[Previous] The Beginning of Infinity Criticism | Home | [Next] Overwatch Beginner's Guide

Elliot Temple on June 17, 2016

Comments (293)

> a lot of discussion of how everyone else is wrong, and very little attempt by anyone to change their own mind

i come from the left. grew up lefty, in the bay area. lefty parents, neighbors, etc. i changed my mind about that and many other things.

i spend a lot of time asking people if they have criticisms of my positions, better ideas to offer. that's what the reddit thread was about: i was seeking out any information about mistakes I (and DD and Alan) may be making about physics (and related philosophy).

curi at 2:51 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5910

curi at 2:52 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5911
> I do not see those attitudes as ones Id want to engage, out of fear of being circle jerked at and ignored.

i don't know what you're seeing. could you explain it to me? is it that i called something bad? I think Obama is bad too b/c e.g. he's helping Iran get billions of dollars to build nuclear weapons with. is that so bad?

Anonymous at 2:53 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5912
some things are good. some are bad. recognizing this is a step in problem solving. terrorism is bad. the way the physics community isn't interested in discussing whether FoR/BoI/DD is right or wrong is bad (not nearly as bad as terrorism, not trying to compare them, but there's something bad about it).

curi at 2:55 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5913
the reddit thread mentioned is https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/4nur7y/criticism_of_physics_in_the_beginning_of_infinity/

another attempt to seek out physics criticism was http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/262102/criticism-of-physics-in-the-beginning-of-infinity (the topic was blocked and most of the comments were removed)

another attempt to seek out physics criticism was https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/refutation-of-physics-in-_the-beginning-of-infinity_.875341/

that was actually the second thread on physics forums. i had to repost it because a moderator blocked the first one because he bizarrely thought offering to debate the issues was trying to lure his audience offsite. they closed this one too and no on answered.

curi at 3:02 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5914
for some context on the person i merely said "I disagree" to (https://twitter.com/tangled_zans/status/743745683555901440): they are from a free speech forum on facebook. they banned me for speaking my mind there, doxxed me, and used automated software to spam my blog. also ppl trolled my blog and doxxed me again in my blog comments. ppl also wrote a bunch of lewd comments speculating on e.g. a young woman i'm friends with having a sexual relationship with david deutsch, for the purpose of hurting her, me, and deutsch.

Anonymous at 3:22 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5915

XXX

Wow, I was about to reply with thanking curi for how open minded he was and saying that I will explain my thoughts properly tonight.

Then I see anonymous do... whatever the fuck that was.

I have no idea what the "free speech forum in question is. And I find looking up me on facebook quite creepy in general.

Wow. You guys are pretty shitty aren't you.

tangled_z at 3:24 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5916
both anonymous posts above are by me, i forgot to write my name.

i did not look you up on facebook.

are you saying you wrote that gender thing? i may have confused it with another discussion or thought you were someone else. if so, my bad. if you can link it i could figure out what happened more easily.

curi at 3:26 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5917
i was trying to clarify, from memory, why i was not interested in talking with some of the feminists who came to my blog in the past.

curi at 3:28 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5918
i can't find the quote you have a picture of on twitter. i don't know where it's from. never mind above. i retract all comments about it. i really can't comment on it without a link.

curi at 3:32 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5919
i have had some similar conversations so i thought i knew where it was from, but i guess not.

curi at 3:32 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5920

XXX

what? I have no idea what you're talking about.

I have had no interactions with you prior to this, and nothing that you've listen about the doxxing or those other allegations has ANYTHING to do with me, and I have no fucking clue why you wrote that about me to begin with, or why you've then linked to my profile.

You're a pretty fucked up person aren't you.

Don't speak to me again.

tangled_z at 3:33 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5921
right, the doxxing, etc, has nothing to do with you. it has to do with a past conversation. you quoted a past conversation.

you put a picture at: https://twitter.com/tangled_zans/status/743745683555901440

can you provide a link to where that's from?

curi at 3:33 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5922
> You're a pretty fucked up person aren't you.

you seem pretty mean and eager to jump to negative conclusions. i am trying to be patient and open minded.

curi at 3:34 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5923

oh

oh wait, ok, shit, i figured out what you were trying to say,sorry

tangled_z at 3:34 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5924

tangled_z

I thought you were saying all that stuff about me for some reasons, and that got me confused. Ok, can you please delete that pissed off thing that I said, that was kind of embarassingly in-the-moment and incorrect.

Anonymous at 3:35 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5925
sorry i don't delete comments. we both got a bit confused. no big deal. i don't hold grudges. hope you don't either.

curi at 3:36 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5926

tz

Ok! Well! So going back to my prior position: Yeah, you sound like you could be fun to discuss some ideas I have. But I need to go back to work and finish up some web stuff. I'll write something later today!

Thanks for your time and open mindedness. I have to admit that I rarely see someone with *that* much interest in understanding opposing view points.

tangled_z at 3:38 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5927
ok. FYI i will reply to discussions if you follow up in a day, a week, a month. however i find other people almost never continue if they leave for more than a couple days.

and i'm still very curious where you got this quote in the picture: https://twitter.com/tangled_zans/status/743745683555901440

i can't find it so far and want to double check what happened in that conversation.

curi at 3:39 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5928
my friend found the content on my ask.fm: http://ask.fm/curi42

i believe the anonymous person writing those comments was a very hostile person from the group of people that doxxed me and spammed my blog, and that they had no intention of having a real discussion. that's why i wasn't interested.

if you want to discuss gender issues or related topics i can try to do it in a more sensitive way.

curi at 3:57 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5929
Oh, yeah, I think that's normal. If I dont reply to a message in a day or so it takes me months. I will make an attempt to do so though if only to show appreciation for your persistence.

Here is the thread: Lol. Honestly, I won't even begin to discuss the other stuff you've said: your bizzaro views on gender are the least interesting thing for me.

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/10400

Here's another one that put me off from joining your community, where you go on a rant about liberals:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/16773

"they hate humans, reason, progress and civilization. they hate the open society. they hate change. they want a world of authority and obedience without the stress of thinking. they don't want success and failure, individual merit, individual responsibility. they don't want individuals.

Now I'm not taking a stand on this from either side of the "left/right" binary paradigm, but as a Popperian: it's a pretty stupid thing to say, and that's not an ad hominem if it really is that dumb.

Think about it.

If your conjecture is "all liberals hate humans, reason, progress, and civilization" ... that can be refuted by a SINGLE liberal who does not hate even ONE of those things.

