it would get people used to the process of direct democracy and I would do my best to make moderation transparent and democratic and as friendly to revolt as humanly possible. Which is the express purpose of many provisions in the USC. To enable revolt to keep government in line with the people’s wishes.

      When this system revealed overwhelming trends in public opinion I would then use executive orders to attempt to act on those edicts.

      The rest of the time I would do what I can to promote the development and distribution of disruptive technologies. And I would make it a personal priority to push for intellectual property reform at a fundamental level. (I love that I get to say this and mean it literally.) No more of the Mickey Mouse bullshit.

  86. Not that it has any relation to this post, but after reading your blog and responses I find myself interested in what you would do to change the shortcomings of our society. For example, as president would you tear down the system or attempt to resolve it using the current process. Just a thought…

    1. @observer

      Both. I would use the system to attempt to create a setting where it is no longer required.

      http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=663

      My first act as president would be to establish a system where by citizens could goto whitehouse.gov to propose and vote on new laws and the repeal of old laws. This system would have no official power of course but it would get people used to the process of direct democracy and I would do my best to make moderation transparent and democratic and as friendly to revolt as humanly possible. Which is the express purpose of many provisions in the USC. To enable revolt to keep government in line with the people’s wishes.

      When this system revealed overwhelming trends in public opinion I would then use executive orders to attempt to act on those edicts.

      The rest of the time I would do what I can to promote the development and distribution of disruptive technologies. And I would make it a personal priority to push for intellectual property reform at a fundamental level. (I love that I get to say this and mean it literally.) No more of the Mickey Mouse bullshit.

  87. In regards to # 1: no one chooses to be mean, I may have to disagree. In your defense of # 12 you have stated how emotions are separated from actions at the brains neo-cortex. In my opinion, being “mean” to someone is an action that an individual chooses to do. I recognize that the emotions that drive people to act the way that they do may not be able to be controlled by a person but their reaction is. Surly people who are in poor situations and therefore poor moods have a tendency to be more mean than those with good lives but ultimately it is a conscious choice of an individual to be mean to another.

    1. @observer

      Setting aside the possibility that a person is genuinely unaware that their actions are being interpreted as mean, and also setting aside situations where the actor is forced to choose between two or more mean acts we come up against what is essentially the crux of the nature of evil, which in turn is an argument of free will.

      I ask you, if you grant that emotional states are outside of control do you also grant that severity of an emotional state is equally free from constraint? I’m going to assume your answer is yes, feel free to correct me. That said, do you believe that emotional reactions at certain severities become overwhelming, again I’m going to assume yes.

      Your contention that people chose to act mean begs the question of what do you mean by mean and what do you mean by choose. If a person chooses to be cruel for no rational reason, could that be evidence of their character? If their character demands that they act cruelly was their character their choice? Or is character an aggregate state formed by the culmination of choices they’ve previously made, in short do choices give rise to character or does character influence choice?

      I’ve come to the conclusion that no matter how you look at it there is no genuine control, merely layers of influence. Your will can tip the scales of action but ultimately since emotion is the source of all motivation, and rationality is simply the calculations of the the rational mind as how to best act on those motivations, there is no hard and fast control.

      This is why axioms of ethics are so important. As with chaos, there is an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions here, which is why this list is aimed at children and why the state is so oppressive towards them.

      Cruelty is by and large the logical outcome of setting some other value statement above statements pertaining to the most good for the most people is the best thing. If you somehow lose sight of the importance of the suffering of others, if you find a way to justify your pleasure costing twice as much pain, then you are wrong in my view.

      But that being said, it’s still not a choice for these people. At no point did anyone wake up and say “I’m going to do the most harm I can today” even terrorists or serial killers with destructive goals are working towards some internal notion of best. It’s just that their definition of best has been corrupted in some way. Mental illness, chemical imbalance, or flawed ideology.

      That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop them if we can, I’m just saying we need to abandon notions of punishment as some kind of righteous duty, and focus on the goal which is obviously the prevention of mean behavior if at all possible. Preferably by removing the motivation to be mean, to understand what meanness is, its antecedents, its mechanisms, and balance our desire to crush meanness with the rights of even the most mean individual.

      I hope this helped hehe.

  88. In regards to # 1: no one chooses to be mean, I may have to disagree. In your defense of # 12 you have stated how emotions are separated from actions at the brains neo-cortex. In my opinion, being “mean” to someone is an action that an individual chooses to do. I recognize that the emotions that drive people to act the way that they do may not be able to be controlled by a person but their reaction is. Surly people who are in poor situations and therefore poor moods have a tendency to be more mean than those with good lives but ultimately it is a conscious choice of an individual to be mean to another.

    1. @observer

      Setting aside the possibility that a person is genuinely unaware that their actions are being interpreted as mean, and also setting aside situations where the actor is forced to choose between two or more mean acts we come up against what is essentially the crux of the nature of evil, which in turn is an argument of free will.

      I ask you, if you grant that emotional states are outside of control do you also grant that severity of an emotional state is equally free from constraint? I’m going to assume your answer is yes, feel free to correct me. That said, do you believe that emotional reactions at certain severities become overwhelming, again I’m going to assume yes.

      Your contention that people chose to act mean begs the question of what do you mean by mean and what do you mean by choose. If a person chooses to be cruel for no rational reason, could that be evidence of their character? If their character demands that they act cruelly was their character their choice? Or is character an aggregate state formed by the culmination of choices they’ve previously made, in short do choices give rise to character or does character influence choice?

      I’ve come to the conclusion that no matter how you look at it there is no genuine control, merely layers of influence. Your will can tip the scales of action but ultimately since emotion is the source of all motivation, and rationality is simply the calculations of the the rational mind as how to best act on those motivations, there is no hard and fast control.

      This is why axioms of ethics are so important. As with chaos, there is an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions here, which is why this list is aimed at children and why the state is so oppressive towards them.

      Cruelty is by and large the logical outcome of setting some other value statement above statements pertaining to the most good for the most people is the best thing. If you somehow lose sight of the importance of the suffering of others, if you find a way to justify your pleasure costing twice as much pain, then you are wrong in my view.

      But that being said, it’s still not a choice for these people. At no point did anyone wake up and say “I’m going to do the most harm I can today” even terrorists or serial killers with destructive goals are working towards some internal notion of best. It’s just that their definition of best has been corrupted in some way. Mental illness, chemical imbalance, or flawed ideology.

      That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop them if we can, I’m just saying we need to abandon notions of punishment as some kind of righteous duty, and focus on the goal which is obviously the prevention of mean behavior if at all possible. Preferably by removing the motivation to be mean, to understand what meanness is, its antecedents, its mechanisms, and balance our desire to crush meanness with the rights of even the most mean individual.

      I hope this helped hehe.

  89. This list is superb, thank you. a lot of the ideas listed i have always held to be true, the others i guess i had never thought about haha. I really hope this someday becomes a household list, it would definitely do the world some good. Also some of the comments made make me a bit nauseated…

    1. @Luis

      Don’t be too hard on the haters. I like to think I’ve shown pretty clearly that they can’t help it. Best just to be aware of them and use that awareness to minimize the damage they do to themselves and others.

      One good thing about the mind is it never stops working on new data. I suspect some of the haters won’t be so hateful in a year’s time.

      Thanks for your comment and your support, it’s always welcome.

  90. This list is superb, thank you. a lot of the ideas listed i have always held to be true, the others i guess i had never thought about haha. I really hope this someday becomes a household list, it would definitely do the world some good. Also some of the comments made make me a bit nauseated…

    1. @Luis

      Don’t be too hard on the haters. I like to think I’ve shown pretty clearly that they can’t help it. Best just to be aware of them and use that awareness to minimize the damage they do to themselves and others.

      One good thing about the mind is it never stops working on new data. I suspect some of the haters won’t be so hateful in a year’s time.

      Thanks for your comment and your support, it’s always welcome.

  91. I agree with many of the points presented but i find it interesting that one man has decided that this is what kids “should” know. What is it that allows one person to decide what millions of human beings “should” do.

    1. @smith

      Setting aside that fact that “should know” and “should do” are Radically different concepts, my answer to your question is one of my own. Why is the fact that there is only one of me relevant? #17. Reality is not a democracy. Either I’m right or I’m not about any given claim.

      If I’m right, then these items become facts, very important facts, at which point it seems silly to attack my contention that these facts should be known. Doubly so when that attack is one of what, propriety and etiquette?

      One could just as absurdly ask how dare one astronomer presume to tell all children how the solar system works.

      My list may not contain genius along the lines of “oh by the way the earth moves around the sun, not vice versa” but I can say with conviction if I had read this list when I was say 10, I’d be a LOT better off now. Even if I disagreed, I’d have been exposed to important concepts. And it would have taken like 10 minutes.

      You may not have meant your comment in that way or this, but here is what I read, in effect, in your comment. “How dare you suggest that children are people and have rights?” So if my reaction is more intense than expected, that’s why.

      I’m not forcing this on anyone.

      Let me make it crystal clear that I wrote this for children to find on their own. I did not title this post “things parents should force their children to read” because that’s not what I want. The surest way to kill a child’s interest in a topic is to force it on him. That’s the genius of making high school seniors read 1984. It makes them more pliant workers because suddenly thoughts of revolt and oppression remind them of book reports and they instead focus on skirts and cars.

      What gives me the right, the audacity, to think I have something to offer all children is that I was once a child and unlike the VAST majority of adults I do not see them as property to be sculpted. I don’t care what they choose to do or what to be in and of itself so long as that choice is an informed one. I see them as individuals to be equipped and released.

      By informed I do not mean “choose what I want you to choose or you prove yourself ignorant” which is again what the vast majority of adults mean when they speak of children and their right to make choices.

      If you have an objection to a given item, on any level please do say something. I’m more than willing to defend my contentions. I hope my comments and responses thus far show that my defense is rational and fair. My point being I’m not going to cheat.

  92. I agree with many of the points presented but i find it interesting that one man has decided that this is what kids “should” know. What is it that allows one person to decide what millions of human beings “should” do.

    1. @smith

      Setting aside that fact that “should know” and “should do” are Radically different concepts, my answer to your question is one of my own. Why is the fact that there is only one of me relevant? #17. Reality is not a democracy. Either I’m right or I’m not about any given claim.

      If I’m right, then these items become facts, very important facts, at which point it seems silly to attack my contention that these facts should be known. Doubly so when that attack is one of what, propriety and etiquette?

      One could just as absurdly ask how dare one astronomer presume to tell all children how the solar system works.

      My list may not contain genius along the lines of “oh by the way the earth moves around the sun, not vice versa” but I can say with conviction if I had read this list when I was say 10, I’d be a LOT better off now. Even if I disagreed, I’d have been exposed to important concepts. And it would have taken like 10 minutes.

      You may not have meant your comment in that way or this, but here is what I read, in effect, in your comment. “How dare you suggest that children are people and have rights?” So if my reaction is more intense than expected, that’s why.

      I’m not forcing this on anyone.

      Let me make it crystal clear that I wrote this for children to find on their own. I did not title this post “things parents should force their children to read” because that’s not what I want. The surest way to kill a child’s interest in a topic is to force it on him. That’s the genius of making high school seniors read 1984. It makes them more pliant workers because suddenly thoughts of revolt and oppression remind them of book reports and they instead focus on skirts and cars.

      What gives me the right, the audacity, to think I have something to offer all children is that I was once a child and unlike the VAST majority of adults I do not see them as property to be sculpted. I don’t care what they choose to do or what to be in and of itself so long as that choice is an informed one. I see them as individuals to be equipped and released.

      By informed I do not mean “choose what I want you to choose or you prove yourself ignorant” which is again what the vast majority of adults mean when they speak of children and their right to make choices.

      If you have an objection to a given item, on any level please do say something. I’m more than willing to defend my contentions. I hope my comments and responses thus far show that my defense is rational and fair. My point being I’m not going to cheat.

  93. Wow… I’m not even going to argue with any of you. I’m just going to say you all take yourselves waaaayyyy too seriously and you’re all a bunch liberal, politically-correct, hippie, “don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings,” faggots! And before you say anything, yes I know about “gender politics,” i just don’t give a shit! Teaching kids to be P.C. is going to cause more harm than anything because we will keep lowering our standards so that everyone fits in. Fuck fitting in… and fuck you!

    1. @wtf

      I tend to agree on the political correctness front. Honesty and equality should be the order of the day. I wish you had made a more detailed reply, you have a lot of passion obviously and that makes for a motivated debate.

      Your position on gender politics would seem ripe for dissection. For example you seem to reject the concept of fitting in, you’re obviously angry, you make no reference to your own gender, and you use “faggot” as a pejorative.

      It seems fairly obvious to me that you’re most likely a young sexually confused male in a fundamentalist or ultra right wing setting with absolutely no support and strict gender roles.

      And rather than grow despairing at that lack of support you’ve painted the support you could use as the enemy to tolerate its absence. Possibly because you resent it for not being at hand?

      You speak of high standards but I’m guessing you have first hand experience with impossible standards, or at least standards that are impossible for a person with gender issues.

      You clearly care deeply. I hope you decide to actually participate in the debate.

      Your comments won’t be censored so long as they have something to offer.

      I see resentment and pain when I look at your comment.

  94. Wow… I’m not even going to argue with any of you. I’m just going to say you all take yourselves waaaayyyy too seriously and you’re all a bunch liberal, politically-correct, hippie, “don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings,” faggots! And before you say anything, yes I know about “gender politics,” i just don’t give a shit! Teaching kids to be P.C. is going to cause more harm than anything because we will keep lowering our standards so that everyone fits in. Fuck fitting in… and fuck you!

    1. @wtf

      I tend to agree on the political correctness front. Honesty and equality should be the order of the day. I wish you had made a more detailed reply, you have a lot of passion obviously and that makes for a motivated debate.

      Your position on gender politics would seem ripe for dissection. For example you seem to reject the concept of fitting in, you’re obviously angry, you make no reference to your own gender, and you use “faggot” as a pejorative.

      It seems fairly obvious to me that you’re most likely a young sexually confused male in a fundamentalist or ultra right wing setting with absolutely no support and strict gender roles.

      And rather than grow despairing at that lack of support you’ve painted the support you could use as the enemy to tolerate its absence. Possibly because you resent it for not being at hand?

      You speak of high standards but I’m guessing you have first hand experience with impossible standards, or at least standards that are impossible for a person with gender issues.

      You clearly care deeply. I hope you decide to actually participate in the debate.

      Your comments won’t be censored so long as they have something to offer.

      I see resentment and pain when I look at your comment.

  95. Holy shit! My post didn’t get moderated! I guess I have to give you one point for not just deleting it. My reply was not more detailed because i was being flippant and never figured it would see the light of day.

    First of all, your picture of me is completely wrong; I am a male, but not at all confused about my sexuality. And I am definitely not in a “fundamentalist” or “ultra right-wing” setting: I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and am surrounded by liberals. This leads to the “obvious anger” of which you speak.

    Secondly, when I use the term “faggot,” I’m not referring to you as a derogatory term for homosexuals. I have many gay friends and they too, use the word “faggot” to describe someone that is ultra-liberal or just overly sensitive in general.

    Thirdly, I find your constant return to the subject of my sexuality/gender politics distracting and redundant. I feel like maybe you are the sexually confused male in this situation. Anyway, you say impossible standards like it’s a bad thing. Higher standards promote growth in our society and in our minds! What the fuck do we have to shoot for when not being hooked on crack and having a kid by the age of 17, is the most we can seem to hope for from our youth?! Straight A’s… Fuck that! We’re glad if you can speak English by the time you graduate high school! (Or get your G.E.D.)

    So to recap; I’m not gay or confused… but you might be. I’m surrounded by liberal “faggots” and that is why I’m angry. And our standards are way too low and nothing good will come of creating “equality” if we’re all dumb as shit and living in rubble.

    And yes, I do care deeply… I care deeply about one day having children and them having a world to grow up in where they won’t be brainwashed by the crazy, liberal, hippie-faggots or the possibly crazier right-wing christains. I guess really what I’m hoping for is a world where we are free to have our own opinions without having to be part of a group and people can keep their politics to themselves and stop trying to convert/recruit/brainwash everyone because they are insecure and want everyone to be like them!

    P.S. No resentment or pain… Just frustration.

    1. Holy shit! My post didn’t get moderated! I guess I have to give you one point for not just deleting it.

      My actual intellectual integrity is extremely valuable to me. I didn’t block your post because it had something to say, and now I’m rewarded for that integrity by a more serious response. Bravo.

      My reply was not more detailed because i was being flippant and never figured it would see the light of day.

      Heh, I’ve written letters that I never sent, I suppose this is the digital version. I’ve also written letters to the president which I know went straight to file 13. Same family of incident I suppose.

      First of all, your picture of me is completely wrong; I am a male, but not at all confused about my sexuality.

      Noted. But what is your reason for having such a low opinion of homosexuals? I have a theory given the new information.

      And I am definitely not in a “fundamentalist” or “ultra right-wing” setting: I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and am surrounded by liberals. This leads to the “obvious anger” of which you speak.

      Ahh so your issue is with overload, not underload. Not to be self serving but that’s pretty close in my mind, as I predicted an extreme setting, I just got the wrong end of the spectrum.

      Secondly, when I use the term “faggot,” I’m not referring to you as a derogatory term for homosexuals. I have many gay friends and they too, use the word “faggot” to describe someone that is ultra-liberal or just overly sensitive in general.

      When the term “gay” got it’s third meaning of synonym for bad, I fought it. I considered it unfair to associate gays or homosexuality with anything which is not good. I considered it another form of oppression or slur and while I may not be gay myself I am seriously a student of oppression and I am it’s sincere enemy.

      That being said, I don’t like your using the term faggot in this way, but I will grudgingly accept that it maybe a genuine use in your social circle and not just back pedaling. However let me say being flippant or not, I would bet that the vast majority of people reading your comment saw homosexual hate, and I will also add that coming from the south as I do, I’ve heard similar arguments fall from the lips of serious racists attempting to soften the definition of various slurs.

      Thirdly, I find your constant return to the subject of my sexuality/gender politics distracting and redundant.

      Considering the subject came up in a single comment perhaps “constant” is a bit misleading. I was citing multiple reasons for a single conclusion. One I can of course not prove. Nor can you disprove it I might add. I’m content to drop that line of attack completely because at best is exposes your motives, it has no impact however on your accuracy.

      I feel like maybe you are the sexually confused male in this situation.

      My sexuality is confusing but not along the lines of which gender I prefer, more what I want to do with them. I’ll spare you the details. If I were homosexual I would have zero motivation to hide it or even resent it. But again I can’t prove anything.

      Anyway, you say impossible standards like it’s a bad thing.

      I do. In my opinion they are. The point of a standard is something which should be met by all. An impossible standard is deceptive and callous. It’s a way of manipulating people because you for whatever reason are too weak or mean to approach them honestly. They are also often the product of projection. Like an obsessive parent setting absurd rules for their children to evade imagined enemies.

      Higher standards promote growth in our society and in our minds!

      Only if the same people that define the standards also define growth. You seem to have a lot of implicit trust in those placed by chance above us socially. I feel your vision of education is hopelessly naive. You’ve fallen into a false dichotomy trap. What people who make your argument fail to recognize is your higher standards were brutally enforced for a long time and that era in our history was no utopia. It gave rise to horrors we of this generation would typically have difficulty even imagining.

      And there was WAY less to know, and what was known was growing WAY slower.

      Further you are in effect advocating back slide. We can no more return to former methods of education than we can return to horse drawn carts. The demands on the system are completely different now. The whole concept of education needs to change. We already force people to spend up to half their lives preparing to live. Half!

      What happens when the amount of data available to humanity is doubled? You realize it’s expanding exponentially right? Who chooses what kids NEED to know? Why do they (the choosers) deserve that kind of power? Collective education is dying friend, because its habitat is dead. The world has moved on. Rail against it if you wish, it will change nothing except your survival chances.

      But if you want to discuss an actual solution, I have some ideas. The point isn’t test scores. The point is happiness and survival. Do you agree? Education to me is a means to an end.

      What the fuck do we have to shoot for when not being hooked on crack and having a kid by the age of 17, is the most we can seem to hope for from our youth?!

      But what if demanding more of them is counter productive? Can you say with conviction you’re well versed in why education changed direction in the first place? do you even know what education is actually for? Which is better, an empty school full of standards and principals or a full one full of sub par everything?

      Again, for me, it’s a false dichotomy. Both suck. A third option is needed. And it’s growing. In my opinion we need to teach kids how to teach themselves.

      Straight A’s… Fuck that! We’re glad if you can speak English by the time you graduate high school! (Or get your G.E.D.)

      You seem to equate test scores with intelligence, and you seem to think intelligence can be earned through work. Why? That view of the mind is simplistic and unrealistic in my opinion. Not everything can be learned by any given brain.

      So to recap; I’m not gay or confused… but you might be. I’m surrounded by liberal “faggots” and that is why I’m angry.

      With respect, I don’t think you know why you’re angry. I suspect you are generalizing and projecting a general frustration. But again, I can’t prove that and ultimately it doesn’t matter.

      And our standards are way too low and nothing good will come of creating “equality” if we’re all dumb as shit and living in rubble.

      Might I suggest you reconsider your enemy? What if the real cause of the problem has convinced you to blame the wrong group? Are you absolutely certain you’re blaming the right people? The right concepts? Rather than say what’s wrong, how about you examine history for the effects of what you think is right. The world has tried your hard nosed fuck the weak approach and time and again it fails, are you seriously going to makes excuses for every instance? At what point will you concede perhaps the concept itself is flawed to the point that you begin the search for a new class of solution?

      Ask yourself, what would it take to prove you wrong? If you can’t answer that you might be a fanatic.

      And yes, I do care deeply… I care deeply about one day having children and them having a world to grow up in where they won’t be brainwashed by the crazy, liberal, hippie-faggots or the possibly crazier right-wing christains.

      Might I suggest hoping for a world where they don’t need either? Let me suggest a somewhat outlandish alternative, but food for thought. Ants are born knowing how to walk manage a hive and how to speak the chemical language of ants. Horses are born knowing how to run, bees are born knowing the complicated dance communication system, birds are born with astounding amounts of complicated mating behavior. What if we could see to it children are born knowing how to read and write and speak?

      I guess really what I’m hoping for is a world where we are free to have our own opinions without having to be part of a group and people can keep their politics to themselves and stop trying to convert/recruit/brainwash everyone because they are insecure and want everyone to be like them!

      Excellent! Now that I can get behind. Not to toot my own horn but I’m pretty sure I know what’s causing the reverse and how to undo it. But if you’re more comfy being pissed and you already think you’ve got the answer, I might not have anything for you.

      P.S. No resentment or pain… Just frustration.

      I’m writing a book based on this list. This debate will be in it. When it’s done I’ll post a link to it here. If you’d give some of my work a chance I think you’ll find something useful. You might not agree with all of it of course, and feel free to comment when you don’t, but you should at last give it a chance.

  96. Holy shit! My post didn’t get moderated! I guess I have to give you one point for not just deleting it. My reply was not more detailed because i was being flippant and never figured it would see the light of day.

    First of all, your picture of me is completely wrong; I am a male, but not at all confused about my sexuality. And I am definitely not in a “fundamentalist” or “ultra right-wing” setting: I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and am surrounded by liberals. This leads to the “obvious anger” of which you speak.

    Secondly, when I use the term “faggot,” I’m not referring to you as a derogatory term for homosexuals. I have many gay friends and they too, use the word “faggot” to describe someone that is ultra-liberal or just overly sensitive in general.

    Thirdly, I find your constant return to the subject of my sexuality/gender politics distracting and redundant. I feel like maybe you are the sexually confused male in this situation. Anyway, you say impossible standards like it’s a bad thing. Higher standards promote growth in our society and in our minds! What the fuck do we have to shoot for when not being hooked on crack and having a kid by the age of 17, is the most we can seem to hope for from our youth?! Straight A’s… Fuck that! We’re glad if you can speak English by the time you graduate high school! (Or get your G.E.D.)

    So to recap; I’m not gay or confused… but you might be. I’m surrounded by liberal “faggots” and that is why I’m angry. And our standards are way too low and nothing good will come of creating “equality” if we’re all dumb as shit and living in rubble.

    And yes, I do care deeply… I care deeply about one day having children and them having a world to grow up in where they won’t be brainwashed by the crazy, liberal, hippie-faggots or the possibly crazier right-wing christains. I guess really what I’m hoping for is a world where we are free to have our own opinions without having to be part of a group and people can keep their politics to themselves and stop trying to convert/recruit/brainwash everyone because they are insecure and want everyone to be like them!

    P.S. No resentment or pain… Just frustration.

    1. Holy shit! My post didn’t get moderated! I guess I have to give you one point for not just deleting it.

      My actual intellectual integrity is extremely valuable to me. I didn’t block your post because it had something to say, and now I’m rewarded for that integrity by a more serious response. Bravo.

      My reply was not more detailed because i was being flippant and never figured it would see the light of day.

      Heh, I’ve written letters that I never sent, I suppose this is the digital version. I’ve also written letters to the president which I know went straight to file 13. Same family of incident I suppose.

      First of all, your picture of me is completely wrong; I am a male, but not at all confused about my sexuality.

      Noted. But what is your reason for having such a low opinion of homosexuals? I have a theory given the new information.

      And I am definitely not in a “fundamentalist” or “ultra right-wing” setting: I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and am surrounded by liberals. This leads to the “obvious anger” of which you speak.

      Ahh so your issue is with overload, not underload. Not to be self serving but that’s pretty close in my mind, as I predicted an extreme setting, I just got the wrong end of the spectrum.

      Secondly, when I use the term “faggot,” I’m not referring to you as a derogatory term for homosexuals. I have many gay friends and they too, use the word “faggot” to describe someone that is ultra-liberal or just overly sensitive in general.

      When the term “gay” got it’s third meaning of synonym for bad, I fought it. I considered it unfair to associate gays or homosexuality with anything which is not good. I considered it another form of oppression or slur and while I may not be gay myself I am seriously a student of oppression and I am it’s sincere enemy.

      That being said, I don’t like your using the term faggot in this way, but I will grudgingly accept that it maybe a genuine use in your social circle and not just back pedaling. However let me say being flippant or not, I would bet that the vast majority of people reading your comment saw homosexual hate, and I will also add that coming from the south as I do, I’ve heard similar arguments fall from the lips of serious racists attempting to soften the definition of various slurs.

      Thirdly, I find your constant return to the subject of my sexuality/gender politics distracting and redundant.

      Considering the subject came up in a single comment perhaps “constant” is a bit misleading. I was citing multiple reasons for a single conclusion. One I can of course not prove. Nor can you disprove it I might add. I’m content to drop that line of attack completely because at best is exposes your motives, it has no impact however on your accuracy.

      I feel like maybe you are the sexually confused male in this situation.

      My sexuality is confusing but not along the lines of which gender I prefer, more what I want to do with them. I’ll spare you the details. If I were homosexual I would have zero motivation to hide it or even resent it. But again I can’t prove anything.

      Anyway, you say impossible standards like it’s a bad thing.

      I do. In my opinion they are. The point of a standard is something which should be met by all. An impossible standard is deceptive and callous. It’s a way of manipulating people because you for whatever reason are too weak or mean to approach them honestly. They are also often the product of projection. Like an obsessive parent setting absurd rules for their children to evade imagined enemies.

      Higher standards promote growth in our society and in our minds!

      Only if the same people that define the standards also define growth. You seem to have a lot of implicit trust in those placed by chance above us socially. I feel your vision of education is hopelessly naive. You’ve fallen into a false dichotomy trap. What people who make your argument fail to recognize is your higher standards were brutally enforced for a long time and that era in our history was no utopia. It gave rise to horrors we of this generation would typically have difficulty even imagining.

      And there was WAY less to know, and what was known was growing WAY slower.

      Further you are in effect advocating back slide. We can no more return to former methods of education than we can return to horse drawn carts. The demands on the system are completely different now. The whole concept of education needs to change. We already force people to spend up to half their lives preparing to live. Half!

      What happens when the amount of data available to humanity is doubled? You realize it’s expanding exponentially right? Who chooses what kids NEED to know? Why do they (the choosers) deserve that kind of power? Collective education is dying friend, because its habitat is dead. The world has moved on. Rail against it if you wish, it will change nothing except your survival chances.

      But if you want to discuss an actual solution, I have some ideas. The point isn’t test scores. The point is happiness and survival. Do you agree? Education to me is a means to an end.

      What the fuck do we have to shoot for when not being hooked on crack and having a kid by the age of 17, is the most we can seem to hope for from our youth?!

      But what if demanding more of them is counter productive? Can you say with conviction you’re well versed in why education changed direction in the first place? do you even know what education is actually for? Which is better, an empty school full of standards and principals or a full one full of sub par everything?

      Again, for me, it’s a false dichotomy. Both suck. A third option is needed. And it’s growing. In my opinion we need to teach kids how to teach themselves.

      Straight A’s… Fuck that! We’re glad if you can speak English by the time you graduate high school! (Or get your G.E.D.)

      You seem to equate test scores with intelligence, and you seem to think intelligence can be earned through work. Why? That view of the mind is simplistic and unrealistic in my opinion. Not everything can be learned by any given brain.

      So to recap; I’m not gay or confused… but you might be. I’m surrounded by liberal “faggots” and that is why I’m angry.

      With respect, I don’t think you know why you’re angry. I suspect you are generalizing and projecting a general frustration. But again, I can’t prove that and ultimately it doesn’t matter.

      And our standards are way too low and nothing good will come of creating “equality” if we’re all dumb as shit and living in rubble.

      Might I suggest you reconsider your enemy? What if the real cause of the problem has convinced you to blame the wrong group? Are you absolutely certain you’re blaming the right people? The right concepts? Rather than say what’s wrong, how about you examine history for the effects of what you think is right. The world has tried your hard nosed fuck the weak approach and time and again it fails, are you seriously going to makes excuses for every instance? At what point will you concede perhaps the concept itself is flawed to the point that you begin the search for a new class of solution?

      Ask yourself, what would it take to prove you wrong? If you can’t answer that you might be a fanatic.

      And yes, I do care deeply… I care deeply about one day having children and them having a world to grow up in where they won’t be brainwashed by the crazy, liberal, hippie-faggots or the possibly crazier right-wing christains.

      Might I suggest hoping for a world where they don’t need either? Let me suggest a somewhat outlandish alternative, but food for thought. Ants are born knowing how to walk manage a hive and how to speak the chemical language of ants. Horses are born knowing how to run, bees are born knowing the complicated dance communication system, birds are born with astounding amounts of complicated mating behavior. What if we could see to it children are born knowing how to read and write and speak?

      I guess really what I’m hoping for is a world where we are free to have our own opinions without having to be part of a group and people can keep their politics to themselves and stop trying to convert/recruit/brainwash everyone because they are insecure and want everyone to be like them!

      Excellent! Now that I can get behind. Not to toot my own horn but I’m pretty sure I know what’s causing the reverse and how to undo it. But if you’re more comfy being pissed and you already think you’ve got the answer, I might not have anything for you.

      P.S. No resentment or pain… Just frustration.

      I’m writing a book based on this list. This debate will be in it. When it’s done I’ll post a link to it here. If you’d give some of my work a chance I think you’ll find something useful. You might not agree with all of it of course, and feel free to comment when you don’t, but you should at last give it a chance.

  97. Hello again,
    I tried to make it clear that I don’t have a low opinion of homosexuals and my derogatory comment of “faggot” was not in any way related to the slang term used to harm the people of the LGBT community.

    As to the liberal overload… YES! I am surrounded by it and it does lead to my increased frustration/anger because my politics and opinions are so much different.

    “Gay” & its third meaning; I think people need to get over it, whatever side they’re on. It’s just a word! If your vocabulary is so poor that you have to use the word gay to mean bad, it just makes you look dumb. But on the other side homosexuals should stop caring what people say. I think if you’re comfortable with yourself, anyone can call you anything and it shouldn’t bother you that much.

    I think the standards thing is too broad of a topic for me and you to go on about and we should just agree to disagree. It’s not about test scores for me or anything like that, it’s about promoting growth and (not to be too cliche) shooting for the stars. I do agree that we need to teach kids how to teach themselves though.

    I do know why I’m angry; It’s because everyone is too soft now days. So many people are lame and have no integrity! I see the state our world is in and it makes me sad. And I see the direction it continues to go in and that is why I’m angry… It seems like no one gives a shit about our future and they just want to piss it all away. The only reason the “fuck the weak approach” has failed time and time again is because the people on that side are always outnumbered by the “help everyone” side and ironically the “fuck the weak” side is defeated.

    Children born knowing how to read and write; maybe I’m taking your meaning too literally, but it sounds like a great idea for a science fiction novel. Do you actually mean the pop out of the womb instilled with this knowledge?!

    About the world where we are free to have our own opinions without brainwashing etc. I would very much like to hear your theory on “what’s causing the reverse and how to undo it.”

    About the book; Are you including the entire comments section or just this debate? And yes, I would be happy to give your work a chance. And yes, I’m pretty sure I will not agree with it all. Even though we have differing opinions I can tell you are intelligent and I appreciate our banter. Also, for me, being angry isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I like to rant. It lets off steam and I get to express myself at the same time.

    I feel like this is the part where I’m supposed to say, “we’re not so different you and I,” and then tip my hat and walk out of the bar.

    1. Hello again,
      I tried to make it clear that I don’t have a low opinion of homosexuals and my derogatory comment of “faggot” was not in any way related to the slang term used to harm the people of the LGBT community.

      Yeah I realize that is your claim, I’m simply saying its exactly like some old redneck trying to explain there is such a thing as a white nigger (sadly I’ve heard this line of reasoning, more than once) to justify the use of the term. Regardless of how you actually mean it I’m saying you come off sounding like a bigot. The attempt to define a slur behaviorally doesn’t stop it from being a slur in my opinion. It’s just ink in the water.

      As to the liberal overload… YES! I am surrounded by it and it does lead to my increased frustration/anger because my politics and opinions are so much different.

      Careful that you don’t let your enemies define you. What I mean is sometimes we grow to hate a group so much that ANYTHING that opposes them we begin to support even if that support is irrational and self destructive. Just to illustrate the point: “What? Liberals like Oxygen!? Well screw that! *suffocates self with a plastic bag*” You get the idea.

      We as humans have more in common than not. Competition demands that we focus on minor differences and waste resources trying to win. Sure that might lead to slightly stronger people being left standing but at what cost to the whole?

      I think people need to get over it, whatever side they’re on. It’s just a word! If your vocabulary is so poor that you have to use the word gay to mean bad, it just makes you look dumb. But on the other side homosexuals should stop caring what people say. I think if you’re comfortable with yourself, anyone can call you anything and it shouldn’t bother you that much.

      Agreed. But since you seem to be on that side of the fence what if those standards you think so highly of expel children for cursing? Are you sure your ethics are universally applicable or are self consistent?

      My point is that freedom means putting up with stuff you don’t like also. Just something to think about.

      I think the standards thing is too broad of a topic for me and you to go on about and we should just agree to disagree.

      Indeed, while I don’t agree to disagree. I will say that the subject is a composite subject and we should try to figure out premises where we disagree. Standards can mean whatever you want them to mean, so let’s be clear about our respective sides.

      Standards in my mind are often euphemisms for classism and racism. Case in point. It’s hard to be good in school when your neighborhood is a war zone. Simply kicking those children out of school because they have too many real problems to give a shit about math homework is simplistic and radically unfair especially when its our laws that created the war zone in the first place. I believe you understand that there are larger forces at work than simply changing the numbers on what constitutes a B+.

      For instance how do you feel about prohibition?

      It’s not about test scores for me or anything like that, it’s about promoting growth and (not to be too cliche) shooting for the stars.

      But those are subjective terms. How do you propose to increase standards if you don’t mean changing a test score demand? Also, what if the issue is simply funding? What if the current system would work if it merely had four times as much money?

      In my opinion you, like many other people, are under the impression that the system is fixable, that they are searching for a solution, and they just haven’t figured it out. Of course you think you have, and you may be right. My point is you misunderstand the purpose of education. It’s not here to make children smarter.

      I can’t say it any better than George Carlin did. (http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/george_carlin_simply_tells_it_how_it_is)

      “There’s a reason education sucks, and it’s the same reason it will never, ever, ever be fixed. It’s never gonna get any better, don’t look for it, be happy with what you got. Because the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now, the real owners, the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, the politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, they’ve long since bought and payed for the Senate, the Congress, the State Houses, the City Halls. They got the judges in their back pockets, and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They gotchya by the balls! They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying to get what they want. Well we know what they want, they want more for themselves, and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want: They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed well-educated people capable of critical thinking, they’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. That’s right, they don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure how how badly they’ve been getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don’t want that, you know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime, and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it…

      Like the list says, common sense isn’t dead, you’re just missing the point.

      I do agree that we need to teach kids how to teach themselves though.

      Then I’d love your thoughts on this. http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=558

      I do know why I’m angry; It’s because everyone is too soft now days.

      That’s not a reason. Why do you care if people are soft? How does them being “soft” (what do you mean anyway?) in and of itself impact your day? I don’t particularity feel the need to populate the earth with Clint Eastwood clones. (The movie industry would rock though. That man can direct his ass off.)

      I don’t care how strong or weak people are. I want them happy and alive and working towards keeping everyone else happy and alive.

      Also you are overlooking a seriously important truth. Weak people overcompensate well into greatness. You think Stephen Hawking would be half the scientists he is if he didn’t have so much time to sit and think? The irony is people who speak about strength also speak about the value of pain. But weakness and pain go hand in hand. Your views are likely to be inconsistent.

      So many people are lame and have no integrity!

      Agreed, but you have to ask yourself, why? What makes them that way? Don’t hate people for exploiting an opportunity. Ask why that opportunity is allowed to exist. What compels it’s existence? The purpose of my life is to redirect rage and energy in the proper direction, and in my opinion, after over a decade of consideration, you’re mad at the wrong things.