So if I see that, in your community, conjectures of such huge refutable magnitude are taken as facts... that does not excite me to join or even consider you guys at all "Popperian". You honestly come across as a bunch of posers who just use the identity of Popperians to feel good without any of the work that comes with the label.

Also from that meta-debating thing that I mentioned, if you go around spewing that kind of judgemental generalisations, PEOPLE - even those who are not liberal - WONT TALK TO YOU BECAUSE THEY WILL THINK YOU ARE A TWAT.

That's a fact, and it's a fact irrespective of whether you are or are not a twat in your own head.

And if you want me to choose a conjecture to explain your claim that it's hard for you to find people willing to discuss "big stuff" with you lot...

Then I definitely wont go with your one:

That people choose to avoid you because of your "attitude of truth-seeking debate, asking 4 criticism, asking 4 specific claims, wanting 2 pursue issues to resolution?"

And would rather go with this one: you are arrogant, judgemental and rude and people choose avoid arrogant, judgemental and rude people, not matter how "intelligent and truth seeking" those arrogant, judgemental and rude people claim to be.

As an aside fact: EVERYONE would claim to be intelligent and truth seeking if asked. Calling yourself that to others is just embarrassing. It's like being that kid in high school who goes around saying how "cool" he is. *If you have to say it, then it just comes across as BS*

Finally: You have been polite when talking to me and hence I went out of my way to reply to you. But given that I've seen what really goes on in your head, that politeness comes across as creepy. Like that guy at a party who meets a girl and says "he just wants to be friends" but in his head he's thinking of how to convince her to fuck him, when I match your "I just want to have an intelligent conversation!" against you thinking that half the people you meet are human-hating, reason-hating, civilization-hating barbarians... I am forced to form the conjecture that you are not indeed out there to change your mind (because of how easy and quick you would have changed your mind on your bizzare views on liberals) but that you're just out there to shout "YOU ARE ALL WRONG AND I AM RIGHT" as loud as you can.

And that's just, like, sad.

Now, all of this is some pretty heavy cognitive-dissonance inducing stuff and I didn't sugar coat any of it, so I expect a less than 8% chance of this getting through to you, but hey, you did ask me to write this so here it is.

And actuall, well, that's pretty much all I wanted to say. Thanks for listening!

Anonymous at 4:10 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5930
FWIW, although i am right wing, i argued with people at a right wing discussion forum, and then left, because of their disgusting hostility to gays. i believe that more than 90% of people are bigoted against homosexuals, including most of the left too. i think this anti-gay sentiment is *bad*!

i also do not like people using homosexuality as a wedge issue for leftwing activism, such as to attack the freedoms of cake bakers and try to control the lives of Christians. i think bigots should have the *freedom* to e.g. decline some business they don't want or, gross as it may be, only hire straight white employees at their business that they own. i think all kinds of trade should be strictly voluntary at the discretion of both parties.

i also don't like the word "homophobia" because i don't think being a bigot is a *medical phobia*.

(i figure these opinions might interest you)

curi at 4:10 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5931

gender

Also, I wrote that before I saw your recent reply of

"if you want to discuss gender issues or related topics i can try to do it in a more sensitive way."

Thanks, I appreciate you approaching this with an open mind. I guess cos you did ask, hm, go on: tell me your views on gender, and what you would like to know, and I will reply.

tangled_z at 4:17 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5932
Thanks for your input on your views on homophobia.

I don't know where you get the 90% statistic, I personally would certainty refrain from making any estimate of form "N% of all humans are X" because of how hard it is to prove that with any certainty.

But if that is your perception then it does say a lot about your own world. Do you speak out against it when people around you voice your thoughts or do you ignore it?

As for a different word for homophobia, what do you suggest?

Anonymous at 4:21 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5933
regarding leftists: i approached the issue in a summary way speaking to a particular audience. i am willing to discuss it from different starting points if talking with a left wing person. there's no way to write one thing that'll work for all audiences.

i think the things i said are true, and i'm willing to debate them. but i don't think they are the best way to approach the matter for a left wing audience. (not even close. they do a bad job of it.)

i believe am a liberal, but the left is not liberal. i am thoroughly in favor of freedom but the Democrats aren't. (the Republicans aren't very in favor of freedom either, but some of them moreso)

> "all liberals hate humans, reason, progress, and civilization"

that's not a quote of me. i didn't say "all". so i can't be refuted by a single counter example. i was talking about broad themes of certain cultures.

the group i talked about is "a significant portion of the political left" (not all). specifically the portion which is anti-technology, such as the environmentalists. anti-technology ideas are also very common among anti-capitalists.

if you'd like to discuss politics, then please answer a question: what limits on freedom are you in favor of?

curi at 4:21 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5934
> As for a different word for homophobia, what do you suggest?

anti-gay. bigot (bigoted against gays). hater of gays. biased against homosexuals. dislikes homosexuals. very attached to cultural gender norms. a guy who is trying to conform and fit in and finds it hard enough to deal with the most common aspects of his culture (like straight relationships are more than enough to deal with). the best one varies by circumstances.

> I don't know where you get the 90% statistic

it's not a statistic, just an extremely conservative estimate from the news, talking to people, watching TV, reading books, etc.

> Do you speak out against it when people around you voice your thoughts or do you ignore it?

i speak out.

> But if that is your perception then it does say a lot about your own world.

i don't think so. i mean you could blame California, where i live, for being super bigoted. but i really don't think i'm only commenting on California. I think i can safely say it's no better in Alabama. i have familiarity with a wide variety of people and subcultures.

curi at 4:28 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5935
> tell me your views on gender, and what you would like to know, and I will reply.

i think gender roles are a social construct. i don't think biology is very important to human behavior. i don't believe genes or chemicals determine people's opinions or sexual behavior.

i have a big problem with *victimhood mentalities* and *learned helplessness*. pressure to conform to gender norms hurts everyone, not just women. and the pressure comes from everyone, not just from men.

i have a big problem with affirmative consent laws which put a large, unequal burden on men. the law has inequality built into it! it doesn't treat women as equally capable of making decisions about sex and standing up for themselves.

on a related note, many people seem to think that raping women is the worst thing ever, but men being raped in prison is funny. that isn't funny.

i think it's very bad to call everything rape like some activists are now doing. sexual behavior is actually complex. people have sex with mixed feelings all the time, e.g. women put out sexually because our culture expects women to have relationships and put out and they don't know what else to do in life. there are problems there. calling those problems "rape" does not help figure them out.

a lot of the affirmative consent stuff is insensitive to women who don't want to take responsibility for sex or speak clearly about it. it's trying to make up some new gender roles and get people to do them, contrary to the traditional ones that most women are more comfortable with (being more quite and passive about things). i'm all for advocacy of people taking more control over their lives. i think passivity and not wanting to be clear about sex are bad things. but i think advocacy should focus on voluntary persuasion, not laws that push people (including women too – everyone) around.

curi at 4:38 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5936
what do you think?

curi at 4:39 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5937
You are free to say what you want to any group in any way you want.