      I see the state our world is in and it makes me sad.

      Agreed, but it’s about to get a whole LOT better.

      And I see the direction it continues to go in and that is why I’m angry… It seems like no one gives a shit about our future and they just want to piss it all away.

      That’s right, they don’t care. People are machines and they run program and react to the environment. But that’s actually a good thing because it means our problems are solvable. The greed that drives The Company will force them to develop the disruptive technologies we’ll use to free ourselves of them. (http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=663) And it will be bloodless and welcomed.

      The only reason the “fuck the weak approach” has failed time and time again is because the people on that side are always outnumbered by the “help everyone” side and ironically the “fuck the weak” side is defeated.

      Then the fuck the weak side is weak. You’ve simply stated how they failed as if it’s an excuse. You’re like the guy that wants the other solider to put down the rifle and “fight like a man.” Well that’s just silly. This is war. And the point is to win by any means available. Also its incredibly callous and short sighted. You won’t always be strong. What about the people who are stronger, do they by virtue of their strength alone have the right to own you or the children you want to have?

      Ethics transcend strength in my opinion. Fortunately ethics evolved as a weapon. The right way ultimately is stronger or else it would have been selected for extinction long ago. Your ability to work together is what got us here. And it will allow us to shed the chains that up to this point have been the very foundation of our nature.

      http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=694 (You might like this.)

      I have great faith in the quality of our future, though unlike the normal use of the word my faith has reason.

      Children born knowing how to read and write; maybe I’m taking your meaning too literally, but it sounds like a great idea for a science fiction novel. Do you actually mean the pop out of the womb instilled with this knowledge?!

      Yes, assuming it were possible for a lifeform to be born with an arbitrary piece of data, and assuming we discovered a safe way to implement that trait, what would be your reaction? More importantly what do you think The Company’s reaction would be?

      About the world where we are free to have our own opinions without brainwashing etc. I would very much like to hear your theory on “what’s causing the reverse and how to undo it.”

      Put simply the current state of the world is inevitable. We are under the same pressure now as we were when we invented farming. Those pressures manifest as you see. We are fundamentally the same organism. We are minds printed on chimps. We have halted natural selection with good reason. (By coddling the weak, to put it in terms you can readily grasp.)

      Evolution up till now has been erosion, now it must be sculpture. The development of certain technologies will free us. (I linked to the post about about them.)

      About the book; Are you including the entire comments section or just this debate?

      The whole of the comments will be included but they my not take this form. This debate may be included as a stand alone unit. Possibly an addendum to some section based on objections. Debates like this are the equivalent of peer review. They give me the chance to test my logic in the field, to be sure I’m not missing some glaring hole. People think I’m arrogant, they think I’m closed minded. but the truth is I’m just pretty sure I’m right and until someone can demonstrate otherwise I’ll hold a point.

      Reading my older work shows that I do evolve, and that I do adjust my position based on reality. I used to blame the wrong people also. But debate sharpened my viewpoint. It moves ever closer to parity with reality.

      And yes, I would be happy to give your work a chance.

      Then start with the links in this reply. You seem passionate about education, that’s a great starting point. Children represent the future. I don’t plan on having any at the moment. My legacy is for the moment text.

      And yes, I’m pretty sure I will not agree with it all.

      Perhaps you have something to teach me. If you find a solid irreducible point where I am wrong I absolutely want to hear why.

      Even though we have differing opinions I can tell you are intelligent and I appreciate our banter.

      Thank you, as above, banter as you put it is important for me as well. How else can I test my world view short of being appointed planetary Governor for a year?

      Also, for me, being angry isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I like to rant. It lets off steam and I get to express myself at the same time.

      The more you talk the less I think of you as angry. I would say intense would be a more accurate term.

      I feel like this is the part where I’m supposed to say, “we’re not so different you and I,” and then tip my hat and walk out of the bar.

      See that right there some (not me) would call weak. You’re supposed to stand your ground regardless of what you think, you’re supposed to beat me and dominate and win. Clearly you see the advantages of the supposedly weak path. For one it’s honest. And as explained above, in the long term, stronger. Because whatever our shared goals are, they are served more by our pulling in our own directions than they are by us attacking each other.

      Cooperation trumps competition in the long run. Our real enemies are death and pain, scarcity and need.

      Not eachother.

  98. Hello again,
    I tried to make it clear that I don’t have a low opinion of homosexuals and my derogatory comment of “faggot” was not in any way related to the slang term used to harm the people of the LGBT community.

    As to the liberal overload… YES! I am surrounded by it and it does lead to my increased frustration/anger because my politics and opinions are so much different.

    “Gay” & its third meaning; I think people need to get over it, whatever side they’re on. It’s just a word! If your vocabulary is so poor that you have to use the word gay to mean bad, it just makes you look dumb. But on the other side homosexuals should stop caring what people say. I think if you’re comfortable with yourself, anyone can call you anything and it shouldn’t bother you that much.

    I think the standards thing is too broad of a topic for me and you to go on about and we should just agree to disagree. It’s not about test scores for me or anything like that, it’s about promoting growth and (not to be too cliche) shooting for the stars. I do agree that we need to teach kids how to teach themselves though.

    I do know why I’m angry; It’s because everyone is too soft now days. So many people are lame and have no integrity! I see the state our world is in and it makes me sad. And I see the direction it continues to go in and that is why I’m angry… It seems like no one gives a shit about our future and they just want to piss it all away. The only reason the “fuck the weak approach” has failed time and time again is because the people on that side are always outnumbered by the “help everyone” side and ironically the “fuck the weak” side is defeated.

    Children born knowing how to read and write; maybe I’m taking your meaning too literally, but it sounds like a great idea for a science fiction novel. Do you actually mean the pop out of the womb instilled with this knowledge?!

    About the world where we are free to have our own opinions without brainwashing etc. I would very much like to hear your theory on “what’s causing the reverse and how to undo it.”

    About the book; Are you including the entire comments section or just this debate? And yes, I would be happy to give your work a chance. And yes, I’m pretty sure I will not agree with it all. Even though we have differing opinions I can tell you are intelligent and I appreciate our banter. Also, for me, being angry isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I like to rant. It lets off steam and I get to express myself at the same time.

    I feel like this is the part where I’m supposed to say, “we’re not so different you and I,” and then tip my hat and walk out of the bar.

    1. Hello again,
      I tried to make it clear that I don’t have a low opinion of homosexuals and my derogatory comment of “faggot” was not in any way related to the slang term used to harm the people of the LGBT community.

      Yeah I realize that is your claim, I’m simply saying its exactly like some old redneck trying to explain there is such a thing as a white nigger (sadly I’ve heard this line of reasoning, more than once) to justify the use of the term. Regardless of how you actually mean it I’m saying you come off sounding like a bigot. The attempt to define a slur behaviorally doesn’t stop it from being a slur in my opinion. It’s just ink in the water.

      As to the liberal overload… YES! I am surrounded by it and it does lead to my increased frustration/anger because my politics and opinions are so much different.

      Careful that you don’t let your enemies define you. What I mean is sometimes we grow to hate a group so much that ANYTHING that opposes them we begin to support even if that support is irrational and self destructive. Just to illustrate the point: “What? Liberals like Oxygen!? Well screw that! *suffocates self with a plastic bag*” You get the idea.

      We as humans have more in common than not. Competition demands that we focus on minor differences and waste resources trying to win. Sure that might lead to slightly stronger people being left standing but at what cost to the whole?

      I think people need to get over it, whatever side they’re on. It’s just a word! If your vocabulary is so poor that you have to use the word gay to mean bad, it just makes you look dumb. But on the other side homosexuals should stop caring what people say. I think if you’re comfortable with yourself, anyone can call you anything and it shouldn’t bother you that much.

      Agreed. But since you seem to be on that side of the fence what if those standards you think so highly of expel children for cursing? Are you sure your ethics are universally applicable or are self consistent?

      My point is that freedom means putting up with stuff you don’t like also. Just something to think about.

      I think the standards thing is too broad of a topic for me and you to go on about and we should just agree to disagree.

      Indeed, while I don’t agree to disagree. I will say that the subject is a composite subject and we should try to figure out premises where we disagree. Standards can mean whatever you want them to mean, so let’s be clear about our respective sides.

      Standards in my mind are often euphemisms for classism and racism. Case in point. It’s hard to be good in school when your neighborhood is a war zone. Simply kicking those children out of school because they have too many real problems to give a shit about math homework is simplistic and radically unfair especially when its our laws that created the war zone in the first place. I believe you understand that there are larger forces at work than simply changing the numbers on what constitutes a B+.

      For instance how do you feel about prohibition?

      It’s not about test scores for me or anything like that, it’s about promoting growth and (not to be too cliche) shooting for the stars.

      But those are subjective terms. How do you propose to increase standards if you don’t mean changing a test score demand? Also, what if the issue is simply funding? What if the current system would work if it merely had four times as much money?

      In my opinion you, like many other people, are under the impression that the system is fixable, that they are searching for a solution, and they just haven’t figured it out. Of course you think you have, and you may be right. My point is you misunderstand the purpose of education. It’s not here to make children smarter.

      I can’t say it any better than George Carlin did. (http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/george_carlin_simply_tells_it_how_it_is)

      “There’s a reason education sucks, and it’s the same reason it will never, ever, ever be fixed. It’s never gonna get any better, don’t look for it, be happy with what you got. Because the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now, the real owners, the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, the politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, they’ve long since bought and payed for the Senate, the Congress, the State Houses, the City Halls. They got the judges in their back pockets, and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They gotchya by the balls! They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying to get what they want. Well we know what they want, they want more for themselves, and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want: They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed well-educated people capable of critical thinking, they’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. That’s right, they don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure how how badly they’ve been getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don’t want that, you know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime, and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it…

      Like the list says, common sense isn’t dead, you’re just missing the point.

      I do agree that we need to teach kids how to teach themselves though.

      Then I’d love your thoughts on this. http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=558

      I do know why I’m angry; It’s because everyone is too soft now days.

      That’s not a reason. Why do you care if people are soft? How does them being “soft” (what do you mean anyway?) in and of itself impact your day? I don’t particularity feel the need to populate the earth with Clint Eastwood clones. (The movie industry would rock though. That man can direct his ass off.)

      I don’t care how strong or weak people are. I want them happy and alive and working towards keeping everyone else happy and alive.

      Also you are overlooking a seriously important truth. Weak people overcompensate well into greatness. You think Stephen Hawking would be half the scientists he is if he didn’t have so much time to sit and think? The irony is people who speak about strength also speak about the value of pain. But weakness and pain go hand in hand. Your views are likely to be inconsistent.

      So many people are lame and have no integrity!

      Agreed, but you have to ask yourself, why? What makes them that way? Don’t hate people for exploiting an opportunity. Ask why that opportunity is allowed to exist. What compels it’s existence? The purpose of my life is to redirect rage and energy in the proper direction, and in my opinion, after over a decade of consideration, you’re mad at the wrong things.

      I see the state our world is in and it makes me sad.

      Agreed, but it’s about to get a whole LOT better.

      And I see the direction it continues to go in and that is why I’m angry… It seems like no one gives a shit about our future and they just want to piss it all away.

      That’s right, they don’t care. People are machines and they run program and react to the environment. But that’s actually a good thing because it means our problems are solvable. The greed that drives The Company will force them to develop the disruptive technologies we’ll use to free ourselves of them. (http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=663) And it will be bloodless and welcomed.

      The only reason the “fuck the weak approach” has failed time and time again is because the people on that side are always outnumbered by the “help everyone” side and ironically the “fuck the weak” side is defeated.

      Then the fuck the weak side is weak. You’ve simply stated how they failed as if it’s an excuse. You’re like the guy that wants the other solider to put down the rifle and “fight like a man.” Well that’s just silly. This is war. And the point is to win by any means available. Also its incredibly callous and short sighted. You won’t always be strong. What about the people who are stronger, do they by virtue of their strength alone have the right to own you or the children you want to have?

      Ethics transcend strength in my opinion. Fortunately ethics evolved as a weapon. The right way ultimately is stronger or else it would have been selected for extinction long ago. Your ability to work together is what got us here. And it will allow us to shed the chains that up to this point have been the very foundation of our nature.

      http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=694 (You might like this.)

      I have great faith in the quality of our future, though unlike the normal use of the word my faith has reason.

      Children born knowing how to read and write; maybe I’m taking your meaning too literally, but it sounds like a great idea for a science fiction novel. Do you actually mean the pop out of the womb instilled with this knowledge?!

      Yes, assuming it were possible for a lifeform to be born with an arbitrary piece of data, and assuming we discovered a safe way to implement that trait, what would be your reaction? More importantly what do you think The Company’s reaction would be?

      About the world where we are free to have our own opinions without brainwashing etc. I would very much like to hear your theory on “what’s causing the reverse and how to undo it.”

      Put simply the current state of the world is inevitable. We are under the same pressure now as we were when we invented farming. Those pressures manifest as you see. We are fundamentally the same organism. We are minds printed on chimps. We have halted natural selection with good reason. (By coddling the weak, to put it in terms you can readily grasp.)

      Evolution up till now has been erosion, now it must be sculpture. The development of certain technologies will free us. (I linked to the post about about them.)

      About the book; Are you including the entire comments section or just this debate?

      The whole of the comments will be included but they my not take this form. This debate may be included as a stand alone unit. Possibly an addendum to some section based on objections. Debates like this are the equivalent of peer review. They give me the chance to test my logic in the field, to be sure I’m not missing some glaring hole. People think I’m arrogant, they think I’m closed minded. but the truth is I’m just pretty sure I’m right and until someone can demonstrate otherwise I’ll hold a point.

      Reading my older work shows that I do evolve, and that I do adjust my position based on reality. I used to blame the wrong people also. But debate sharpened my viewpoint. It moves ever closer to parity with reality.

      And yes, I would be happy to give your work a chance.

      Then start with the links in this reply. You seem passionate about education, that’s a great starting point. Children represent the future. I don’t plan on having any at the moment. My legacy is for the moment text.

      And yes, I’m pretty sure I will not agree with it all.

      Perhaps you have something to teach me. If you find a solid irreducible point where I am wrong I absolutely want to hear why.

      Even though we have differing opinions I can tell you are intelligent and I appreciate our banter.

      Thank you, as above, banter as you put it is important for me as well. How else can I test my world view short of being appointed planetary Governor for a year?

      Also, for me, being angry isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I like to rant. It lets off steam and I get to express myself at the same time.

      The more you talk the less I think of you as angry. I would say intense would be a more accurate term.

      I feel like this is the part where I’m supposed to say, “we’re not so different you and I,” and then tip my hat and walk out of the bar.

      See that right there some (not me) would call weak. You’re supposed to stand your ground regardless of what you think, you’re supposed to beat me and dominate and win. Clearly you see the advantages of the supposedly weak path. For one it’s honest. And as explained above, in the long term, stronger. Because whatever our shared goals are, they are served more by our pulling in our own directions than they are by us attacking each other.

      Cooperation trumps competition in the long run. Our real enemies are death and pain, scarcity and need.

      Not eachother.

  99. Part of me explaining my continued use of the word “faggot” is because I could really care less if someone thinks I am a “bigot.” People need to calm the fuck down about language! If you get all bent out of shape when someone says a word you are giving them way too much credit! You should watch this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2nTbqbtGug) and I’d love to hear your opinion on it.

    I don’t let my enemies define me, but if they throw the first stone I have no reservations about throwing one back. I think your anti-competition ideas sound way to much like communism… Or they make you sound cheap, like a shitty anarchist that shops at hot topic. There will never be a way for everyone to get along with each other! It’s a fairytale liberal-socialists tell their kids before bed!

    Ethics… I don’t believe anyone’s ethics could ever be “universally applicable.” (see communism or the nazis)

    Standards; I think 90% of the time when people blame things on classism or racism it is a cop-out. With equal opportunity employment and everyone not wanting to seem racist, it is easier to get hired for a job if you aren’t “white.” I’m not classist or racist and I’m poor as shit. People need to take responsibility for themselves and stop looking for scapegoats. If you really believe “our laws” did this to “them” then you’re a nut-job. They did this to themselves. (And please don’t give me a multiple paragraph response complaining about my use of the word “nut-job” because it is offensive to middle-eastern dwarfs in their 30’s or some shit like that.)

    “How do you feel about prohibition?”
    Could you be a little more specific? Are you actually talking about alcohol in the 20’s?

    You keep throwing around these “what-if’s” like you have the secret answers to everything and it’s making you sound like the wizard of oz. How can you suggest that it could be funding related and then point to Carlin saying it’ll never change? It makes you sound like you have no idea of what you’re talking about.

    Your “New School” paper isn’t bad, it’s just unreasonable… It gets back to the same problems I already mentioned… There are no universally applicable ethics!

    I think our understanding of the word soft is the same because I do feel the need to populate the earth with Clint Eastwood clones. And about Stephen Hawking… I hope the sit and think comment was your attempt at humor.

    How are people speaking about strength and speaking about the value of pain ironic? If you overcome pain you can get strength.

    I do hate people for exploiting an opportunity because that just makes them lazy assholes. I hate people for who they are on the inside. People need to take responsibility for their own choices. So you’re saying if some poor old lady drops a $50 bill you’d just take it because it’s fine… You’re just “exploiting an opportunity.”

    And now we get back to the crazy conspiracy theories… So the magical “Company” will have to develop “disruptive technologies” that will let us “free ourselves?” All I have to say is maybe smoking crack and watching The Matrix trilogy isn’t the best way to spend every second of the time you aren’t on here telling people how to live their lives and that you are right about everything.

    The more you write the more loony I think you are. “The right way ultimately is stronger or else it would have been selected for extinction long ago.” Natural selection is no longer applicable because we don’t happen to live within the parameters of “nature” that that theory applies to.

    Can you please stop using the phrase “The Company” because my stomach hurts from laughing so much every time you say it.

    And yes… I guess I’m probably more intense than angry.

    And last but not least… The whole “we’re not so different you and I,” and then tip my hat and walk out of the bar. Was supposed to be a joke. Like something out of a Bogart movie. You need to stop taking everything so seriously and remember that some people like to have fun through humor instead of reading sci-fi novels and praying to lord xenu.

  100. Part of me explaining my continued use of the word “faggot” is because I could really care less if someone thinks I am a “bigot.” People need to calm the fuck down about language! If you get all bent out of shape when someone says a word you are giving them way too much credit! You should watch this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2nTbqbtGug) and I’d love to hear your opinion on it.

    I don’t let my enemies define me, but if they throw the first stone I have no reservations about throwing one back. I think your anti-competition ideas sound way to much like communism… Or they make you sound cheap, like a shitty anarchist that shops at hot topic. There will never be a way for everyone to get along with each other! It’s a fairytale liberal-socialists tell their kids before bed!

    Ethics… I don’t believe anyone’s ethics could ever be “universally applicable.” (see communism or the nazis)

    Standards; I think 90% of the time when people blame things on classism or racism it is a cop-out. With equal opportunity employment and everyone not wanting to seem racist, it is easier to get hired for a job if you aren’t “white.” I’m not classist or racist and I’m poor as shit. People need to take responsibility for themselves and stop looking for scapegoats. If you really believe “our laws” did this to “them” then you’re a nut-job. They did this to themselves. (And please don’t give me a multiple paragraph response complaining about my use of the word “nut-job” because it is offensive to middle-eastern dwarfs in their 30’s or some shit like that.)

    “How do you feel about prohibition?”
    Could you be a little more specific? Are you actually talking about alcohol in the 20’s?

    You keep throwing around these “what-if’s” like you have the secret answers to everything and it’s making you sound like the wizard of oz. How can you suggest that it could be funding related and then point to Carlin saying it’ll never change? It makes you sound like you have no idea of what you’re talking about.

    Your “New School” paper isn’t bad, it’s just unreasonable… It gets back to the same problems I already mentioned… There are no universally applicable ethics!

    I think our understanding of the word soft is the same because I do feel the need to populate the earth with Clint Eastwood clones. And about Stephen Hawking… I hope the sit and think comment was your attempt at humor.

    How are people speaking about strength and speaking about the value of pain ironic? If you overcome pain you can get strength.

    I do hate people for exploiting an opportunity because that just makes them lazy assholes. I hate people for who they are on the inside. People need to take responsibility for their own choices. So you’re saying if some poor old lady drops a $50 bill you’d just take it because it’s fine… You’re just “exploiting an opportunity.”

    And now we get back to the crazy conspiracy theories… So the magical “Company” will have to develop “disruptive technologies” that will let us “free ourselves?” All I have to say is maybe smoking crack and watching The Matrix trilogy isn’t the best way to spend every second of the time you aren’t on here telling people how to live their lives and that you are right about everything.

    The more you write the more loony I think you are. “The right way ultimately is stronger or else it would have been selected for extinction long ago.” Natural selection is no longer applicable because we don’t happen to live within the parameters of “nature” that that theory applies to.

    Can you please stop using the phrase “The Company” because my stomach hurts from laughing so much every time you say it.

    And yes… I guess I’m probably more intense than angry.

    And last but not least… The whole “we’re not so different you and I,” and then tip my hat and walk out of the bar. Was supposed to be a joke. Like something out of a Bogart movie. You need to stop taking everything so seriously and remember that some people like to have fun through humor instead of reading sci-fi novels and praying to lord xenu.

    1. *facepalm* Ok so this time giving the shit tossing chimp a chance to hold a rational conversation was a mistake. Maybe if I respond in kind a quanta of data will seep into that TV crafted brain of yours. So here we go insult laden rant for insult laden rant.

      That’s what you you want right? Eye for an eye? No peace in our time? *shrugs* its harmless in this context so why not.

      Part of me explaining my continued use of the word “faggot” is because I could really care less if someone thinks I am a “bigot.”

      I love that old saw. If you don’t care, why are you explaining yourself? The truth is you do care its just that it makes you so much cooler and tougher to not care so you pretend you don’t and you desperately want everyone to think you don’t.

      The fact is you ARE a bigot regardless of what anyone thinks.

      Company note: They make apathy cool so that you get in the habit of doing nothing when exposed to injustice. This makes you orders of magnitude easier to control. The height of rebellion in your stratum is smoking a little pot and listening to an angry song.

      The most recent shock test was the bush administration as a whole. It’s been made clear that if we won’t revolt under those circumstances we’re not going to at all.

      People need to calm the fuck down about language!

      So if I walked up to you an said “You’re a stupid cocksucker” and you failed to interpret that what I meant by that was “Have a nice day” you need to calm down about language?

      See, this is why they need to teach logic in primary school. I shouldn’t have to explain to you that language, the conveyance of ideas, only works if we can agree on terms. If I say five and mean six then you’re not going to know how many apples to get.

      And assuming you’re not completely full of shit for the sake of argument, which in reality you absolutely are, when ass hats like you decide to just arbitrarily change the meaning of a word, like say “faggot” for example to hide the fact that you’re just this side of Fred Phelps, its absolutely insane to then blame everyone else for reacting to the understood definition, not your own random, self-serving, bullshit, new one.

      What people actually “need” to do is craft an environment where brain dead, emotionally crippled, compassionless, spineless, would be tough-guy narcissists, like yourself run far and fast while staying as quiet as possible, so that time and nature can gracefully correct the error of your obviously unplanned birth.

      See, in the real world, words have meaning. But since your entire life is devoid of meaning, indeed since you run from it hurling insults behind you like an octopus inking the water to cover his escape, you project a lack of meaning onto everything you say and do, which is why you think it’s ok to just randomly change the definition of words to evade that responsibility you later claim to love so much, because you know deep down you’re not even saying anytuing in the first place, you’re just grunting and crying your emotional state into the tribe around you hoping someone will figure out what baby wants and give it to him. Which is hilariously ironic considering your self imagine is proportionally inflated, such that you think you’re some sort of perfectly independent Übermensch who’s in a position to comment on the weakness of an entire species and culture who’s doing its level best to keep parasitic babies like you (and me) alive.

      The best you can come up with is subjective complaint, crassness, repetition of TV cliches, and shaming. That should tell you something but you’re not even attempting to think logically. You’re a chimp, all you know is what you feel, you barely even think by any rational definition of the word, you just remember stuff and sort it by emotional weight, emotional weight assigned by advertisers. You’re a trained monkey. Self replenishing cattle to be used and aimed and thrown away, and whats more you’ve been conditioned to be proud of it and toss handfuls of yesterday’s dinner at anyone who steps out of line.

      Like the SciFi says, you can’t free a fish from water.

      But of course in order for all that to work you have to think you’re the enlightened one, that you’re the rebel, and yet selectively ignore the fact that there are obviously millions of you already, making the same inane choices, the same self serving inconsistent, soundbite, suggestions, with all the profundity of a fortune cookie printed in New Jersey, over and over to absolutely no effect.

      It was a mistake to answer you, and my reaction to you is a testament to my intellectual integrity. The sensible thing to do would be to just delete your comments, but that would just encourage those like you to see its absence and then think they are original for thinking what you’re saying. It’s best if I let one of you crap throwers in and make an example. That way when I refuse to publish future versions of you it won’t be censorship it’ll be spam cleanup.

      If you get all bent out of shape when someone says a word you are giving them way too much credit!

      You don’t even know what that means. You just attach some vague notion of losing face to the phrase “giving credit.” Besides we’ve already established that you’re perfectly content to randomly change the meaning of words, so really there’s no way for me to know what you’re actually trying to say. You’re like an ignorant driver honking and expecting the whole world to understand what you mean with your monosyllabic cries for attention. *bark bark* “What’s that lassie? The Copenhagen interpretation is bullshit when one considers the logical advantages of the hidden variables approach? Good dog!”

      You’re like a dog, cat, or baby looking to the world and making incoherent sounds hoping someone will give you a stroke, a morsel, or a clean diaper. You’re a member of an entire generation of children trained to think they are adults. Trained to respond to bells and subtle emotional mechanisms of control that started with your defective accidental parents and ended with your tiny minded state sponsored babysitters and continues with your TV and eventuality if you work hard enough, with your nanny wife and Junior Spies.

      You walk around in a mild state of semi tantrum, waiting for the next Two Minutes Hate thinking of little else but the toys an the other kids, and how you’re so much better and different then all of them. You’re a powerless tyrant in a padded playpen shrieking for you know not what, until the god box in the corner starts singing and showing you bright colors and offering sugar.

      You should watch this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2nTbqbtGug) and I’d love to hear your opinion on it.

      Made me chuckle but I see layers of social training in it. From the fact that they shoehorned a black guy in there to evade cries of racism, to the contestant’s stubborn refusal to challenge the system.

      It seems to me like toddlers sitting in a club house whispering “shit” and “fuck” to each other, marveling at their own brazenness wit.

      Slurs are the new curse words. You can say shit and fuck all day, they are growing more and more accepted. But slurs retain the power to annoy. And that video caters to that urge to cuss like a grownup.

      Tittering schoolboys and a cute joke mercilessly run into the ground.

      I don’t let my enemies define me, but if they throw the first stone I have no reservations about throwing one back.

      Heh, You don’t let your enemies define you, you just let them completely control the nature of your reaction? And you don’t even see the conflict do you. Sad.

      On the plus side we know that’s bullshit. You WANT to throw rocks, else my attempt to rationally debate you would have been answered in kind, instead I get invective. So at least you’re self determined in that you choose to be a troll ass regardless of the forum.

      I think your anti-competition ideas sound way to much like communism…

      Glad to see McCarthyism is alive and well in the ignorant younger classes. Talking to you is reminding me me of that survey that found that a number of American high school graduates though Germany was an ally in WW2. You understand about as much as communism as a sparrow understands Kant. So save your ignorant Ted Nugent flag waving for the Bush rally. Go swim in the oil slick if you think capitalism is awesome. Besides, competition crushing oligopoly is hardly a free market. The world hasn’t seen large scale capitalism, ever.

      You don’t even understand what you’re defending, much less attacking. You just want to pretend that you can back stab your way to the top one day. So many poor morons defending the rich because they secretly think their meteoric rise to absurd wealth is just a day and a scam away.

      Or they make you sound cheap, like a shitty anarchist that shops at hot topic.

      And once again the best argument you can come up with is some kind of shit tossing, get back in line with he other drones, cry. To people like you the height of individuality is what logo you selected for your cap, your tshirt, and your shoes. And yet you feel justified in taking a stab at commercialized faux individualism. The irony meter is really taking a beating today.

      You know even less about anarchy than you do about communism. You ignorantly paint any act of compassion as socialist (you don’t understand socialism either, which as your probably didn’t know is a separate animal than communism). Which is hilarious considering how much of a mass produced specialist tool you obviously are. You actually think you’re unique don’t you. That delusion would be harmless if it weren’t coupled with this militant “I’m so awesome for wanting to hurt people” attitude.

      You’re like some brain dead apple tossing unwashed peasant crowded around the witch at some French dark ages public burning. You hurl your rotten fruit, and you scream your obscenities and you actually think you’re NOT a blatant tool of the state. You watch the poor sap fry and you think “serves them right, if they were smart like me they’d be tossing apples, I’m so strong, look at me, listen to me.”

      You are bland, and mean, and slow witted, and impressionable and yet closed minded. You accept new orders from the god box without question and the crowd and nothing else. Rationality in you has been utterly destroyed.

      Now it’s my turn to share a YouTube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMKZkBOp4nI But I know for a fact you won’t watch it, it’s 10 whole minutes and it even has subsequent parts, your attention span for anything that lacks cruelty is probably roughly 30 seconds.

      There will never be a way for everyone to get along with each other!

      How convenient for you. Thats makes it perfectly ok for you to go on being an aggressive social tick. Did it ever occur to that infantile mind of yours that maybe the reason for that is because of people like you making it so to evade the responsibility for trying? Of course not, that thought doesn’t make your dick hard or make you laugh at someone’s expense like the ignorant bully whelp you are.

      Why don’t you grab the lotion bottle, fire up the COPS marathon, and pretend you’re the five foot five buzzcut douchbag with a tazer. Maybe a solid orgasm will calm you down enough to think like a human for 10 seconds.

      It’s a fairytale liberal-socialists tell their kids before bed!

      And your blatant Horatio Alger philosophy is any less fiction? Please. You’re in no position to be telling to anyone about the reality behind the facade. You’ve turned into a right wing psychotic reactionary (reaction being the key point there), and that’s exactly what they want. They want us polarized, to pick up a flag and attack the other citizens, because while we’re busy tossing shit and bricks at each other they make a mint from the conflict and you’re trained to revere it while it keeps you poor and angry and stupid.

      Luckily for the species your kind will be corrected out of existence. You’ll reject everything that can lead to your ultimate happiness and survival and you’ll die thinking of how awesome you are and the harm you do to the world and people around you will end.

      Ethics… I don’t believe anyone’s ethics could ever be “universally applicable.” (see communism or the nazis)

      Like the small percentage of drunks that can hold a conversation without slurring no matter how close to passed out they are, you’re apparently capable of stringing together words that sound like thought is occurring and yet manifestly it isn’t. You’re just some p-zed repeating what the idiot box has instructed.

      The basis of my ethic is that surviving is good, and that pleasure is good, conversely that pain is bad and death is bad. That ethic is universal to thinking rational humans. Of course in order to make you jump on the social grenade so some suit somewhere doesn’t have to and can sell your meat to the crows, you have to be convinced that pain and death are awesome.

      Idea: Go to the marines, plenty of tough guy death mongers there. You’ll fit right in with the other semi-sentient brain stems. You remind me of a Metalocalypse groupie.

      Standards; I think 90% of the time when people blame things on classism or racism it is a cop-out.

      Setting aside your loose use of the word “think” when “repeat” is a more accurate term, we come to the fact that this is EXACTLY what the mases MUST think to keep the ultra rich, ultra rich. They need people working and breeding their whole lives with nothing but more workers to show for it in order to continue their existence.

      The very LAST thing they want is people thinking about classism. They very LAST thing they want is people waking up to the fact that we have an aristocracy that is in BAD need of (non violent, simpy killing them won’t solve the problem) deposition. An aristocracy that is there by right of birth and nothing else. A right propped up and enforced by the military and the police.

      They have to get morons like you to violently oppose any discussion of the fact that class mobility is dead. We are born into our roles, period the end. So geared towards crushing class mobility is our society that lottery winners almost routinely self destruct, and yet dynasties of ultra rich families persist indefinitely.

      They HAVE to make you think that they are rich because they deserve it. They say ANY questioning of their wealth and how they got it and Do They Deserve It, is anti American, communist, weak, pansy pinko faggots ask those sorts of questions, right? Get back to work drone.

      With equal opportunity employment and everyone not wanting to seem racist, it is easier to get hired for a job if you aren’t “white.”

      And does it not occur to you drone that perhaps maybe being hired shouldn’t be your end all be all goal? Does it not dawn on you that you actually ASPIRE to be a human resource!? They want generation after generation of bright passionate young men to be convinced that 1. A job and a wife are the best things in life, and that 2. The system can never be fixed and any attempt to do so or discussion of how to do so is a result of weakness.

      I’m not classist or racist and I’m poor as shit.

      Of course you are. Your function is well established. “Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent.” http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/ Check it out. Of course you’ll find someway to dismiss it so you can keep feeling special despite being about as unique as bubble wrap.

      You are a huge classist, and here’s my proof, do rich people attain wealth via merit? If you say no you just attacked The Company and puts us on the same side, if you say yes then you admit the upper classes are truly better, which makes you classist.

      People need to take responsibility for themselves and stop looking for scapegoats.

      Yeah because there’s no such thing as market forces. The great depression was caused by everyone just deciding to be lazy all at once. Your knowledge of sociology and economics is staggering. /sarcasm

      If you really believe “our laws” did this to “them” then you’re a nut-job.

      Yeah because gun law and drug laws really help matters. Even the cops know that drug law causes the drug problem. http://leap.cc/

      They did this to themselves.

      Yeah, they invented the drug war, they grow and refine poppies and coca in the urban jungle. /sarcasm

      The inability for the rank and file to make a connection between even obviously associated events will never fail to amaze me. It’s like the human race by and large actually lacks sufficient ram to fit the problem into their skull for processing.

      I feel like I’m trying to explain calculus to a roach. It doesn’t matter how good I am, the hardware is just not there on the other end.

      “How do you feel about prohibition?”
      Could you be a little more specific? Are you actually talking about alcohol in the 20’s?

      *facepalm* Nevermind, I have my answer.

      You keep throwing around these “what-if’s” like you have the secret answers to everything and it’s making you sound like the wizard of oz.

      I do have a whole host of answers. But you’ve been trained to not even seek them much less recognize them when you find them, and certainly not to come up with any on your own. The best future you can imagine for yourself looks like the playboy mansion. This is somewhat like the best future a mule can think of is reaching the carrot.

      How can you suggest that it could be funding related and then point to Carlin saying it’ll never change?

      I said What If it was funding related. How would we know? We have never funded education proportional the hyperbole of how important it is. If we retired just one one aircraft carrier or just one ballistic missile sub, and diverted the whole of the freed funding to education we’d suddenly have the most well funded education system on the planet by almost any measure.

      Public schools by and large look like rest stop bathrooms. Being a public teacher is like the worst post college job there is. We have never made being a teacher a job people strive for based on the cash. No wonder only idealists, pedophiles, and defectives go for it. You try to paint me as conflicted but you’re the one that speaks of taking responsibility and defends a Horatio Alger view of capitalism and then disregards the impact of fiscal lure.

      Can you imagine how demanding we could be of public school and public teachers if the base pay for being a public teacher was 100K per year? Education suffers brain drain because all the money is in the private sector.

      But for the record that’s all hypothetical, I don’t think dumping money into schools is the answer. My evidence for that is how badly the college system is failing and it’s funded through the roof. The whole concept of general education, of trying to teach children what they need to know directly is futile in an environment where the amount of required data is expanding exponentially while the learning curve is fixed.

      I pointed to Carlin to explain the current state of affairs, not to use that as an argument for doing nothing and patting myself on the back for being a badass because I’m unwilling to help anyone but myself like you’re apparently fond of. Things aren’t going to change until disruptions occur. And we can cause disruptions but not so long as self serving little tyrants like you who think that they are the incredible hulk and everyone else is just weak and stupid for not calling everyone who wants to help without being paid for it a faggot.

      It makes you sound like you have no idea of what you’re talking about.

      Your lack of intelligence could be causing that also, like a puppy listening to a lecture on astronomy. Don’t confuse your cognitive limits with the quality of the speaker’s position. If the best you can come up with is insults then you’ve missed the point.

      Your “New School” paper isn’t bad, it’s just unreasonable… It gets back to the same problems I already mentioned… There are no universally applicable ethics!

      Only because defectives like you have been conditioned against all probability to be self destructive. You actually think pain and death are good things. You think pain builds character and creates strength and you think death is a natural part of life to be accepted and revered. Well go die heroically for something, other people can better use your food and oxygen.

      Additionally you think they’re cool, you probably love violent movies like hostel and saw and you think killing is the best way to solve a difference. You probably think we should just nuke everyone that pisses us off.

      Well, I’m an agent of pleasure and life, so naturally my ethic is going to be different from yours. If you weren’t such a tool you’d realize that your love of death and pain is the result of careful intentional misassociation of your needs for pleasure and life being with irrationalities for the purposes of profit and power. (Again check out the happiness machine documentary.)

      We are both human. We both like things which feel good and we both want to stay alive, by and large. If that’s not a universal enough ethic to base an education on then your demands are unreasonable, not my approach.

      I think our understanding of the word soft is the same because I do feel the need to populate the earth with Clint Eastwood clones.

      *facepalm* How do I even respond to something so absurd? The depth and breadth of your ignorance of history is staggering. Do you have even the slightest idea of why life itself is so diverse? Of course not. You’re a homogeneous drone, a worker bee, asking you to understand strength in diversity is pointless by definition. Your very nature precludes an understanding of the concept.