I'm only saying that as an outsider if I see that kind of rhetoric I will not engage in a conversation with whomever is spewing it. So if you don't want people to judge you for those attitudes, you should consider deeper what you want associated with your name on the internet which is a forum towards *all* audiences.

Hell, even Moldbug uses a pseudonym for that reason.

In terms of "limits of freedom that I am in favor of", hm, what an odd way to frame that question. I'd answer 無 (Mu).

Debating politics in that framework does not really interest me, nor does the left/right paradigm though I can see that being "right wing" and opposing "left wing" is a big part of your identity. You do you! I have nothing to say to that though.

And those are all valid words to denote that phenomenon! Personally my favourite is "heterosexism". It has the advantage of being just one word, same as "homophobia".

>i speak out.

and nice, well done! :)

You did not answer me what your stance on gender is or what is it that you wish to know. I find it to be an interesting topic from an epistemological stand point, that could really put to test our understanding of Conjectures and Refutations.

Anonymous at 4:43 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5938
Oh cool, scratch that last thing I said, I saw your post on gender now. Will read it now.

Anonymous at 4:44 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5939
> being more quite

i meant "quiet"

curi at 4:44 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5940
> though I can see that being "right wing" and opposing "left wing" is a big part of your identity.

it isn't. it's just convenient for speaking briefly.

> heterosexism

not bad. one downside is people will have to stop and think to figure out what it means (and i guess some of them will misunderstand it).

> In terms of "limits of freedom that I am in favor of", hm, what an odd way to frame that question. I'd answer 無 (Mu).

i don't know what that means.

i think the limits on freedom that people are in favor of is a pretty core, defining feature of their politics.

basically my politics are pro-freedom in a pure and thorough way, whereas most everyone else either make some anti-freedom exceptions or is actually anti-freedom on the whole.

curi at 4:49 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5941
regarding audiences and putting people off – i basically think people need to be more tolerant and open minded and stop getting offended when they don't understand some statement that wasn't even directed at them. i think the same problem would happen in other ways even if i was more careful. i think the solution really lies in people not getting put off by reading something they disagree with and don't understand, NOT in watching what i say. people should be more curious about things that seem very wrong to them.

and i do write some things under pen names or anonymously.

curi at 4:53 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5942
>i think gender roles are a social construct.

Agreed. I think a lot of feminists would agree with you there.

> i don't believe genes or chemicals determine people's opinions or sexual behavior.
I have no way to check that with my current understanding. Come back to me in a few years when my understanding of genetics increases.

>i have a big problem with *victimhood mentalities* and *learned helplessness*. pressure to conform to gender norms hurts everyone, not just women. and the pressure comes from everyone, not just from men.

Yep, pressure to conform to gender norms is bad and outdated, it hurts men a lot too, and there are indeed women who will try to coerce both men and women (and non-gender/binary people) to conform to them. Nothing controversial about that, even among feminists.

>i have a big problem with affirmative consent laws which put a large, unequal burden on men. the law has inequality built into it! it doesn't treat women as equally capable of making decisions about sex and standing up for themselves.
I don't know what the state of the law is where you are from so I can't say much about that.

In terms of consent in general, there have been a lot of good resources written on it by people who understand the issue better than me, so they will be better at articulating it.

I don't know of any specific links, but if it's something you want to learn more about, here's a google search that'll help you "site:everydayfeminism.com consent". You'll probably disagree with a lot of the stuff there in general, but I think the various articles that I've seen on there about consent are quite easy to grok, and if you approach it with the same open mind you have had so far, then you might be in luck. (You'll probably want to use a pseudonym though, I doubt many people will be as open minded to talking to you if they read your yahoo group stuff. You might consider that unfair, but that's life).

>on a related note, many people seem to think that raping women is the worst thing ever, but men being raped in prison is funny. that isn't funny.
That's quite creepy of them and hypocritical. None of the feminists that I know would share that view.


>i think it's very bad to call everything rape like some activists are now doing. sexual behavior is actually complex. people have sex with mixed feelings all the time, e.g. women put out sexually because our culture expects women to have relationships and put out and they don't know what else to do in life. there are problems there. calling those problems "rape" does not help figure them out.
On this, ignoring the stuff you've said about consent - as I've already adressed that - I'll only reply to your last bit.
It's not for you to decide what does or does not help women figure out their problems. Period. Just as it's not for me to tell you what helps or does not help you to figure out your problems.


>a lot of the affirmative consent stuff is insensitive to women who don't want to take responsibility for sex or speak clearly about it. it's trying to make up some new gender roles and get people to do them, contrary to the traditional ones that most women are more comfortable with (being more quite and passive about things). i'm all for advocacy of people taking more control over their lives. i think passivity and not wanting to be clear about sex are bad things. but i think advocacy should focus on voluntary persuasion, not laws that push people (including women too – everyone) around.
Well, again, that's for women to decide what is and what is not sensitive or insensitive towards them. I appreciate you trying to be considerate here, but consideration to a group of people comes from listening and asking *the people in that group* what is and what is not considerate, not speaking for them.

Anonymous at 5:02 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5943
>not bad. one downside is people will have to stop and think to figure out what it means (and i guess some of them will misunderstand it).
I'd say making people think more is a good thing.

I had to stop and think the first time I saw that word too. But then I was like "oh wow that makes so much more sense".

>i think the limits on freedom that people are in favor of is a pretty core, defining feature of their politics.

Like I say, politics is not a thing that I am very much interested in discussing. Philosophy, yes, but "politics" and this "left/right" bs I will leave to the chimps who want to play their tribal games.

>basically my politics are pro-freedom in a pure and thorough way, whereas most everyone else either make some anti-freedom exceptions or is actually anti-freedom on the whole.

Good for you! Thumbs up. I have not much that I can say here on either side of that.

Anonymous at 5:06 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5944
> It's not for you to decide what does or does not help women figure out their problems.

i didn't say that was for me to decide. i can offer written advice on a voluntary basis. but the important thing to me is **the law should not be deciding what does and doesn't help women, either**. let them figure it out themselves (with or without the advice of whoever each individual woman wants to listen to or not).

> Well, again, that's for women to decide what is and what is not sensitive or insensitive towards them. I appreciate you trying to be considerate here, but consideration to a group of people comes from listening and asking *the people in that group* what is and what is not considerate, not speaking for them.

i don't think that Sue can say more about other women than i can. she can speak to her own situation in ways i can't. Joe can also speak to his own situation in ways i can't.

i am focused more on individuals, not groups. i think putting people in various groups (such as female) should generally be avoided in the law.

the reason i spoke about women is because gender roles categorize women as a group, and i was commenting on those.

i think men can understand female gender roles just as well as women can, because they consist of ideas.

i also think it's common that an outsider has more accurate ideas about a person than their own introspection. and often not, too.

the important thing is people have their freedom. then it doesn't matter so much what others think.

curi at 5:08 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5945
>regarding audiences and putting people off – i basically think people need to be more tolerant and open minded and stop getting offended when they don't understand some statement that wasn't even directed at them.

Lol, "people should be more open minded" is a thing that most people will get behind.

But you telling people to "stop being offended", well, I don't like some random stranger telling me what is or what is not acceptable behaviour. Especially a stranger that's claiming to be pro freedom! That's a huuuge contradiction here, actually.

Either you're pro-freedom or you're against me being offended. Which one is it?

>i think the same problem would happen in other ways even if i was more careful. i think the solution really lies in people not getting put off by reading something they disagree with and don't understand, NOT in watching what i say. people should be more curious about things that seem very wrong to them.

Hmm, two statements there.

"i think the solution really lies in people not getting put off by reading something they disagree"
Maybe true.

"i think the solution really lies in people not getting put off by reading something they [...] don't understand

Woah there, that's pretty insulting. You don't know what's happening in my brain or how much of your behavior I am able to model, so don't go around telling me I "do not understand" you.

"Right wing" people are pretty easy to model actually, I bet I could articulate your views on freedom as well as you can.

Also note that with your open mindedness you are an exception. *Most* people with views so intense would just proceed to rant about them indiscriminately, hence why I would avoid them. It's not a bad heuristic to save time. Would you want to debate every single religious fundamentalist that you come across even after you reach a point where they repeat the same arguments over and over? Maybe you would. I personally don't. I seek new information, not rehashing of the same stuff ad infinitum.

>i think the solution really lies in people not getting put off by reading something they disagree with and don't understand, NOT in watching what i say. people should be more curious about things that seem very wrong to them.
Your solution relies on telling other people what to do and how to behave. Again, a violation of their freedom.

Also I am simply making an observation that this is how people behave and how you will be perceived. You can say "THEY ARE WRONG IM REALLY NICE AND THEY SHOULD TALK TO ME" but no one owes you that, and the fact that you claim that you should owe you something really goes against your pro-freedom stance.

Or do you not agree that people should be free to use whatever heuristic they want to decide whom to talk to? Hmm

Anonymous at 5:13 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5946
>**the law should not be deciding what does and doesn't help women, either**. let them figure it out themselves (with or without the advice of whoever each individual woman wants to listen to or not).
Oh wow, maybe the law should not be deciding what does and does not help victims of car theft either, let them figure out what happened to their car on their own.

Anyway, that's not a branch of conversation that I care to proceed with, lets end it here.

>i am focused more on individuals, not groups. i think putting people in various groups (such as female) should generally be avoided in the law.
>the reason i spoke about women is because gender roles categorize women as a group, and i was commenting on those.

Female *is* a group and it will remain a group even if you remove gender roles from the equation. Gender roles are perscription as to how female and male people *should act*. The categorisation of people into male and female does not come from gender roles though.


>i think men can understand female gender roles just as well as women can, because they consist of ideas.
Yeah totally.

Anonymous at 5:17 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5947
So what's your view on trans people then, as that what you talked about in the original thread that I linked.

Anonymous at 5:18 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5948
> But you telling people to "stop being offended", well, I don't like some random stranger telling me what is or what is not acceptable behaviour. Especially a stranger that's claiming to be pro freedom! That's a huuuge contradiction here, actually.

what contradiction? i'm writing ideas online. i'm not forcing you. writing moral beliefs is compatible with freedom.

curi at 5:30 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5949
> So what's your view on trans people then, as that what you talked about in the original thread that I linked.

what about them?

i don't think bruce jenner is a hero. mostly i don't care.

curi at 5:31 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5950
Why do you proceed to call her Bruce? I can understand the mindset of someone refusing to use the right pronouns, but do you not think that it's being intentionally insulting to call someone by the name that they asked not to be called?

Anonymous at 5:34 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5951
>what contradiction? i'm writing ideas online. i'm not forcing you. writing moral beliefs is compatible with freedom.

Oh, in that case: I don't care what you think I should or should not be offended by!

Anonymous at 5:35 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5952
Hmm, I bet I can prove I'm more pro-freedom than you are.

Anonymous at 5:48 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5953
> Hmm, I bet I can prove I'm more pro-freedom than you are.

how?

(btw i'm busy now, will reply to more things tomorrow)

> I don't care what you think I should or should not be offended by!

there's a truth of the matter about some things. you may wish to care in some cases to try to learn something. that's all.

Anonymous at 6:01 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5954
>there's a truth of the matter about some things. you may wish to care in some cases to try to learn something. that's all.
*shrug* still nope.

>(btw i'm busy now, will reply to more things tomorrow)

cool, looking forward to it.

>how?
will leave that as a cliffhanger for tomorrow!

Anonymous at 6:10 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5955
> Why do you proceed to call her Bruce?

the person who made the "brave" decision (which resulted in lots of publicity and praise) was, at the time of the decision, named Bruce. it was Bruce, not Caitlyn, who decided to break some social norms and change genders. Caitlyn hasn't done anything of interest to me (i don't follow celebs).

but i don't really care and wasn't paying much attention to the name.

curi at 6:13 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5956
What? You're not making any sense.

Anonymous at 7:14 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5957
>but i don't really care and wasn't paying much attention to the name.


there's a truth of the matter about some things. you may wish to care in some cases to try to learn something. that's all.

Anonymous at 7:14 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5958
And *you did not answer my question*

>do you not think that it's being intentionally insulting to call someone by the name that they asked not to be called?

Anonymous at 7:15 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5959
Well I guess if you "don't care" to examine your views then there's no point going forward with this conversation! So much for being open to discussion, lol.

Thank you for your time. Bye bye now.

Anonymous at 7:34 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5960
i said i don't care about what name to call Jenner. that means it's not an important view. i'm not very interested in it. i didn't put much thought into it. i don't consider it a big deal. you are overreacting.