      And about Stephen Hawking… I hope the sit and think comment was your attempt at humor.

      No it wasn’t. You fail to understand. Generally.

      How are people speaking about strength and speaking about the value of pain ironic? If you overcome pain you can get strength.

      Pointless. I’m now just responding to let you know that I’ve read your drivel and that I’m willing to publish it. The point is you value pain and death in and of themselves as ends instead of means. You also fail to understand that strength itself is a means to an end. You’re a self maintaining robot, and you’re shelved. You don’t understand the concept of purpose all you know is master wants you to be ready to serve at a moments notice so strength for you is a goal, not a tool.

      I do hate people for exploiting an opportunity because that just makes them lazy assholes.

      Lazy? What are you a survivalist? You have some nerve. People like you need to be air lifted to the middle of the Sahara desert naked and dropped off. If you have food in your bully and you’re not a subsistence farmer you’re lucky lucky man. Hell even if you ARE a subsistence farmer you’re lucky. If you know what it’s like to choose between flavors of ice cream you’re EXTREMELY lucky. God the irony.

      You’re like some 400 pound guy stuffing a pizza in his face talking shit about people needing to exercise more and starving to death in Africa because they need to get a job.

      And what is an asshole? Someone who is pointlessly mean? You just spent paragraphs explaining how being a mean ass prick is a good thing. You think you’re doing people a favor being a huge asshole to them since pain makes you stronger and weak people deserve nothing.

      Setting a camp fire is exploiting an opportunity. Talking on the Internet is exploiting an opportunity. You are the biggest hypocrite I’ve ever debated with, congratulations, that’s a distinction of note given my experience.

      I hate people for who they are on the inside.

      You hate people because of what you think they are on the inside because you’re a deluded callous shell of a man. You see yourself in everything and hate what you see. I recommend suicide. I don’t see how you can ever be happy. Prolonging your suffering is unethical and you’ve made it clear you’re completely unwilling and unable to improve the lives of others on principal.

      People need to take responsibility for their own choices. So you’re saying if some poor old lady drops a $50 bill you’d just take it because it’s fine… You’re just “exploiting an opportunity.”

      You’re the one devoid of compassion. You’re the one that thinks helping people is socialist and therefor bad. You’re the one that thinks people are ultimately responsible for everything that happens to them and that mercy is weakness. You’re far more likely to keep the money as punishment for her being careless. In fact I’m thinking you’ve already had this dilemma and kept the money.

      And now we get back to the crazy conspiracy theories… So the magical “Company” will have to develop “disruptive technologies” that will let us “free ourselves?”

      Is that what passes for a rebuttal in your social circle? Setting aside that fact that “The Company” is just shorthand for church government and corporations, also setting aside the fact that you clearly misunderstood just about everything I’ve written at you, I’ll simply say it doesn’t matter what you think.

      What’s going to happen is inevitable. Lucky for you people like me will be in charge of it. And despite all your snapping and frothing and barking, someone will give you your shots, and see that you’re healthy and happy and loved.

      All I have to say is maybe smoking crack and watching The Matrix trilogy isn’t the best way to spend every second of the time you aren’t on here telling people how to live their lives and that you are right about everything.

      Again, just noting that I read it. I am right. And you simply saying I’m wrong isn’t a logical rebuttal. Thing is you just wish I was wrong because you have a fantasy about reality and the future that clearly isn’t going to happen and you’re bitter as hell about it. My condolences, seriously.

      The more you write the more loony I think you are.

      As above, you don’t “think.” Thought is the balancing of premises, a rational process. You don’t even test your individual premises for validity, much less cross them for consistency. You’ve chosen to be a beast of burden, and your philosophy reflects that choice. You’re product, and you’re proud of it and yet you wonder why your life is so painful and apparently meaningless.

      The happiness of those around you is confusing and frightening and you envy them and hate them for it. You want them to bash eachother with hammers because that’s what you would do if you were given an ounce of power.

      Your own existence confuses you because if everyone else was like you someone would have killed you long ago. You spew hate and rage in an attempt to get them to kill you to justify your dog eat dog brutalized vision of the world, but their stubborn refusal to thrash you just provides more proof that you’re out of place thus making you yet more bitter.

      It’s a sad self feeding cycle and I hope one day when your testosterone levels drop you’ll calm down enough to think it through and emerge a real compassionate person. But I suspect you won’t. Your attitude is too adaptive emotionally in a world of lies. I suspect you’ll be bitter and mean your whole life, resenting the very concept of kindness. Even when the opportunity to improve yourself will avail itself, you’ll run. Hurling an inky cloud of incoherent insults behind you as per usual.

      Don’t worry. People like me will make sure you have somewhere safe to run to and a porch to scream at kids and faggots from.

      “The right way ultimately is stronger or else it would have been selected for extinction long ago.” Natural selection is no longer applicable because we don’t happen to live within the parameters of “nature” that that theory applies to.

      That’s exactly my point genius. Your fuck everyone attitude was great when we were shit tossing monkeys but maybe you didn’t notice, we paved everything now and the rules are different. Compassion, diversity, and kindness keep you alive. Your pathetic existence (and mine) is supported by the charity of thousands of people we’ll never meet.

      If nothing else, the tshirt applies. Some people are alive simply because it is illegal to kill them.

      Can you please stop using the phrase “The Company” because my stomach hurts from laughing so much every time you say it.

      I’m always fascinated by the phenomenon of someone explaining how they are laughing by way of attempted manipulation and shaming. If I actually made you laugh, that’s a good thing. See, unlike you, I want to improve the lives of people around me, not enrich myself at their expense.

      So if “The Company” makes you laugh, awesome. But of course that’s not what you want or expect. I am supposed to be upset by what you tell me you feel like? For one I highly doubt you ever laugh at anything in the sense of secure joviality, I’d say every time you laugh its more like a hyena or a nervous chimp, hiding a weakness, joining the tribe in mocking, asserting your position in the pack, etc.

      You remind me of the quote from con air, “Levity for that man actually hurts.”

      Ironically The Company engineers that emotional position, it makes you cake to control. It’s not a conspiracy, again, there is no head, its just the cumulative effects of self serving and compassionless decisions made by people like you, who happened to have been born into power and opportunity.

      And yes… I guess I’m probably more intense than angry.

      You’re also a pawn. And I’m happy to use you since clearly that behavior is in keeping with your philosophy. So unless your next reply really looks like it’s going to inspire a useful response from me, don’t expect it to be published. My honor is satisfied. If I publish your reply at all it will be probably heavily edited, just so you know. Unless of course you learn how to make a logical unemotional argument in the next 24 hours. Which I strongly doubt.

      And last but not least… The whole “we’re not so different you and I,” and then tip my hat and walk out of the bar. Was supposed to be a joke. Like something out of a Bogart movie. You need to stop taking everything so seriously and remember that some people like to have fun through humor instead of reading sci-fi novels and praying to lord xenu.

      Yes I realize now that you’re incapable of making peace with anyone, peace in your world is weakness. Well, when my kind come to dominate we’ll make sure that you have other puppies to play war with.

  101. I love how you start it off with name calling! Don’t get your panties in a bunch! And I don’t watch TV by the way.

    Sure… I’m a bigot… Why not. Despite you only knowing what you’ve read about me in these posts and your jumps in flawed logic I think you have every fact you need to make the proper assessment.

    I’m not saying people need to misuse language… I’m just saying if you did call me a cocksucker it wouldn’t bother me because that’s just like… your opinion man. You’re missing my point. If I say “faggot” to offend or if I say it with another purpose, it shouldn’t matter. Get over it!

    I like how you have stated that I seem intelligent and you can tell I care… but now you say I’m a “brain dead, emotionally crippled, compassionless, spineless, would be tough-guy narcissist.” I like it! It really makes you seem reasonable. Remember… don’t let your enemies define you!

    I tried to debate you rationally but you have way too many conspiracy theories about “the man” and “the company” and stuff like that to be taken seriously… I truthfully thought we were getting somewhere.

    I know which side of the war Germany was on, I do understand Communism, and Kant was as much of a raving lunatic as you are. I hate Bush and Capitalism by the way. (Nugent’s pretty cool though.) I think the problem is that you “don’t even understand what [I’m] defending, much less attacking.” I couldn’t give less of a shit about getting rich or having money.

    Oh fuck… Freud… Really?! All he is, is an insecure, molested child with delusions of grandeur based on infantile concepts of sexuality. I watched your video… Blah blah blah… Consumerism and Capitalism brainwashing people. I get it. I don’t watch TV, I don’t pay attention to ad’s, I don’t care about name brands, etc. Don’t you realize you are the one being brainwashed with this propaganda?

    You are so intent on your message you don’t even pay attention to what I’m actually saying… You think there is your answer and the wrong answer. Why do you have to jump to me loving Capitalism just because I don’t like communism? Maybe one day you’ll realize the are more than two answers to some questions or problems. I really wish that someone else would comment on our conversation to get an outside perspective.

    At no point do I think you’re completely wrong about everything, you just take the “everyone is out to get us and there is some evil master plan at work” thing a little too seriously. And I don’t think I am special or unique… I don’t think anyone is and that’s why I commented on your post to begin with. You’re so busy being pretentious and trying to say you are special you’re missing everything that is outside your narrow world view. And I skimmed over the lawful path link… Sounds like a failed Sci-fi novel! It was found in an old printer for fuck’s sake! There is nothing proving it is real.

    NO… The “ultra rich” didn’t do anything to attain their wealth by merit… They are just as useless as the people on welfare. They are both a burden on our society. I hate “the company” just as much as you I’m sure… but when you say “the company” it just makes you sound a bit loony. I’m telling you… you keep jumping to these conclusions and now just because I insult your conspiracy theories you start name calling and attacking me like a child having a temper tantrum. But you can be willfully ignorant of what I’m trying to get across and put words in my mouth all you want I guess because this is your little fantasy world on the internet.

    No laws “cause’ those problems… they just make them worse. I’m all for fewer laws.

    “If the best you can come up with is insults then you’ve missed the point.”
    I think it’s funny you say this because you haven’t gone one paragraph without insulting or misinterpreting me.

    I don’t think I’m better than everyone else, I don’t think pain and death are good, just parts of life. And I don’t think anyone or anything is “cool” besides Clint Eastwood (kidding about the populate the world with his clones thing by the way). And SAW is totally just a gory version of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” (And Hostel sucked.)

    I think saying that “feeling good and staying alive” are “ethics” is a bit of a jump. But it seems like you want to enter some eutopia where you never have to feel pain or suffer and you feel good all of the time and you live forever.

    Also I’m sure I know a lot more about Stephen Hawking, quantum mechanics, Brane Theory, and the universe in general than you. Stephen Hawking wasn’t paralysed until his 20’s and he was already a genius and outsmarting his professors.

    “I recommend suicide. I don’t see how you can ever be happy.”
    Thank you for your recommendation, but I am happy.

    Thank you for your “devoid of compassion” and the “I’m thinking you’ve already had this dilemma and kept the money” comments. I do not think helping someone is Socialist nor do I think all aspects of Socialism are bad. And I have been in that situation, which I would hardly call a dilemma, and made sure the money was returned to it’s rightful owner.

    So to recap; I like Clint Eastwood, quantum physics, Stephen Hawking, and Ted Nugent.

    I hate Bush (both of them), Capitalism, Commercialism, Communism, almost every “-ism”, “The Company,” how you keep putting words in my mouth, and the movie Hostel.

    I hope you realize that we still aren’t that much off from each other on some things, just some of your stuff sounds a little too Sci-fi and a little too “conspiracy theory”.

  102. I love how you start it off with name calling! Don’t get your panties in a bunch! And I don’t watch TV by the way.

    Sure… I’m a bigot… Why not. Despite you only knowing what you’ve read about me in these posts and your jumps in flawed logic I think you have every fact you need to make the proper assessment.

    I’m not saying people need to misuse language… I’m just saying if you did call me a cocksucker it wouldn’t bother me because that’s just like… your opinion man. You’re missing my point. If I say “faggot” to offend or if I say it with another purpose, it shouldn’t matter. Get over it!

    I like how you have stated that I seem intelligent and you can tell I care… but now you say I’m a “brain dead, emotionally crippled, compassionless, spineless, would be tough-guy narcissist.” I like it! It really makes you seem reasonable. Remember… don’t let your enemies define you!

    I tried to debate you rationally but you have way too many conspiracy theories about “the man” and “the company” and stuff like that to be taken seriously… I truthfully thought we were getting somewhere.

    I know which side of the war Germany was on, I do understand Communism, and Kant was as much of a raving lunatic as you are. I hate Bush and Capitalism by the way. (Nugent’s pretty cool though.) I think the problem is that you “don’t even understand what [I’m] defending, much less attacking.” I couldn’t give less of a shit about getting rich or having money.

    Oh fuck… Freud… Really?! All he is, is an insecure, molested child with delusions of grandeur based on infantile concepts of sexuality. I watched your video… Blah blah blah… Consumerism and Capitalism brainwashing people. I get it. I don’t watch TV, I don’t pay attention to ad’s, I don’t care about name brands, etc. Don’t you realize you are the one being brainwashed with this propaganda?

    You are so intent on your message you don’t even pay attention to what I’m actually saying… You think there is your answer and the wrong answer. Why do you have to jump to me loving Capitalism just because I don’t like communism? Maybe one day you’ll realize the are more than two answers to some questions or problems. I really wish that someone else would comment on our conversation to get an outside perspective.

    At no point do I think you’re completely wrong about everything, you just take the “everyone is out to get us and there is some evil master plan at work” thing a little too seriously. And I don’t think I am special or unique… I don’t think anyone is and that’s why I commented on your post to begin with. You’re so busy being pretentious and trying to say you are special you’re missing everything that is outside your narrow world view. And I skimmed over the lawful path link… Sounds like a failed Sci-fi novel! It was found in an old printer for fuck’s sake! There is nothing proving it is real.

    NO… The “ultra rich” didn’t do anything to attain their wealth by merit… They are just as useless as the people on welfare. They are both a burden on our society. I hate “the company” just as much as you I’m sure… but when you say “the company” it just makes you sound a bit loony. I’m telling you… you keep jumping to these conclusions and now just because I insult your conspiracy theories you start name calling and attacking me like a child having a temper tantrum. But you can be willfully ignorant of what I’m trying to get across and put words in my mouth all you want I guess because this is your little fantasy world on the internet.

    No laws “cause’ those problems… they just make them worse. I’m all for fewer laws.

    “If the best you can come up with is insults then you’ve missed the point.”
    I think it’s funny you say this because you haven’t gone one paragraph without insulting or misinterpreting me.

    I don’t think I’m better than everyone else, I don’t think pain and death are good, just parts of life. And I don’t think anyone or anything is “cool” besides Clint Eastwood (kidding about the populate the world with his clones thing by the way). And SAW is totally just a gory version of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” (And Hostel sucked.)

    I think saying that “feeling good and staying alive” are “ethics” is a bit of a jump. But it seems like you want to enter some eutopia where you never have to feel pain or suffer and you feel good all of the time and you live forever.

    Also I’m sure I know a lot more about Stephen Hawking, quantum mechanics, Brane Theory, and the universe in general than you. Stephen Hawking wasn’t paralysed until his 20’s and he was already a genius and outsmarting his professors.

    “I recommend suicide. I don’t see how you can ever be happy.”
    Thank you for your recommendation, but I am happy.

    Thank you for your “devoid of compassion” and the “I’m thinking you’ve already had this dilemma and kept the money” comments. I do not think helping someone is Socialist nor do I think all aspects of Socialism are bad. And I have been in that situation, which I would hardly call a dilemma, and made sure the money was returned to it’s rightful owner.

    So to recap; I like Clint Eastwood, quantum physics, Stephen Hawking, and Ted Nugent.

    I hate Bush (both of them), Capitalism, Commercialism, Communism, almost every “-ism”, “The Company,” how you keep putting words in my mouth, and the movie Hostel.

    I hope you realize that we still aren’t that much off from each other on some things, just some of your stuff sounds a little too Sci-fi and a little too “conspiracy theory”.

    1. Well, I’m glad you made some effort to carry a point. Hence the unedited publish.

      I love how you start it off with name calling!

      I wonder what happens in your head when you type that. Do you actually think anyone is going to see me as the irrational aggressor? I’m thinking the guy that screamed faggot is going get that award for this debate, no question.

      Don’t get your panties in a bunch!

      Oh noes! You question my gender role! I had best submit to your idea of what it is to be a man rapidly lest I prove myself to be feminine!

      Please.

      Let’s remember you’re the one that has a problem with gay people. Don’t project your gender insecurities onto me friend.

      And I don’t watch TV by the way.

      I don’t believe that for a nanosecond, but it’s impossible to prove.

      Sure… I’m a bigot… Why not. Despite you only knowing what you’ve read about me in these posts and your jumps in flawed logic I think you have every fact you need to make the proper assessment.

      Yeah because calling everyone a faggot and displaying serious gender insecurity doesn’t constitute evidence of bigotry. 😛

      Again, is that actually a cunning plan in your mind?

      I’m not saying people need to misuse language… I’m just saying if you did call me a cocksucker it wouldn’t bother me because that’s just like… your opinion man.

      My hairy ass. You’d pick a fight promptly (assuming my size didn’t check your aggression). Lest your heterosexuality and the length of your penis should come into question.

      You’re missing my point. If I say “faggot” to offend or if I say it with another purpose, it shouldn’t matter. Get over it!

      So you’re arguing that your own words should be treated as meaningless? I just felt a stab of genuine pity for you. I guess that confirms what I said before about your assessment of your own worth.

      I like how you have stated that I seem intelligent and you can tell I care… but now you say I’m a “brain dead, emotionally crippled, compassionless, spineless, would be tough-guy narcissist.” I like it!

      Note that the first part is a statement of appearance, and the latter is a statement of actuality. It’s like magic, it only LOOKS like the lady is being sawed in half.

      It really makes you seem reasonable.

      Again, how I seem isn’t as much an issue for me as how I am. And as far as I know my views are internally consistent and consistent with reality at large. Of course one can’t ever know for sure, but one can try to approach knowing, which is where this blog comes in.

      Remember… don’t let your enemies define you!

      If you’re trying to be clever realize that I shape this debate, not you. Had your response been pure frothing idiocy I’d have deleted it. Indeed your tone this time is far more coherent and adult. Of course this is a relative term. My point being that I’ve influenced your position in this instance, so it seems strange to try and recycle my admonition in that way.

      I tried to debate you rationally but you have way too many conspiracy theories about “the man” and “the company” and stuff like that to be taken seriously… I truthfully thought we were getting somewhere.

      I guess we’re using a a loose definition of the word “rationally” today. And just what conspiracy theory have I advocated again? As I said The Company is just short hand for the government the church and the corporations. They have clearly defined interests and goals. Find an assertion I’ve made that’s faulty and quote me. I’m happy to defend it more thoroughly.