> And *you did not answer my question*

i literally hadn't read that question yet, i told you i was busy.

> do you not think that it's being intentionally insulting to call someone by the name that they asked not to be called?

i think it makes sense to identify actions done as Bruce (asking people to use the name "Bruce" at that time) with Bruce, and actions done today with Caitlyn.

also as a public figure with an established name, i don't think you can expect everyone to pay attention to name changes. i don't think that's a big deal.

a bunch of professional gamers have tried to change their gamer name and fans kept calling them by their old name cuz it's just what they were used to thinking of that person as. i don't think that's insulting or a big deal.

similarly i have no idea if Lindsey Lohan wants to be called lilo or not. i think it's ok either way. as a public figure, fans are allowed to make up nicknames for you. shrug. if she doesn't like it then i think people shouldn't use it when speaking to her. but i think it'd still be ok when speaking about her and she isn't part of the conversation.

curi at 7:58 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5961
do you think i should care a lot about what name i call Jenner? why should i? tell me. i'm currently more interested in some of the other stuff.

curi at 8:00 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5962
> Oh wow, maybe the law should not be deciding what does and does not help victims of car theft either, let them figure out what happened to their car on their own.

protecting people against violence is the government's job. this happily doesn't involve the government trying to tell people what beliefs to have.

spreading ideas about how women should live is **not** the government's job.

women's preferences vary a great deal about what they want in their life, so a law that favors a certain female lifestyle would be bad for lots of other females.

people's preferences about car theft do not vary much. they mostly want their car back or money. it's usually pretty simple instead of involving a bunch of controversial ideas.

controversial ideas are something that should be left to individuals to freely decide for themselves. i think it'd be really awful if the government got involved with whether people should be straight or not, what type of men women should date, in what circumstances women should consent to have sex, etc, etc.

curi at 8:06 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5963
#5949

> But you telling people to "stop being offended", well, I don't like some random stranger telling me what is or what is not acceptable behaviour. Especially a stranger that's claiming to be pro freedom! That's a huuuge contradiction here, actually.

this is a tell tale sign of a leftist.

classical liberals don't think this way.

leftists think that if something is immoral, then people should use force/violence to prevent people from doing that behavior. and if X is moral, then ppl should use force/violence to make people do X.

classical liberals think that if something is immoral, that doesn't imply that force/violence should be used against people doing that thing. force should only be used in self-defense against somebody initiating force.

who is pro-freedom? the classical liberal.

the leftist is anti-freedom.

Anonymous at 8:06 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5964
> "Right wing" people are pretty easy to model actually, I bet I could articulate your views on freedom as well as you can.

try it.

i think you're dramatically underestimating how complex people are. and also how atypical my views are. but go on.

curi at 8:08 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5965
> Would you want to debate every single religious fundamentalist that you come across even after you reach a point where they repeat the same arguments over and over?

if something seems repetitive to me, and i don't feel like writing about it again, then i link/reference people to where i already answered it. or where someone else answered it well enough that i'm willing to take responsibility for the thing i'm linking to. (so if there's an error i'll treat it as my mistake, take it seriously, worry about fixing it. since i was using that reference as my position, then it's my error.)

if there's no written answer to an issue that's good enough, then i don't think it's repetitive to answer it.

i will discuss with all comers including religious fundamentalists.

i seek extreme clarity before giving up on people or closing a discussion. if i think there's a problem i'll state it. and clarify it. and ask several questions about it. and ask if they have any solutions.

like you seem bothered by some aspects of our discussion. what you could do is say what things you'd like to change and why, and expect it to take several back-and-forths to clarify each point. but you seem to be on the edge of giving up at any moment, rather than having a large amount of tolerance for talking through problems.

FYI anonymous #5964 isn't me. I say this since i forgot to write my name earlier. but not this time.

curi at 8:19 AM on June 17, 2016 | #5966
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/16847

this post is pretty bad.

>The first is as in already any good at philosophy. As in being able to
tell you anything significant about philosophy that’s both true and
you don’t already know.
...
>The second is as in already any good at discussion and learning.

these are irrelevant scenarios for FI. unless you're a known regular poster on FI these are assumed to not exist.

>I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t think there’s a high
percentage of possible universes where I’d be on FI right now.

a high percentage of an infinite amount? what does this mean?

>But of the possible universes where I encountered FI, I think I would
have persisted at it rather than gave up in most

how are you predicting your overall behavior across the whole set of possiblities? assume for a moment there is a finite number of universes where you encounter FI. how do you know this set isn't dominated by irrational versions of you? versions of you more like every fucking other person living right now?

Anonymous at 5:24 PM on June 20, 2016 | #5967

Anonymous at 5:34 PM on June 20, 2016 | #5968
> Was Ayn Rand a Drug Addict?

who cares?

Anonymous at 5:43 PM on June 20, 2016 | #5969

drug addict

A drug addict is a person who the authorities deem to be taking too many drugs. Why does it matter if some person claims she was taking too many drugs?

noyb at 7:14 PM on June 20, 2016 | #5970
#5967 you are right to criticize my use of universes - it was incoherent. It would be better said: I think finding FI was largely attributable to luck, but sticking with it was attributable to skills I had before FI. I would guess there are others with similar skills who have not found FI.

Who assumes the two senses of "any good " don't exist outside of known regular FI posters? I was pretty clear I think the second type do exist.

PAS at 8:02 PM on June 20, 2016 | #5971
i think i got the general idea of the universe thing. worked ok IMO.

curi at 8:03 PM on June 20, 2016 | #5972
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/16880

>to tell someone who says cat pictures should be valued at 400 and FI at 100 that they’re wrong.

have you ever met anyone who enjoyed cat pictures and would care if they are wrong? why would you want to argue with someone like that?

Anonymous at 12:22 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6027
Cat pictures were just one example meant to represent many things people might value more highly than FI.

Some other examples are:
Sex
Chess
Movies
Dancing
Eating
Traveling

The bigger issue is, have I ever met anyone who isn't currently posting on FI and would care if they are wrong. By FI standards of "care" as in care enough to pursue to resolution, probably not.

PAS at 1:43 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6028
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/16885
>Or is it something else I’m not thinking of?

you're forgetting most ppl have crippling learning disabilities.
they suck at noticing problems.
they suck at communicating things that may not even be correct.

>Or is it likely they do actually care about the problems they say they
care about, but they aren’t convinced FI will actually help?

internal conflict.

Anonymous at 6:14 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6029
plz watch ur quoting/linebreaks.

Anonymous at 7:05 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6030
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/16886
>they should change to a lifestyle where a day is a joy not a burden. and FI and Oism can help with that...

how...? as soon as ppl realize you're selling them a solution that involves them having to change--that part of them has to die--they stop listening. it's like having to use a star trek teleporter: the 'you' has to die for it to work.

Anonymous at 7:45 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6031
i don't think that's lore accurate to startrek. i'm not exactly a trekkie but i've watched some and i have never seen the slightest thing about teleporters destroying your "you". people use them a lot without hesitation. SOURCE?

i also don't think it's physics-accurate. ARGUMENT?

Anonymous at 7:48 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6032
you are information. the teleporter sends the relevant information to a different location. what's the problem?

Anonymous at 7:49 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6033

Anonymous at 7:51 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6034
> as soon as ppl realize you're selling them a solution that involves them having to change--that part of them has to die--they stop listening.

suppose you have two parts of you that CONTRADICT. then your choices are to change at least one or be in a constant state of civil war.

perhaps some people could see some appeal of not having so much internal conflict.

"i want to have a bunch of incompatible parts and keep them all" isn't a really appealing line. it's like how are you even one person when you have a raging civil war of contradictory parts?

---

and also in fact lots of people do change their minds about some things during their life. voluntarily, happily.

and fixing some contradictions is a common reason people change their mind. like they want to be married and play video games. and the girls they find don't like video games. so they make a choice and give up video games. (this is often done unhappily, but still many people do it.)

Anonymous at 7:53 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6035
#6034

so you concede your position isn't lore accurate..? why didn't you say that clearly?

do you have a remotely intellectual serious argument you can reference? maybe something in writing that addresses epistemology, physics, information, and that people are software?

the youtube video is a rant that doesn't do a good job of presenting a theory of what people are or talking about the relevant fields.

Anonymous at 7:56 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6036
#6036
so you're ok with being killed so long as a copy of you is made? ppl i've talked to about this end up concluding a transitional approach (parts of you are replaced at a time rather than an atomic copy and delete) is the only non-terrifying option.

Anonymous at 8:03 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6037
#6035
yeah so some things are acceptable changes for certain kinds of minds. some can also transition over time by small changes or whenever they aren't noticing. some will even accept death over the change because it's so unwanted. adjusting to and learning to accept constant suffering is an actual thing that exists. ppl even compare each other's suffering level, romanticize it, and everything.

Anonymous at 8:07 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6038
#6036
this is a common argument even DD has talked about.

>David: This problem may be all part of the consciousness problem, or it may be metaphysics or epistemology or it may be something else: I'm not entirely satisfied that it's okay to use a Star Trek Transporter (which disintegrates you, sends information about you to another place, and rebuilds you there).
http://beginningofinfinity.com/interview

Anonymous at 8:11 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6039
#6037 so do you agree your position on star trek teleporters isn't lore accurate? yes or no? you're evading.

Anonymous at 8:13 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6040
"not entirely satisfied" with teleporters being fine sure isn't agreeing with you. it's mostly disagreeing with you.

you're being biased/irrational/dishonest. you're trying to make one sided case for one side rather than objectively look at the topic.

Anonymous at 8:15 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6041
> > do you have a remotely intellectual serious argument you can reference?

> [no answer]

...

Anonymous at 8:16 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6042
#6040
what are you talking about? teleporters *in* star trek. what lore? why do you care?

Anonymous at 8:16 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6043
> ppl i've talked to about this end up concluding a transitional approach (parts of you are replaced at a time rather than an atomic copy and delete) is the only non-terrifying option.

and i'm supposed to take it on the authority of some unnamed non-FI people?

Anonymous at 8:16 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6044
> what are you talking about? teleporters *in* star trek. what lore? why do you care?

do you just not know what "lore accurate" means and are refusing to ask?

Anonymous at 8:17 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6045
this is the same situation as the academia reference yesterday. you're impossible to talk to.

Anonymous at 8:21 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6046
> this is the same situation as the academia reference yesterday. you're impossible to talk to.

no u

Anonymous at 8:22 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6047
discussion goes both ways.

Anonymous at 8:23 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6048
> > this is the same situation as the academia reference yesterday. you're impossible to talk to.

> no u

on consideration, i don't think you'll be able to understand this simple, literal 2-word comment.

it's entirely your fault. you are making large mistakes causing the problems here. you are bad at discussion and irrational, and then are lashing out and blaming other people for the problems you create. you are putting 98% of your effort into destroying discussion which is why things don't work well. you fuck up very basic stuff such an answering yes/no questions. you aren't at the level of discussion where you actually reply to short, simple things that people say.

Anonymous at 8:25 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6049
nevertheless i'm extraordinarily patient and tolerant and was content to overlook your destruction and try over and over to advance the discussion even one initial step like answering a simple question. even while you were fighting against moving the discussion forward in the slightest, i remained calm and patient. and you, before managing to answer one simple question, gave up and wrote hostile ad hominem meta discussion.

Anonymous at 8:28 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6050
i remain calm, patient, and tolerant. i have distance from this and perspective. it's typical. i'm already familiar with it. nothing new here. it's very deeply sad but i'm not emotional about it.

Anonymous at 8:29 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6051
#6049
i know i'm at fault. i've tried to explain my deficiencies in this area. but whatever. i'm too dumb to understand all the ways you misunderstand me. so when i don't answer questions that have nothing at all to do with what i'm trying to talk about i fail at those things also. sigh

Anonymous at 8:29 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6052
> so when i don't answer questions that have nothing at all to do with what i'm trying to talk about i fail at those things also.

the lore accuracy question had something to do with the topic that we didn't get to discussing yet because you didn't answer it or ask what the relevance was (and it'd be much easier to explain the relevance after you said the answer is "no". but you don't want to do that because [blank out].

you have nearly ZERO patience for other people's ideas or perspectives, and ZERO tolerance for dealing with any of their perspective by e.g. responding to messages that don't have high value in your current perspectives.

i do not ask irrelevant questions.

i could conceivably be mistaken about the relevance. but i have in mind a way it's relevant. i really doubt you both have in mind the same way as me AND a refutation AND think the refutation goes without saying.

Anonymous at 8:33 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6053
> do you have a remotely intellectual serious argument you can reference?

this question was also topical and short and simple – and went unanswered twice.

Anonymous at 8:34 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6054
the question:

> what lore?

indicates you don't even understand what either lore or lore accuracy is. so you don't even know what the "is it lore accurate?" question meant.

if you don't know what the question means or what lore accuracy is, how can you judge if it's relevant to what you want to talk about?