      I know which side of the war Germany was on, I do understand Communism,

      Simply saying that proves nothing. What’s the difference between socialism and communism for example? 5$ says you have to look it up.

      and Kant was as much of a raving lunatic as you are.

      Wow! Thanks! You just compared me to the author of Critique of Pure Reason. Sadly the compliment is meaningless because you probably base your position on what his picture looks like or far more likely you simply had never heard of him until me and thus he must suck since I introduced the name into your world. Further if you know as much about physics as you claim to you probably have a disdain for philosophy. (I tend to agree. It’s seems more biographical than anything else.)

      I hate Bush and Capitalism by the way. (Nugent’s pretty cool though.)

      Nugent’s an ignorant caveman and I wish he’d get out of the gun debate. People like him are part of why we still have such fervent gun control fanatics. If I thought gun rights meant mainly tools like him packing I’d be thinking about laws too.

      I think the problem is that you “don’t even understand what [I’m] defending, much less attacking.”

      That’s because you’re all smoke. You haven’t made many claims beyond personal attacks on me and cliche anecdotes on toughness and education. Beyond that you keep “kidding” and the like, in addition to disregarding common definitions, so what you do say I can’t take seriously.

      I couldn’t give less of a shit about getting rich or having money.

      Please. Do you think anyone believes that? You’re just struggling to maintain what you think is your image of jaded unique coolness. You think a lack of compassion makes you cool. Though perhaps you believe you don’t care about getting rich because you probably know how futile the notion of class mobility is and have taken a defensive approach. “Oh yeah? Well I didn’t want to be rich anyway, so there!”

      Oh fuck… Freud… Really?! All he is, is an insecure, molested child with delusions of grandeur based on infantile concepts of sexuality.

      Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance so throughly. He effectively invented psychology. Nuff said. His obsession with sex is irrelevant to a mature mind. To claim he’s worthless because he’s wrong about sex is to claim newton was a moron because he got gravity wrong. See below about the spectrum of wrongness.

      I watched your video… Blah blah blah… Consumerism and Capitalism brainwashing people. I get it.

      No you don’t and you’re about to prove it.

      I don’t watch TV, I don’t pay attention to ad’s, I don’t care about name brands, etc.

      See? If you had an ounce of reading under your belt you’d realize that not paying attention to something makes it MORE effective when we’re talking about the manipulation of the unconscious. You may understand the p-brane but you have a lot to learn about the brain.

      The average American sees over 3000 advertising messages a day. Are you seriously dumb enough to sit there and tell me that has no effect on your psyche? Well gosh aren’t you just the strongest human imaginable.

      Don’t you realize you are the one being brainwashed with this propaganda?

      And just who brain washed me and what are they getting out of it? What propaganda am I promoting? Again, why don’t you stop saying you’re right and do something to defend it. Again, quote me making a flawed assertion and I’ll either accept your evidence of it being flawed when you present it or defend my claim if the burden of proof is mine. Until then, your whole argument is about as developed as an infantile “nuh uhhh.”

      You are so intent on your message you don’t even pay attention to what I’m actually saying…

      That’s because you’re not saying anything unique and for reason above when you speak I am forced to disregard it. You’re rehashing very old very bad ideas, very badly. Ideas that are daily promoted on television to keep people like you harmless to the rich.

      You think there is your answer and the wrong answer.

      Oh that old saw, that because I think I’m right I must therefor be wrong. How dare I stand behind my assertions? Whence comes my nerve? Logic and evidence. Ask yourself how I am Supposed to feel if I Were right? Your pathetic attack is meaningless because it applies to every claim, both right and wrong.

      I say four is the sum of two and two, and you criticize me for being apparently closed to new ideas. Some issues are settled. Sometimes controversy persists merely because of memetic infection. A grand example is the notion that an open mind cannot be skeptical, that it cannot by definition reject ideas out of hand. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      You further by implication reject the notion that my exposure to a debate can’t be complete and that my solution, barring the creation of new data, is closed to further analysis because a solid conclusion has been reached in which case the position justifiably becomes composed of two sets, my answers and wrong answers.

      Further still, there are degrees of wrongness. I don’t need to know everything about a truth to be able to reject an obvious falsehood. A great essay on this was written by Asimov. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

      I don’t expect you personally to understand any of that. I’m noting it for debate purposes.

      Why do you have to jump to me loving Capitalism just because I don’t like communism?

      Because you espouse by implication every relevant broken ethic, and it’s the logical conclusion of your previous statements. Your position on toughness alone demands respect for the American capitalist party line, in addition to your fervent defense of the status quo. You are either effectively in favor of capitalism or your ideology is fundamentally conflicted.

      It’s like saying you’re anti-liberal but going on to defend their side on every major issue. Which people often do in an effort to get the best of both worlds by whatever criteria satisfies the term best in their context. Given your stance on the invalidity of consistent definitions, it doesn’t surprise me at all that you’d completely act and think like a capitalist but claim you aren’t one. I suppose you have a special definition for capitalism just like your apparently non-bigoted gay-friendly version of faggot?

      Maybe one day you’ll realize the are more than two answers to some questions or problems.

      It’s not a question of numbers it’s a question of spectrum. Sure, given certain premises there are in theory solidly right and wrong answers, the potentiality for a single most correct claim, but by and large one struggles not to be absolutely right but more right.

      Again, just because I’m not absolutely right doesn’t mean I am logically required to accept all other meaningless drivel as equal to my own position. It’s like asking what’s in my backpack. You say perhaps a book, and johnny says perhaps a fist sized fusion reactor. Despite a fist sized fusion reactor being possible its hardly likely and can be rejected. Just because neither of you can be sure does not mean your answers are of equal value. So quit trying to paint my answers as wrong simply because they may not be unequivocally right.

      I really wish that someone else would comment on our conversation to get an outside perspective.

      Perhaps my readers are enjoying my handling of you? Of course until they speak up we’ll never know and thus we, like the backpack speculators, can inject whatever we want onto their hypothetical minds.

      At no point do I think you’re completely wrong about everything, you just take the “everyone is out to get us and there is some evil master plan at work” thing a little too seriously.

      I have said explicitly time and again that I do not believe our social problems are the work of a single masterful top down conspiracy, I’m simply saying there is a single cumulative effect and social systems can be understood AS IF there were a conspiracy. Again, for the cheap seats, “The Company” is just short hand for the system, specifically church, government, and corporations. Notice I’m speaking generally, that’s intentional. I’m talking about macroscopic effects here.

      Again, there is a spectrum to correctness, saying that governments, churches, and corporations act in a manner which collectively and deceptively oppresses the average human does not mean there are secret Illuminati lizard aliens putting mind control microbes in the tap water. Though I’m quick to add if any of these groups got hold of mind control microbes they would use them immediately and without hesitation for the same reason they developed the bomb. For fear of someone else doing it first.

      As for taking their mechanisms of control seriously, you’re damn right I take them seriously! Just look at their behavior! Look at Saudi Arabia, Monsanto, and the Catholic church. Are their abuses of humanity seriously to be scoffed off as trivial? What IS worth taking seriously in your world if not that shit?

      And I don’t think I am special or unique… I don’t think anyone is and that’s why I commented on your post to begin with.

      And that’s my point. You project your insecurities about being nothing onto everyone else. Pardon me but I know I have something to offer. I’m sorry if you feel you don’t. I really am. If you’d just calm down for 40 seconds and look at yourself rationally you could probably either A. Find something you can offer, or B. Begin turning yourself into something that has something to offer. Unless of course you consider trolling to be constructive, which actually can be defended, I mean look at the wonderful content you’ve inspired here.

      But of course in your world any admittance of absence of ability not coupled with a claim of it’s triviality is tantamount to an admission of weakness. Put simply you think you’re good at everything that matters, and if you’re not good at anything then obviously nothing matters. Your emotive weight assigments are based on your ability, not the other way around. It’s a form of selection bias I think, I can’t recall the name, it’s when a person disregards the importance of an area of weakness. Religious people routinely do this to dismiss the sciences.

      Like me and Nascar, or Pokemon. I know nothing about Nascar so I’m inclined to dismiss it’s importance. Now that can be the result of actual triviality, like it actually is pointless so I fail to learn about it. On the other hand I could be disregarding it because I know nothing about it. I happen to have a driving phobia so I can’t say with 100% clarity which is the case.

      My point is specialness exists. It’s just not up to us to say with conviction if we are or not. The accuracy of my opinion of my own specialness is irrelevant. What matters in any practical way is how that opinion effects my actions. In this context how it effects my writing.

      I believe I am special and I’m sorry that upsets you or anyone else. But I won’t fight it, or lie about it, until I have good reason. And your reasons, implied as they are, are simply not good enough. I see no value in intentionally attempting to destroy my own self esteem just because you find me to be arrogant and then state that a lack of arrogance is a good thing sufficient to destroy myself.

      Look at my work. How can I not see it and judge myself special? How many people write like me? Am I seriously average in your opinion? We both know the reality of the situation.

      You’re so busy being pretentious and trying to say you are special you’re missing everything that is outside your narrow world view.

      You’re the one that is making my self esteem an issue. You’re the one making this personal and calling names and making value judgments. I’m simply refuting them and making some of my own to expose where your flawed conclusions likely come from. You seem to think you’re the first person to attack me in this way, I assure you, you are not. Whatever I am capable of learning from this mode of attack I have probably already learned it.

      That said, I am evolving. My work from even a year ago in some ways is significantly different than it is today. You seem to think I’m made of steel just because I’m not shattering under your blows like a giant cookie.

      In short. Ask yourself, what if I’m not arrogant, what if I’m simply (mostly) correct? What if your claims I’ve already heard, considered carefully, found to be wanting, and dismissed? Would that not look exactly like unjustified arrogance? I’m not going to hold my hat in my hand and run off at the mouth with disclaimers and qualifier just to avoid scorn. I don’t have time for that. And I wouldn’t even if I did have time.

      You confuse memory for flippancy.

      So test me. Pick one claim. Quote me, state your objections, and I’ll respond appropriately.

      And I skimmed over the lawful path link… Sounds like a failed Sci-fi novel! It was found in an old printer for fuck’s sake! There is nothing proving it is real.

      You seem to be obsessed with what I called the labcoat effect but which is generally known as the argument from authority.

      Who cares if it came out of a ham sandwich? Or a briefcase left on a subway? That doesn’t change the ontological validity of the claim.

      Granted in and of itself it proves nothing. I personally find the level of detail compelling, though I am not sufficiently versed in economics or electronics to speak to those portion’s validity, however I am quite certain that kind of control is possible. I’ve seen it and even used crude version of it. I got myself elected to body president at my college. I’ve also more tellingly avoided problems that have consumed everyone around me and large portions of the populace. Now I realize my entire life is nothing, statically speaking, I am not a representative sample of crowd control obviously, I’m simply stating one reason why I have conviction that these methods are possible, even inevitable.

      I see subtle mechanisms of control throughout society. I study sociology and psychology. I have a gift for macroscopic thinking. Again back to being special, if you want to refute that claim on the grounds that it’s bad manners be my guest.

      If you want to disregard even the possibility that this form of control exists, again, be my guest. I would say it explains a great deal about why your views are so, widespread.

      NO… The “ultra rich” didn’t do anything to attain their wealth by merit… They are just as useless as the people on welfare. They are both a burden on our society. I hate “the company” just as much as you I’m sure…

      Then you are in conflict with your claims of education. You strongly implied that educational failure is related to lack of social success. The logical equivalent is that social ascendancy is the result of personal supremacy.

      If you believe that then why are you so upset with low standards? If you grant that wealth is attained via not merit, what is it attained by? The only thing left would seem to be luck, and if social prosperity is only a matter of luck, then what does it matter what education does? Why should you care if they pass out diplomas on the first day and send everyone home?

      but when you say “the company” it just makes you sound a bit loony.

      And the big crunch and dark energy sound a little silly too, you’re the one that’s about to bring up the p-brane and string madness. Again, I don’t care about the fashion, I’m not trying to market myself here. I’m simply putting my opinion out there in the most pure form. I leave it to others to sell the ideas if the ideas are worth selling. We’d need to go into a good bit of detail about me personally to really explain why I don’t care how loony I sound and I suspect no one cares.

      But one solid reason not to do with me personally is my conclusion that there is no polite way to say some of these things. Some medicine can’t be hidden in the food.

      I’m telling you… you keep jumping to these conclusions and now just because I insult your conspiracy theories you start name calling and attacking me like a child having a temper tantrum. But you can be willfully ignorant of what I’m trying to get across and put words in my mouth all you want I guess because this is your little fantasy world on the internet.

      See below about insults.

      No laws “cause’ those problems… they just make them worse. I’m all for fewer laws.

      You need to look into the history of the drug war.

      Drug law for the most part caused the drug problem in America.

      Rampant addiction is not a problem in and of itself, just look at heroin maintenance therapy. It’s a plant product, it could be as cheap as vanilla or even imitation vanilla when you look at the synthetic opioids. The current climate of drug law is what causes the notion that being addicted is a problem in and of itself, and so long as it is viewed as such its easy to look at the 10s and 20s and say “Woah! Addiction was a huge problem before the drug war, that’s why we need drug law.” But that claim is intellectually bankrupt when you realize that 99% of the horror of the drug war is a direct reaction to drug law enforcement.

      Addiction is pandemic in society. The drug war arbitrarily chooses when to persecute those addicted. I am addicted to caffeine, my mother is addicted to asthma medication, millions are legally addicted to Valium, some people are addicted to activities. Hell in a very real way people are addicted to food, quite separate from the need for nourishment. Addiction itself is made a problem only to provide an excuse to perpetuate profitable activities. The drug war provides power and money to those that already have them. All three branches of The Company profit from it. Governments use it as a foot in the door and excuse to destroy enemies. Churches use it to grab minds at their weakest point, there is a good deal of controversy over the religious connotations to 12 step programs. Corporations make a killing selling equipment and services to anti drug efforts. The drug testing industry alone is worth 2 billion. How much is the caffeine testing industry worth?

      Beyond that there is the logical trap, a law defines a crime. Until an act is outlawed it is not a crime, and therefor in some ways not a problem.

      And all that is just one example. There are HORDES of problems in society caused by solutions in order to sell solutions. No corporation for example can solve a problem unless it exists, therefor any corporation setup to solve a problem instantly has a conflict of interest to deal with since if it accomplished its goal it would cease to exist. My following example should explain why its very likely that the more successful a corporation is the more likely it will attempt to suppress cures in an effort to sell palliatives. One example is called the tragedy of the commons. Check it out.

      Personal note: I repaired computers for a living and I could have easily created problems to profit from solving them. I could easily have left back doors open or implanted slow acting pathogens to ensure that my clients would need me again in 6 months time.

      The fact that I did NOT engage in this behavior is contributory to why I no longer have any clients. It’s a kind of economic, game theory, or public good problem. The fact is reality produces situations where those who act in the worst interests of the general good are rewarded the most and vice versa.

      This leads to, again a non-conspiratorial, yet collective effect where in the good guy is smashed by bad guys subtly acting collectively to destroy competition. Do I think that the other computer repair people had a meeting and drove me out of business? Of course not. But the fact remains, if I had been more like them, more evil, I’d have made a lot more money.

      And again this advantage is granted to incompetence also. They may not even be aware. But those that are and act on it, will make more money than those that aren’t, and both make more money than people like me who are aware and actively refuse.

      In this way, those most likely to act in this way rise to the top. Do you understand?

      “If the best you can come up with is insults then you’ve missed the point.”
      I think it’s funny you say this because you haven’t gone one paragraph without insulting or misinterpreting me.

      A misinterpretation (if present) is an error I couldn’t have helped. It is not in the same class at all as an insult. And I focused on insulting you on purpose. Read the first three sentences of my last reply. It worked too. Look how much more rational you are this time. For the record one can use evil super powers for good. 🙂

      I don’t think I’m better than everyone else, I don’t think pain and death are good, just parts of life.

      What if you are better? And perhaps I can convince you then they are not needed parts of life. If we agree on that premise then we should be able to find common ground.

      And I don’t think anyone or anything is “cool” besides Clint Eastwood (kidding about the populate the world with his clones thing by the way).

      Heh, good to hear it. But I’ve heard worse with what I assumed was 100% sincerity.

      And SAW is totally just a gory version of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” (And Hostel sucked.)

      LMAO, “Teacher says, every time a bell rings some guys cuts off his foot.” Grats you’re now permanently a part of my memory. I liked hostel in the sense that it got people thinking about how the power of money really needs checks and balances. But yeah I agree with you. That was clearly not the intention.

      I think saying that “feeling good and staying alive” are “ethics” is a bit of a jump.

      I was unclear. I’m saying they are premises on which ethics are built. They are axiomatic goals that one can use to judge the value of a given ethic. That which most contributes to life and happiness is most good. Once that’s established the rest is just number crunching.

      But it seems like you want to enter some eutopia (sic) where you never have to feel pain or suffer and you feel good all of the time and you live forever.

      Correct. Though to be more specific I want to (via informed volition of course) turn the world into such, but whatever, you get the idea.

      Also I’m sure I know a lot more about Stephen Hawking, quantum mechanics, Brane Theory, and the universe in general than you.

      That’s entirely possible. And I’m glad to see some unabashed self love sticking out. I’m perfectly willing to learn. I have an essay on quantum mechanics you might like to shred then. http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=726

      Stephen Hawking wasn’t paralysed (sic) until his 20’s and he was already a genius and outsmarting his professors.

      I was aware of that but my position stands. To say that he would have achieved the same amount had he been free to roam is absurd to me, but again, without an alternate universe to observe, there’s no proving it.

      “I recommend suicide. I don’t see how you can ever be happy.”
      Thank you for your recommendation, but I am happy.

      Well that’s great then. 🙂

      Thank you for your “devoid of compassion” and the “I’m thinking you’ve already had this dilemma and kept the money” comments.

      You’re welcome. Personally I think you’re back tracking because I’ve put you in a position where you win by doing so. But ultimately it doesn’t matter.

      I do not think helping someone is Socialist nor do I think all aspects of Socialism are bad.

      Again, in light of that you might want to reexamine your statements on education.

      And I have been in that situation, which I would hardly call a dilemma, and made sure the money was returned to it’s rightful owner.

      Well excellent. Also, we are in parity, if your claim is truthful, and only you know.

      So to recap; I like Clint Eastwood, quantum physics, Stephen Hawking, and Ted Nugent.

      Which interpretation do you favor? Hidden variables for me. You strike me as a sum over histories kind of guy.

      I hate Bush (both of them), Capitalism, Commercialism, Communism, almost every “-ism”, “The Company,” how you keep putting words in my mouth, and the movie Hostel.

      Like The Company, there is no conspiracy, you’re just not being clear enough for me. Though you may be being clear enough for others. *shrugs*

      I hope you realize that we still aren’t that much off from each other on some things, just some of your stuff sounds a little too Sci-fi and a little too “conspiracy theory”.

      I do. Again, like above, I’m not concerned with how my stuff sounds.

  103. I think the concept of “gender roles” is sexist in itself and in no way was I comparing you to a woman. And again… I have no problem with gays and am completely comfortable with my sexuality and penis size. Like I said, I never thought the first post I sent was ever going to make it on here so yes, I was the “irrational aggressor” initially, but that was many posts ago and I’d hoped we would have moved past that by now.

    Why would you not believe that I don’t watch TV? What reason would I have to lie about that? And also I don’t lie in the first place. I don’t expect you to believe that, but honesty is one of my ethics.

    I would not pick a fight with you if you call me a cocksucker. Like I said… I don’t care about people’s opinions of me… I what I think is right, you do yours.

    I’m not saying my words should be “treated as meaningless” I’m just saying you shouldn’t worry about every little thing people say that you might find offensive. And your assessment of my worth is irrelevant. I don’t view myself as good or bad. I try to keep balance. But I don’t expect to someone who wants to run away from reality and live in a world where everyone is happy all of the time and nothing bad ever happens to appreciate that concept. You can’t have good without bad. You can’t have life without death.

    “If you’re trying to be clever realize that I shape this debate, not you.”
    Do you think you might take things a little too seriously? It sounds like you have a serious god complex.

    Kant: First off, why would I have a problem with the way he looks? He looks like a pretty normal guy (from the 17th century). And no, you did not introduce him to me. The reason I dislike Kant is because he is a pretentious, egotistical, god-fearing, lunatic. And about the physics v. philosophy thing, how does that make any sense? Why would liking one make me dislike the other? I like both equally because they address different concepts and problems. Philosophy for the mind, physics for the body. Basically, why does it matter how good your computer is if you have to run DOS on it? And why would you need a great operating system if you didn’t have the hardware to run it.

    So you are against gun control?! That is an interesting surprise, may I ask why?

    “You think a lack of compassion makes you cool. Though perhaps you believe you don’t care about getting rich because you probably know how futile the notion of class mobility is and have taken a defensive approach. “Oh yeah? Well I didn’t want to be rich anyway, so there!””
    Why must you keep nay saying when I’m talking about my own opinion? You keep trying to project these ideas you have onto me and it’s not going to get anywhere. I really could not give a shit less about being rich or having money. Why would I… so I can buy more shit? I don’t care about “coolness” or if someone has more expensive shit than me. I’m not quite a minimalist, more like a “practical-ist.” It has nothing to do with compassion or “coolness.”

    “The average American sees over 3000 advertising messages a day. Are you seriously dumb enough to sit there and tell me that has no effect on your psyche?”
    Like I said, I don’t watch TV. I’m sure I am not seeing 3000 ads a day because a large part of them are on TV. I don’t just go out and buy shit anyway. Besides food I can’t remember the last thing I bought… I checked my account statement. It only is for the last two months and there is nothing besides food or beverage. I don’t even own a car even though I could afford one. I ride my bike to work six miles each way because I think owning a car is a waste of money and lazy. Why would I want to give the oil companies anything when I can get myself there?

    When I said “you think there is your answer and the wrong answer,” I wasn’t saying you’re wrong because you think you’re right, I was saying there is a spectrum of answers. That’s what I’ve been trying to say the whole time.

    “Ask yourself, what if I’m not arrogant, what if I’m simply (mostly) correct?”
    A truly not arrogant and not egotistical person would never say this.

    “Look at my work. How can I not see it and judge myself special? How many people write like me? Am I seriously average in your opinion? We both know the reality of the situation.”
    Wow… Yes I do think you are average… There are at least 12 pretentious versions of you on every college campus I’ve ever been to. You have your anti-establishment views and you all think you’re special and better than everyone else. And you all just congratulate each other on what awesome pretentious ideas you all have to keep the generic cycle going. Don’t you understand you are just another piece in “the company’s” puzzle?

    “You strongly implied that educational failure is related to lack of social success.”
    No, you strongly inferred that connection even though I repeatedly tried to tell you that is not what I was saying.

    I don’t know how death could cease to be a part of life. We are already overpopulated. What are you suggesting?

    “Hidden variables for me. You strike me as a sum over histories kind of guy.”
    You are correct. Hidden variables makes it sound like there is too much of a plan to things for me. I tend to think the universe is more of a balance of chaos. This is also why I don’t think anyone is special. We are meaningless in comparison to the universe as a whole.

    1. I think the concept of “gender roles” is sexist in itself and in no way was I comparing you to a woman. And again… I have no problem with gays and am completely comfortable with my sexuality and penis size. Like I said, I never thought the first post I sent was ever going to make it on here so yes, I was the “irrational aggressor” initially, but that was many posts ago and I’d hoped we would have moved past that by now.

      Fair enough. I feel no pressing need to play he said she said, but in the interests of intellectual integrity I’ll simply say I think you are creatively revising your previous statements to mask their original meaning and intent because I’ve shown your original positions to be either false or unflattering or both. But either way it doesn’t matter and I’m content to make no further mention of it and accept your positions on current face value.

      Why would you not believe that I don’t watch TV? What reason would I have to lie about that?

      Because the nature of my attack was to place you in the context of the ultra common and the common watch TV religiously (that word is apt for numerous reasons). You are adversarial, you’ve already established yourself as a person who’s defined himself as the opposition of his enemies, thus if I say you watch TV you could be wounded by that if it’s true so you feel they need to “prove” me wrong and say you don’t watch TV. Those are all just hypothetical reasons why you might lie about watching TV to answer your question. Again, it’s not provable.

      And also I don’t lie in the first place. I don’t expect you to believe that, but honesty is one of my ethics.

      I can believe honesty is an ethic for you, but sometimes the pain of wounding your own integrity is less than the pain of revealing an embarrassing truth. Even I have things I’ll lie about, Fortunately for me I’ve not been pressed to that point anywhere on this blog, but if I had I’d hardly say so. I suspect you realize that protesting honesty is exactly what a liar and a non liar would do, so once again, it doesn’t matter either way. I’m willing to take you at your word. If you don’t watch TV, fine. So long as you act like a commoner I’ll treat you like one. I’m quick to add your behavior is consistently improving and I’m more likely to take you seriously now, though factually my opinion on your positions won’t change until you present new (to me) material. A fact is a fact no matter how it’s delivered.

      I would not pick a fight with you if you call me a cocksucker. Like I said… I don’t care about people’s opinions of me… I what I think is right, you do yours.

      *shrugs* Again, benefit of the doubt.

      I’m not saying my words should be “treated as meaningless” I’m just saying you shouldn’t worry about every little thing people say that you might find offensive.

      “Little” being the operative word. It all depends on what is said and the context. Sentiments like the ones you expressed are routinely used to quash needed, even urgent, complaint. You can trivialize anything, that doesn’t mean it’s actually trivial.

      And your assessment of my worth is irrelevant. I don’t view myself as good or bad.

      We’ll get to a more complete answer to this in a minute. That doesn’t hold given your expressed attitude on the quality of being special.

      I try to keep balance. But I don’t expect to someone who wants to run away from reality and live in a world where everyone is happy all of the time and nothing bad ever happens to appreciate that concept.

      Ahh, a membership card. If I don’t think like you I can’t possible understand you because if I understood I’d agree? That’s a fallacy and you know it. You’re attempting to shame me again. Like I’m weak for wanting to improve quality of life.

      Once again, do not project your limitations onto reality. Just because you can’t quickly and intuitively imagine a way out of the hedonic pain trap treadmill that constitutes the bulk of the (current) human condition without creating some sort of mindless drooling dystopian nightmare, does not mean no such satisfactory exit exists. And it certainly does not mean I am weak and a failure as a human because I seek it.

      If you want to take the Orwell/Huxley view of pain and suffering, be my guest. In a way that will serve you well because when a solution is found and implemented you’ll be gloriously surprised and of course no one will be spiteful enough to harm you for your incorrectness. Of course the down side is that because of your stubborn rejection of the possibility you won’t be contributing to it’s development.

      http://www.gradients.com/
      http://www.hedweb.com/huxley/

      Your entire position on this subject is thoroughly crushed in the above two links. You position exists because a huge part of the human mind’s ability to tolerate intractable pain is the recognition of or faith in it’s intractability. Pain that could be easily cured, but isn’t, is a higher order of pain. Example: Starving to death in a steel box. vs. Starving to death in a steel box with a 4 course dinner behind unbreakable glass in plain view. which is worse? Why?

      http://blog.ted.com/2006/09/happiness_exper.php

      Because in order for us to tolerate a truly shitty event we must know for a fact first that we can’t change it or we must not be aware of an alternative (qualitatively these are equal).

      My imagination is not so limited, and this may not be because I’m awesome, it could just be because of what I’ve read coupled with my faith in human ingenuity. I simultaneous recognize what can be done and believe with every fiber of my being that not only can it be done, it will be done. Not only do I see the meal behind the glass, I’m confident I’ll be able to shatter said glass shortly.

      You can’t have good without bad.

      Incorrect. Pain and pleasure are separate experiential spectra. Examples: If pain and pleasure are points on a single scale then how can happiness and sadness be experienced simultaneously? Imagine being told your loved one died in a car wreck the very same instant your lottery winning number was announced. Substitute whatever events you like (and dislike), death and money may be bad examples for you personally but you should get my point.

      Second example: If pleasure and pain are the same spectrum then what is boredom? Pain and pleasure are separate values. You can cognitively add them to arrive at a total value, sure. But that’s not how we experience them directly. That is proven by neurology. Different areas of the brain handle different styles of input and experience.

      You can’t have life without death.

      You absolutely can. On the subjective level ask any child how they feel about their favorite stuffed animal. Or examine tribal religions and their perception of “the earth” as a living thing. Rocks, streams, the sun, etc.

      On a logical level at what point does life begin? Is fire alive? Are viruses? How can I be alive if every part of me is lifeless? Are protons and the like alive? I am made of protons etc. Am I even still me when every particle of my body has been replaced? (Ship of Theseus) Are twins the same person? Would clones be? How about perfect copies? What if I divided like a cell? Which one is the original?

      You just haven’t had cause or time to sit and think these things through. I have. Strength through diversity. 🙂

      “If you’re trying to be clever realize that I shape this debate, not you.”
      Do you think you might take things a little too seriously? It sounds like you have a serious god complex.

      Again, just because you trivialize something doesn’t mean it is actually trivial. I know you wish to disregard everything you don’t care about as objectively worthless, that’s only human, and in so doing reduce the value of your own limitations, but these are real and serious issues that humanity is going to be forced to deal with, if it isn’t being forced right now. If you want to take a back seat and just not think about it, fine. Go read some other blog. Obviously I have a different opinion.

      Kant: First off, why would I have a problem with the way he looks? He looks like a pretty normal guy (from the 17th century). And no, you did not introduce him to me. The reason I dislike Kant is because he is a pretentious, egotistical, god-fearing, lunatic.

      It seems in your world a person must be utterly perfect in all ways before they can be thought of as having something to contribute. Tesla hated human hair and was a life long celibate, I guess we should all chuck our electric motors and radio yeah? Kant was a genius AND a lunatic. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. The founding fathers were racist sexist classicists, does that make the constitution a worthless document?

      And about the physics v. philosophy thing, how does that make any sense? Why would liking one make me dislike the other? I like both equally because they address different concepts and problems. Philosophy for the mind, physics for the body. Basically, why does it matter how good your computer is if you have to run DOS on it? And why would you need a great operating system if you didn’t have the hardware to run it.

      Fair enough. You seemed to indicate you’re trained in the physical sciences, those that are, typically disdain philosophy as a non-science. If you don’t, cool. I do, in the sense that modern education is biographical and sycophantic, but the concepts of philosophy and the purpose of the study itself is of inestimable value.

      So you are against gun control?! That is an interesting surprise, may I ask why?

      Logic and ethics. It’s a huge issue. Put simply, I am against gun control law because it does more harm than good and because we aren’t supposed to have it anyway. I have a concealed deadly weapons license and carry a GLOCK 26. (The caps are correct spelling, I think it looks stupid but what can I do.) I prevented a fight with a bbgun as a kid, and the concept stuck. My ability to harm him resulted in no one being harmed. The left opposes gun freedom out of pride and habit. There is no cohesive logic behind it.

      “You think a lack of compassion makes you cool. Though perhaps you believe you don’t care about getting rich because you probably know how futile the notion of class mobility is and have taken a defensive approach. “Oh yeah? Well I didn’t want to be rich anyway, so there!””
      Why must you keep nay saying when I’m talking about my own opinion? You keep trying to project these ideas you have onto me and it’s not going to get anywhere. I really could not give a shit less about being rich or having money. Why would I… so I can buy more shit? I don’t care about “coolness” or if someone has more expensive shit than me. I’m not quite a minimalist, more like a “practical-ist.” It has nothing to do with compassion or “coolness.”

      This goes back to the very beginning, I think you’re back pedaling, but that’s fine, evolution happens. And regardless of what you thought before, this is what you are claiming now, and we agree. So there’s no point. I have no interest in vengeance.

      “The average American sees over 3000 advertising messages a day. Are you seriously dumb enough to sit there and tell me that has no effect on your psyche?”
      Like I said, I don’t watch TV. I’m sure I am not seeing 3000 ads a day because a large part of them are on TV.

      Fair enough and true, but just because you don’t watch TV at home doesn’t mean you don’t watch TV. You could work with a TV, or you could listen to the radio on the way to work or you could read magazines, etc etc. Still, your point holds, that figure takes these things into account. You probably do see less.

      I don’t just go out and buy shit anyway. Besides food I can’t remember the last thing I bought… I checked my account statement. It only is for the last two months and there is nothing besides food or beverage. I don’t even own a car even though I could afford one. I ride my bike to work six miles each way because I think owning a car is a waste of money and lazy. Why would I want to give the oil companies anything when I can get myself there?

      We seem to have a good bit in common. I also do not drive, and not driving has ethical advantages I’ve now embraced, but this was not my choice. I have a phobia.

      When I said “you think there is your answer and the wrong answer,” I wasn’t saying you’re wrong because you think you’re right, I was saying there is a spectrum of answers. That’s what I’ve been trying to say the whole time.

      Again, if that’s your position now, then we agree.

      “Ask yourself, what if I’m not arrogant, what if I’m simply (mostly) correct?”
      A truly not arrogant and not egotistical person would never say this.

      I don’t care about my status in this regard, if I am arrogant and egotistical, so be it. I’ll add it to white and tall as personal stats.

      “Look at my work. How can I not see it and judge myself special? How many people write like me? Am I seriously average in your opinion? We both know the reality of the situation.”
      Wow… Yes I do think you are average… There are at least 12 pretentious versions of you on every college campus I’ve ever been to.

      Even if true you just made a tiny sample. College might be a booming business in the states but globally college attendance is rare. Fortunately I don’t care about what group you try and squeeze me into.

      You have your anti-establishment views and you all think you’re special and better than everyone else.

      If you’re blind to my ability and what I have to offer, so be it, you can go have this conversation with one of the billions of other mes. If I’m so common why spend hours debating me? Your behavior doesn’t match your rhetoric. Again, what if I am better? What if I am special? In your world apparently that’s not possible. Not Even Possible. This to me screams “well trained” and is why I see you as a commoner. To me you’re just another pawn screaming at me for daring not to stand in line.

      And you all just congratulate each other on what awesome pretentious ideas you all have to keep the generic cycle going. Don’t you understand you are just another piece in “the company’s” puzzle?

      That’s like calling me chicken trying to get me to obey. Look at the logical equivalent of your statement “if you were really special you’d just do as your told like everyone else, you’d do nothing just like me.” It makes zero sense. I’m sorry you’ve given up, but I understand why and I don’t blame you.

      Besides you’re in no position to judge me, not because you have no right, but because you don’t have enough data.

      You didn’t even know my stance on guns, obviously you’ve read about 2% of my work at best. I routinely make my stance on law and freedom clear. My position on drugs and guns alone plants me in the in the extreme minority.

      “You strongly implied that educational failure is related to lack of social success.”
      No, you strongly inferred that connection even though I repeatedly tried to tell you that is not what I was saying.

      I’ll resist the urge to copy and paste your previous words and accuse you of trolling. Your desire to change the perception of your past position is a victory in and of itself. If this is what you now claim, we agree. There is a difference between revising your position based on new evidence and changing it to suit the moment.

      I don’t know how death could cease to be a part of life. We are already overpopulated. What are you suggesting?

      Obviously you didn’t even read the links I gave you. This whole blog is “what I’m suggesting.” I’m not about to repeat the sum of my philosophy here just because you can’t be bothered to follow a link. You want me to believe I’m worthless and that you don’t care what I have to say anyway, so why should I bother?

      “Hidden variables for me. You strike me as a sum over histories kind of guy.”
      You are correct. Hidden variables makes it sound like there is too much of a plan to things for me. I tend to think the universe is more of a balance of chaos. This is also why I don’t think anyone is special. We are meaningless in comparison to the universe as a whole.

      Why am I not shocked that you would rather invent an elaborate and contradictorily byzantine solution than simply admit that something is beyond the scope of your ability? Science is the process of understanding what is manifest so that one can predict events. Science is NOT about determining WHY events manifest or what system is at work behind manifestation, it is a record keeping and prediction system ONLY.

      Godel has shown that any complete system, will contain statements that are both true and unprovable. Whatever the hidden variable is, a representation of it I suspect would be such a statement.

      There are questions that transcend science and religion, and there are questions that defeat them both, questions that are not tricks. This is such a question. Quantum weirdness and the resulting nonsensical (the idea of a superposed state is as absurd as saying reality ceases to exist when you close your eyes) explanations are consequences of attempting to deduce or prove the unprovable.

      If you attempt to debate me on QM here I’ll not publish it, go find my post on quantum mechanics and post there.

  104. I think the concept of “gender roles” is sexist in itself and in no way was I comparing you to a woman. And again… I have no problem with gays and am completely comfortable with my sexuality and penis size. Like I said, I never thought the first post I sent was ever going to make it on here so yes, I was the “irrational aggressor” initially, but that was many posts ago and I’d hoped we would have moved past that by now.

    Why would you not believe that I don’t watch TV? What reason would I have to lie about that? And also I don’t lie in the first place. I don’t expect you to believe that, but honesty is one of my ethics.

    I would not pick a fight with you if you call me a cocksucker. Like I said… I don’t care about people’s opinions of me… I what I think is right, you do yours.

    I’m not saying my words should be “treated as meaningless” I’m just saying you shouldn’t worry about every little thing people say that you might find offensive. And your assessment of my worth is irrelevant. I don’t view myself as good or bad. I try to keep balance. But I don’t expect to someone who wants to run away from reality and live in a world where everyone is happy all of the time and nothing bad ever happens to appreciate that concept. You can’t have good without bad. You can’t have life without death.

    “If you’re trying to be clever realize that I shape this debate, not you.”
    Do you think you might take things a little too seriously? It sounds like you have a serious god complex.

    Kant: First off, why would I have a problem with the way he looks? He looks like a pretty normal guy (from the 17th century). And no, you did not introduce him to me. The reason I dislike Kant is because he is a pretentious, egotistical, god-fearing, lunatic. And about the physics v. philosophy thing, how does that make any sense? Why would liking one make me dislike the other? I like both equally because they address different concepts and problems. Philosophy for the mind, physics for the body. Basically, why does it matter how good your computer is if you have to run DOS on it? And why would you need a great operating system if you didn’t have the hardware to run it.