Anonymous at 8:35 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6055
you freak out over nothing rather than learn how to answer the most basic of questions. why?

Anonymous at 8:36 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6056
>you freak out over nothing rather than learn how to answer the most basic of questions. why?

i don't like watching my ideas become warped into other people's world views. it causes disgust and sadness. it reminds me of the reality of my isolation.

Anonymous at 9:00 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6057
> i don't like watching my ideas become warped into other people's world views. it causes disgust and sadness. it reminds me of the reality of my isolation.

this is nonsense. i asked if something is lore accurate and if you had a reference meeting certain criteria. simple questions. no warping.

Anonymous at 9:03 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6058
#6058
the warping came earlier. the simple questions are all downstream to that.

Anonymous at 9:09 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6059
what warping? use quotes. you aren't communicating.

Anonymous at 9:14 PM on June 23, 2016 | #6060
30 days have passed & I am back.

What should I do now?

SKP at 9:14 PM on June 29, 2016 | #6066
find the original thread and see what it said

Anonymous at 9:31 PM on June 29, 2016 | #6067
1) you don't sign them

2) no. you actively cause problems by e.g. impersonating leonor

i take it you choose option 1. don't post again for a month. don't reply to this. in a month, only post what you've come up with about solving the problem in the mean time.

Anonymous at 9:36 PM on June 29, 2016 | #6068
dear god. stop. do not copy/paste stuff with no quote marks. and give a link to where you got it.

Anonymous at 9:37 PM on June 29, 2016 | #6069
not marking quotes as quotes was one of the problems! i remember that! can you stop doing that?

Anonymous at 9:38 PM on June 29, 2016 | #6070
Yes..

I will add Mr X said " content "

Link : www.abcd.com/topic

Anonymous at 9:41 PM on June 29, 2016 | #6071
here you should use email quote marks so it changes color

> quote


now please give the actual link for this

Anonymous at 9:42 PM on June 29, 2016 | #6072
> now please give the actual link for this

Here is the link.

http://www.curi.us/1857-open-thread-objectivism-discussion#c5815

Anonymous at 9:46 PM on June 29, 2016 | #6073
ok so it says

> in a month, only post what you've come up with about solving the problem in the mean time.

but i don't see your post saying your ideas to solve the problem.

Anonymous at 9:47 PM on June 29, 2016 | #6074
> but i don't see your post saying your ideas to solve the problem.

I have said what I am going to do.

[ I will add Mr X said " content "

Link : www.abcd.com/topic ]

In the future I will give the link to Leonor Gomes's post and quote her.

Anonymous at 9:57 PM on June 29, 2016 | #6075
Do you have any extra suggestions ?

Please tell me if you do.

Anonymous at 10:08 PM on June 29, 2016 | #6076
a month to think it over and all you can come up with is coming back and saying you'll do the stuff i just had to correct you on? that's your plan? you have zero of your own ideas to improve anything?

Anonymous at 3:53 PM on June 30, 2016 | #6078

checking the claim that Anon's idea is being "warped"

I wanted to review what’s being discussed about the “warping my ideas” claim.

The discussion is between what I think is two different Anons, so I’ll label them Anon1 and Anon2.

Anon-1 said:
> i don't like watching my ideas become warped into other people's world views. it causes disgust and sadness. it reminds me of the reality of my isolation.

Anon-2 replied:
> this is nonsense. i asked if something is lore accurate and if you had a reference meeting certain criteria. simple questions. no warping.

Anon-1 replied:
> the warping came earlier. the simple questions are all downstream to that.

I wanted to check if the “warping” actually came earlier. So I reviewed the discussion from the beginning up top. Here’s what I found:

Anon-1 said:

> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/16886
>> they should change to a lifestyle where a day is a joy not a burden. and FI and Oism can help with that...
>
> how...? as soon as ppl realize you're selling them a solution that involves them having to change--that part of them has to die--they stop listening. it's like having to use a star trek teleporter: the 'you' has to die for it to work.

Anon-2 said:

> i don't think that's lore accurate to startrek. i'm not exactly a trekkie but i've watched some and i have never seen the slightest thing about teleporters destroying your "you". people use them a lot without hesitation. SOURCE?
>
> i also don't think it's physics-accurate. ARGUMENT?


So, as far as I can tell, there was literally nothing between Anon-1 saying his idea that changing your mind is like “having to use a star trek teleporter”, and Anon-2 asking Anon-1 simple questions.

So Anon-1 is completely wrong about his claim that "the warping came earlier. the simple questions are all downstream to that.”


Some questions:

Why didn’t Anon-1 check his claim before saying it? Why didn’t Anon-1 check his claim before *believing* it?

It's arrogant, infallibilist, and immoral.

My guess is that Anon-1 just assumed he's right and doesn't need to check his assumption. He pre-decided the conclusion before doing the work of *judging* the facts of the case. He had a gut feeling that his ideas are being warped and he treats his gut feelings as infallible.

Anon-3 at 4:17 PM on June 30, 2016 | #6080
> The discussion is between what I think is two different Anons, so I’ll label them Anon1 and Anon2.

there were more than 2.

> So, as far as I can tell, there was literally nothing between Anon-1 saying his idea that changing your mind is like “having to use a star trek teleporter”, and Anon-2 asking Anon-1 simple questions.

yeah i think maybe he meant some of his other views were warped in the prior discussion before the star trek part.

big picture: it's a load of crap.

> Why didn’t Anon-1 check his claim before saying it? Why didn’t Anon-1 check his claim before *believing* it?

anon-1 wanted an excuse to blame anon2 and exit the discussion and feel good about himself (anon-1). when in the wrong, rationalizations like that work better if unexamined...

> It's arrogant, infallibilist, and immoral.

it's defensive, pathetic, illogical and immoral.

> My guess is that Anon-1 just assumed he's right and doesn't need to check his assumption. He pre-decided the conclusion before doing the work of *judging* the facts of the case. He had a gut feeling that his ideas are being warped and he treats his gut feelings as infallible.

he's doing his best to assume he's right. that helps avoid uncomfortable questions and issues. he's trying really hard to hide his flaws from himself.

Anonymous at 4:33 PM on June 30, 2016 | #6081
I like the design of this blog a lot..

The comment section with permalinks

The access to all the posts.

The minimalism

The ability to copy.

Anonymity

FFAGSKP at 11:44 AM on July 2, 2016 | #6086
What do you think of Gary Johnson?