    So you are against gun control?! That is an interesting surprise, may I ask why?

    “You think a lack of compassion makes you cool. Though perhaps you believe you don’t care about getting rich because you probably know how futile the notion of class mobility is and have taken a defensive approach. “Oh yeah? Well I didn’t want to be rich anyway, so there!””
    Why must you keep nay saying when I’m talking about my own opinion? You keep trying to project these ideas you have onto me and it’s not going to get anywhere. I really could not give a shit less about being rich or having money. Why would I… so I can buy more shit? I don’t care about “coolness” or if someone has more expensive shit than me. I’m not quite a minimalist, more like a “practical-ist.” It has nothing to do with compassion or “coolness.”

    “The average American sees over 3000 advertising messages a day. Are you seriously dumb enough to sit there and tell me that has no effect on your psyche?”
    Like I said, I don’t watch TV. I’m sure I am not seeing 3000 ads a day because a large part of them are on TV. I don’t just go out and buy shit anyway. Besides food I can’t remember the last thing I bought… I checked my account statement. It only is for the last two months and there is nothing besides food or beverage. I don’t even own a car even though I could afford one. I ride my bike to work six miles each way because I think owning a car is a waste of money and lazy. Why would I want to give the oil companies anything when I can get myself there?

    When I said “you think there is your answer and the wrong answer,” I wasn’t saying you’re wrong because you think you’re right, I was saying there is a spectrum of answers. That’s what I’ve been trying to say the whole time.

    “Ask yourself, what if I’m not arrogant, what if I’m simply (mostly) correct?”
    A truly not arrogant and not egotistical person would never say this.

    “Look at my work. How can I not see it and judge myself special? How many people write like me? Am I seriously average in your opinion? We both know the reality of the situation.”
    Wow… Yes I do think you are average… There are at least 12 pretentious versions of you on every college campus I’ve ever been to. You have your anti-establishment views and you all think you’re special and better than everyone else. And you all just congratulate each other on what awesome pretentious ideas you all have to keep the generic cycle going. Don’t you understand you are just another piece in “the company’s” puzzle?

    “You strongly implied that educational failure is related to lack of social success.”
    No, you strongly inferred that connection even though I repeatedly tried to tell you that is not what I was saying.

    I don’t know how death could cease to be a part of life. We are already overpopulated. What are you suggesting?

    “Hidden variables for me. You strike me as a sum over histories kind of guy.”
    You are correct. Hidden variables makes it sound like there is too much of a plan to things for me. I tend to think the universe is more of a balance of chaos. This is also why I don’t think anyone is special. We are meaningless in comparison to the universe as a whole.

    1. I think the concept of “gender roles” is sexist in itself and in no way was I comparing you to a woman. And again… I have no problem with gays and am completely comfortable with my sexuality and penis size. Like I said, I never thought the first post I sent was ever going to make it on here so yes, I was the “irrational aggressor” initially, but that was many posts ago and I’d hoped we would have moved past that by now.

      Fair enough. I feel no pressing need to play he said she said, but in the interests of intellectual integrity I’ll simply say I think you are creatively revising your previous statements to mask their original meaning and intent because I’ve shown your original positions to be either false or unflattering or both. But either way it doesn’t matter and I’m content to make no further mention of it and accept your positions on current face value.

      Why would you not believe that I don’t watch TV? What reason would I have to lie about that?

      Because the nature of my attack was to place you in the context of the ultra common and the common watch TV religiously (that word is apt for numerous reasons). You are adversarial, you’ve already established yourself as a person who’s defined himself as the opposition of his enemies, thus if I say you watch TV you could be wounded by that if it’s true so you feel they need to “prove” me wrong and say you don’t watch TV. Those are all just hypothetical reasons why you might lie about watching TV to answer your question. Again, it’s not provable.

      And also I don’t lie in the first place. I don’t expect you to believe that, but honesty is one of my ethics.

      I can believe honesty is an ethic for you, but sometimes the pain of wounding your own integrity is less than the pain of revealing an embarrassing truth. Even I have things I’ll lie about, Fortunately for me I’ve not been pressed to that point anywhere on this blog, but if I had I’d hardly say so. I suspect you realize that protesting honesty is exactly what a liar and a non liar would do, so once again, it doesn’t matter either way. I’m willing to take you at your word. If you don’t watch TV, fine. So long as you act like a commoner I’ll treat you like one. I’m quick to add your behavior is consistently improving and I’m more likely to take you seriously now, though factually my opinion on your positions won’t change until you present new (to me) material. A fact is a fact no matter how it’s delivered.

      I would not pick a fight with you if you call me a cocksucker. Like I said… I don’t care about people’s opinions of me… I what I think is right, you do yours.

      *shrugs* Again, benefit of the doubt.

      I’m not saying my words should be “treated as meaningless” I’m just saying you shouldn’t worry about every little thing people say that you might find offensive.

      “Little” being the operative word. It all depends on what is said and the context. Sentiments like the ones you expressed are routinely used to quash needed, even urgent, complaint. You can trivialize anything, that doesn’t mean it’s actually trivial.

      And your assessment of my worth is irrelevant. I don’t view myself as good or bad.

      We’ll get to a more complete answer to this in a minute. That doesn’t hold given your expressed attitude on the quality of being special.

      I try to keep balance. But I don’t expect to someone who wants to run away from reality and live in a world where everyone is happy all of the time and nothing bad ever happens to appreciate that concept.

      Ahh, a membership card. If I don’t think like you I can’t possible understand you because if I understood I’d agree? That’s a fallacy and you know it. You’re attempting to shame me again. Like I’m weak for wanting to improve quality of life.

      Once again, do not project your limitations onto reality. Just because you can’t quickly and intuitively imagine a way out of the hedonic pain trap treadmill that constitutes the bulk of the (current) human condition without creating some sort of mindless drooling dystopian nightmare, does not mean no such satisfactory exit exists. And it certainly does not mean I am weak and a failure as a human because I seek it.

      If you want to take the Orwell/Huxley view of pain and suffering, be my guest. In a way that will serve you well because when a solution is found and implemented you’ll be gloriously surprised and of course no one will be spiteful enough to harm you for your incorrectness. Of course the down side is that because of your stubborn rejection of the possibility you won’t be contributing to it’s development.

      http://www.gradients.com/
      http://www.hedweb.com/huxley/

      Your entire position on this subject is thoroughly crushed in the above two links. You position exists because a huge part of the human mind’s ability to tolerate intractable pain is the recognition of or faith in it’s intractability. Pain that could be easily cured, but isn’t, is a higher order of pain. Example: Starving to death in a steel box. vs. Starving to death in a steel box with a 4 course dinner behind unbreakable glass in plain view. which is worse? Why?

      http://blog.ted.com/2006/09/happiness_exper.php

      Because in order for us to tolerate a truly shitty event we must know for a fact first that we can’t change it or we must not be aware of an alternative (qualitatively these are equal).

      My imagination is not so limited, and this may not be because I’m awesome, it could just be because of what I’ve read coupled with my faith in human ingenuity. I simultaneous recognize what can be done and believe with every fiber of my being that not only can it be done, it will be done. Not only do I see the meal behind the glass, I’m confident I’ll be able to shatter said glass shortly.

      You can’t have good without bad.

      Incorrect. Pain and pleasure are separate experiential spectra. Examples: If pain and pleasure are points on a single scale then how can happiness and sadness be experienced simultaneously? Imagine being told your loved one died in a car wreck the very same instant your lottery winning number was announced. Substitute whatever events you like (and dislike), death and money may be bad examples for you personally but you should get my point.

      Second example: If pleasure and pain are the same spectrum then what is boredom? Pain and pleasure are separate values. You can cognitively add them to arrive at a total value, sure. But that’s not how we experience them directly. That is proven by neurology. Different areas of the brain handle different styles of input and experience.

      You can’t have life without death.

      You absolutely can. On the subjective level ask any child how they feel about their favorite stuffed animal. Or examine tribal religions and their perception of “the earth” as a living thing. Rocks, streams, the sun, etc.

      On a logical level at what point does life begin? Is fire alive? Are viruses? How can I be alive if every part of me is lifeless? Are protons and the like alive? I am made of protons etc. Am I even still me when every particle of my body has been replaced? (Ship of Theseus) Are twins the same person? Would clones be? How about perfect copies? What if I divided like a cell? Which one is the original?

      You just haven’t had cause or time to sit and think these things through. I have. Strength through diversity. 🙂

      “If you’re trying to be clever realize that I shape this debate, not you.”
      Do you think you might take things a little too seriously? It sounds like you have a serious god complex.

      Again, just because you trivialize something doesn’t mean it is actually trivial. I know you wish to disregard everything you don’t care about as objectively worthless, that’s only human, and in so doing reduce the value of your own limitations, but these are real and serious issues that humanity is going to be forced to deal with, if it isn’t being forced right now. If you want to take a back seat and just not think about it, fine. Go read some other blog. Obviously I have a different opinion.

      Kant: First off, why would I have a problem with the way he looks? He looks like a pretty normal guy (from the 17th century). And no, you did not introduce him to me. The reason I dislike Kant is because he is a pretentious, egotistical, god-fearing, lunatic.

      It seems in your world a person must be utterly perfect in all ways before they can be thought of as having something to contribute. Tesla hated human hair and was a life long celibate, I guess we should all chuck our electric motors and radio yeah? Kant was a genius AND a lunatic. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. The founding fathers were racist sexist classicists, does that make the constitution a worthless document?

      And about the physics v. philosophy thing, how does that make any sense? Why would liking one make me dislike the other? I like both equally because they address different concepts and problems. Philosophy for the mind, physics for the body. Basically, why does it matter how good your computer is if you have to run DOS on it? And why would you need a great operating system if you didn’t have the hardware to run it.

      Fair enough. You seemed to indicate you’re trained in the physical sciences, those that are, typically disdain philosophy as a non-science. If you don’t, cool. I do, in the sense that modern education is biographical and sycophantic, but the concepts of philosophy and the purpose of the study itself is of inestimable value.

      So you are against gun control?! That is an interesting surprise, may I ask why?

      Logic and ethics. It’s a huge issue. Put simply, I am against gun control law because it does more harm than good and because we aren’t supposed to have it anyway. I have a concealed deadly weapons license and carry a GLOCK 26. (The caps are correct spelling, I think it looks stupid but what can I do.) I prevented a fight with a bbgun as a kid, and the concept stuck. My ability to harm him resulted in no one being harmed. The left opposes gun freedom out of pride and habit. There is no cohesive logic behind it.

      “You think a lack of compassion makes you cool. Though perhaps you believe you don’t care about getting rich because you probably know how futile the notion of class mobility is and have taken a defensive approach. “Oh yeah? Well I didn’t want to be rich anyway, so there!””
      Why must you keep nay saying when I’m talking about my own opinion? You keep trying to project these ideas you have onto me and it’s not going to get anywhere. I really could not give a shit less about being rich or having money. Why would I… so I can buy more shit? I don’t care about “coolness” or if someone has more expensive shit than me. I’m not quite a minimalist, more like a “practical-ist.” It has nothing to do with compassion or “coolness.”

      This goes back to the very beginning, I think you’re back pedaling, but that’s fine, evolution happens. And regardless of what you thought before, this is what you are claiming now, and we agree. So there’s no point. I have no interest in vengeance.

      “The average American sees over 3000 advertising messages a day. Are you seriously dumb enough to sit there and tell me that has no effect on your psyche?”
      Like I said, I don’t watch TV. I’m sure I am not seeing 3000 ads a day because a large part of them are on TV.

      Fair enough and true, but just because you don’t watch TV at home doesn’t mean you don’t watch TV. You could work with a TV, or you could listen to the radio on the way to work or you could read magazines, etc etc. Still, your point holds, that figure takes these things into account. You probably do see less.

      I don’t just go out and buy shit anyway. Besides food I can’t remember the last thing I bought… I checked my account statement. It only is for the last two months and there is nothing besides food or beverage. I don’t even own a car even though I could afford one. I ride my bike to work six miles each way because I think owning a car is a waste of money and lazy. Why would I want to give the oil companies anything when I can get myself there?

      We seem to have a good bit in common. I also do not drive, and not driving has ethical advantages I’ve now embraced, but this was not my choice. I have a phobia.

      When I said “you think there is your answer and the wrong answer,” I wasn’t saying you’re wrong because you think you’re right, I was saying there is a spectrum of answers. That’s what I’ve been trying to say the whole time.

      Again, if that’s your position now, then we agree.

      “Ask yourself, what if I’m not arrogant, what if I’m simply (mostly) correct?”
      A truly not arrogant and not egotistical person would never say this.

      I don’t care about my status in this regard, if I am arrogant and egotistical, so be it. I’ll add it to white and tall as personal stats.

      “Look at my work. How can I not see it and judge myself special? How many people write like me? Am I seriously average in your opinion? We both know the reality of the situation.”
      Wow… Yes I do think you are average… There are at least 12 pretentious versions of you on every college campus I’ve ever been to.

      Even if true you just made a tiny sample. College might be a booming business in the states but globally college attendance is rare. Fortunately I don’t care about what group you try and squeeze me into.

      You have your anti-establishment views and you all think you’re special and better than everyone else.

      If you’re blind to my ability and what I have to offer, so be it, you can go have this conversation with one of the billions of other mes. If I’m so common why spend hours debating me? Your behavior doesn’t match your rhetoric. Again, what if I am better? What if I am special? In your world apparently that’s not possible. Not Even Possible. This to me screams “well trained” and is why I see you as a commoner. To me you’re just another pawn screaming at me for daring not to stand in line.

      And you all just congratulate each other on what awesome pretentious ideas you all have to keep the generic cycle going. Don’t you understand you are just another piece in “the company’s” puzzle?

      That’s like calling me chicken trying to get me to obey. Look at the logical equivalent of your statement “if you were really special you’d just do as your told like everyone else, you’d do nothing just like me.” It makes zero sense. I’m sorry you’ve given up, but I understand why and I don’t blame you.

      Besides you’re in no position to judge me, not because you have no right, but because you don’t have enough data.

      You didn’t even know my stance on guns, obviously you’ve read about 2% of my work at best. I routinely make my stance on law and freedom clear. My position on drugs and guns alone plants me in the in the extreme minority.

      “You strongly implied that educational failure is related to lack of social success.”
      No, you strongly inferred that connection even though I repeatedly tried to tell you that is not what I was saying.

      I’ll resist the urge to copy and paste your previous words and accuse you of trolling. Your desire to change the perception of your past position is a victory in and of itself. If this is what you now claim, we agree. There is a difference between revising your position based on new evidence and changing it to suit the moment.

      I don’t know how death could cease to be a part of life. We are already overpopulated. What are you suggesting?

      Obviously you didn’t even read the links I gave you. This whole blog is “what I’m suggesting.” I’m not about to repeat the sum of my philosophy here just because you can’t be bothered to follow a link. You want me to believe I’m worthless and that you don’t care what I have to say anyway, so why should I bother?

      “Hidden variables for me. You strike me as a sum over histories kind of guy.”
      You are correct. Hidden variables makes it sound like there is too much of a plan to things for me. I tend to think the universe is more of a balance of chaos. This is also why I don’t think anyone is special. We are meaningless in comparison to the universe as a whole.

      Why am I not shocked that you would rather invent an elaborate and contradictorily byzantine solution than simply admit that something is beyond the scope of your ability? Science is the process of understanding what is manifest so that one can predict events. Science is NOT about determining WHY events manifest or what system is at work behind manifestation, it is a record keeping and prediction system ONLY.

      Godel has shown that any complete system, will contain statements that are both true and unprovable. Whatever the hidden variable is, a representation of it I suspect would be such a statement.

      There are questions that transcend science and religion, and there are questions that defeat them both, questions that are not tricks. This is such a question. Quantum weirdness and the resulting nonsensical (the idea of a superposed state is as absurd as saying reality ceases to exist when you close your eyes) explanations are consequences of attempting to deduce or prove the unprovable.

      If you attempt to debate me on QM here I’ll not publish it, go find my post on quantum mechanics and post there.

  105. Mostly a very good list, but:

    7 contradicts 12 somewhat. The latter wins. There’s not enough genuine anger, and too much performed indignation.
    56 qualifies 15. (Rhetoric, ethos etc.)
    30 is just silly (I am a non-dualist).

    1. Thanks for reading the list and taking the time to comment. 🙂

      “7 contradicts 12 somewhat.”

      7. Angry people are afraid of something.
      12. No one chooses how they feel.

      No they don’t, they are perfectly complimentary. To perhaps clear up any confusion, you should realize emotions often cause other emotions over time. I’ll let someone older and wiser explain 🙂

      “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to suffering” ~Yoda

      Angry people don’t choose to be angry, nor do they choose to be afraid, because no one chooses how they feel.

      “There’s not enough genuine anger, and too much performed indignation.”

      On who’s part? I don’t quite understand this statement. It comes across as being aimed at me personally but I don’t see the relevance. But I don’t “perform” any emotions, unless simple civility to people whom I lack respect for counts as an emotional performance.

      “56 qualifies 15. (Rhetoric, ethos etc.)”

      56. You are always entitled to an explanation that ignores authority.
      15. The message is independent of the messenger.

      Again I can’t quite see what you’re saying. Care to elaborate?

      But to engage in a bit of elaboration myself: If by “qualifies” you are referring to a kind of agent/principal problem, I’ll point out that I didn’t say from whom the explanation must come. Example: Let’s say a king sends guards to arrest a Baron, but doesn’t tell the guards why. In this case the Baron is entitled to an explanation, but not from the guards arresting him. Also the guards are not responsible for the edict, the king is.

      “30 is just silly (I am a non-dualist).”

      30. Your body is your brain’s pet.

      Well, it’s a radical simplification, but I stand by it as being essentially correct. I can’t know what you mean by duelist, but to respond to a hypothetical argument based on my guess, I’d ask you if you believe having your head removed from your body and placed on a heart lung machine would result in 90% of you essential self being lost, and if so, which parts? I am not my arms, or my legs, or my lungs. My body is in a very real way an environmental suit for my brain. And if you want to get technical about it, not even my whole brain.

      This opens a gargantuan can of worms 🙂 But I’d be happy to help you pick through them. http://underlore.com/why-study-consciousness/ (Comment here if you’d like to explore the brain/body issues with me 🙂 )

      Addition: The point of the pet analogy is to quickly draw attention to the fact that much of what you think of as your body is in reality a totally independent organism with its own motivations. Seeing you body as an animal makes much of the human condition easier to anticipate.

      As an example just think of how much of medical effort is expended countering what the body does. A quick and ubiquitous example would be immune reactions like fever, cold, and allergies. Or the desire to sleep as hypothermia approaches despite that being the worst possible thing you could do. Or the utter diagnostic uselessness of pain. A heart attack for example often hurts in your arm, while the brain doesn’t have pain receptors at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Underlore © 2013