Anonymous at 12:08 AM on July 3, 2016 | #6087
Gary Johnson is better than trump (protectionist socialist)

Anonymous at 12:08 AM on July 3, 2016 | #6088
We need to rally behind Trump to stop Crooked Lying Hillary and build a wall. Voting for Johnson won't stop Hillary, so it doesn't really even matter if he's better than Trump or not. What matters in the election is stopping Hillary. That Trump may even do some pretty good things (build a wall, put some good judges on the supreme court, have some pro-energy-industry policies, etc) is a happy bonus.

Johnson looks awful. Libertarians are bad in general (if they like capitalism and stuff, why aren't they Objectivists instead? something is really wrong there). Anyway Trump is anti-Hillary and he's doing a good job of attacking her on correct points. Meanwhile, Johnson:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/23/gary-johnson-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-but-he-needs-to/

> Early in CNN's Libertarian presidential town hall on Wednesday, moderator Chris Cuomo decided to play a word-association game.
>
> "Hillary Clinton," he called out.
>
> Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee for president, went through several seconds of facial contortions before finally settling on this: "a wonderful public servant."

Lying Crooked Hillary needs to be stopped. She isn't "wonderful".

curi at 12:23 AM on July 3, 2016 | #6089
> jews? seems mean to *curi* to bring him up with Hitler.

Hmmmm... It is mean if you think about the evilness of Hitler

But it is the highest salutation.

Anonymous at 10:04 AM on July 4, 2016 | #6094
because?

Anonymous at 10:08 AM on July 4, 2016 | #6095

FF anon ban

Fallible Fool did not follow the instructions involved with his month ban (think of some solutions, come back and post them). He had zero of his own ideas/suggestions about how to improve any of the problems.

And he's still causing problems. He called me Hitler in public or something then refused to explain. wtf? i don't even know.

so my new policy for now:

FF is banned from posting anonymously. he must sign all posts as "FF" so people have the option to ignore him. This will also fix the issues where he impersonates other people or otherwise makes a mess – we'll know it's just FF messing up and ignore it.

curi at 10:22 PM on July 5, 2016 | #6101
Why not ban my ip address than make me follow my own punishments?

I did not break your one month punishment. I stayed away like I should. I don't want to cause too much problems for you..

It irritates me when we have misunderstandings.. It took me long time to understand that you are not angry when you speak to me.

You banned my email when I used anon when you could have just made anon a/c password secret.

I didn't post porn using the anon a/c.. I posted something which was okay'd by Rami. You were so busy you never mentioned any particular mistake in that post but had time to reject it every time.

That made me break my promise of not using anon.


Most of your punishments ( whatever you call it ) require me to participate.

I restrict myself even if I don't have to.

> And he's still causing problems. He called me Hitler in public or something then refused to explain. wtf? i don't even know.

I called you that for fun.. I did not call you Hitler.. I modified one of the nazi salutes to fit curi on it.


> Fallible Fool did not follow the instructions involved with his month ban (think of some solutions, come back and post them). He had zero of his own ideas/suggestions about how to improve any of the problems.

I did post some ideas about it.. I posted that I would quote LG before posting her text. I didn't know what extra to say about it. You didn't give me any extra clue. But you are a busy person you don't need to give me clues.

No need to give me extra punishments I will use FF most of the time.

FF at 1:29 AM on July 6, 2016 | #6102
If you are so busy to understand my intentions.. You can send one of your assistants or anyone you know who has too much time.

FF at 1:40 AM on July 6, 2016 | #6103
I follow your one year FI ban because I want to.. not because I have to.

I can create a trillion yahoo ids and join.

But causing you problems is not my intention.

I get irritated when I think you are abusing me that's all.

I want to learn.. trolling is useless and lose-lose

FF at 1:45 AM on July 6, 2016 | #6104
FF confuses defense with punishment.

Punishment is intended to hurt somebody.

Defense is intended to prevent hurt on oneself and if the other person gets hurt, that's not intended, it's collateral damage.

Anonymous at 7:01 AM on July 6, 2016 | #6105
#6066

> 30 days have passed & I am back.
>
> What should I do now?

Why is FF asking Elliot to repeat himself?

It's as if FF doesn't know that Elliot already explained the answer to this question a month ago.

Anonymous at 7:07 AM on July 6, 2016 | #6106
> Why is FF asking Elliot to repeat himself?

> It's as if FF doesn't know that Elliot already explained the answer to this question a month ago.

You are right. Elliot shouldn't be made to repeat himself.

I said that to announce I was back. It was hard not being on Curi for 30 days..

FF at 7:22 AM on July 6, 2016 | #6107
> Defense is intended to prevent hurt on oneself and if the other person gets hurt, that's not intended, it's collateral damage.

hmmm..

FF at 7:23 AM on July 6, 2016 | #6108
What should you do if someone calls you retarded?

a) Feel offended and judge the other person.

b) Go into depression.

c) not care at all.

FF at 8:20 AM on July 6, 2016 | #6111
#6107

> You are right. Elliot shouldn't be made to repeat himself.
>
> I said that to announce I was back. It was hard not being on Curi for 30 days..

your post should have included your ideas for solving the problems elliot raised. that itself is an announcement.

all you did was say you're back and that you want somebody to spoon feed you what to do next. when you were already told what to do next.

Anonymous at 9:57 AM on July 6, 2016 | #6112
#6111

> What should you do if someone calls you retarded?
>
> a) Feel offended and judge the other person.
>
> b) Go into depression.
>
> c) not care at all.

why do you care what people say?

if somebody gave you a criticism, that's something to care about.

is saying you're retarded a criticism? no.

if you care that somebody called you retarded, you're caring about people's approval. you shouldn't care about people's approval. it's second-handed. it's caring about status instead of merit.

Anonymous at 9:59 AM on July 6, 2016 | #6113
> No need to give me extra punishments I will use FF most of the time.

sign your name 100% of the time or you can expect permabans here and FI. not "most" of the time. (if you forgot and then, 2 minutes later, say "oops I forgot, comment #6666 above was me, FF" or something, i won't ban you. if you go much longer it may cause problems.)

if you don't like this policy, feel free not to post comments at *my* site. your choice.

and, like an anon mentioned, my goal here is *defense*. it has nothing to do with punishment.

i'm trying to take steps (within my rights) to avoid things that are bad for me from happening. as with everyone, i prefer options which let people continue posting (even if I disagree with many of their ideas). FF wasn't helpful figuring out some good options, but I still, using my own effort, came up with something that allows him to post more.

curi at 10:49 AM on July 6, 2016 | #6114
> sign your name 100% of the time or you can expect permabans here and FI. not "most" of the time. (if you forgot and then, 2 minutes later, say "oops I forgot, comment #6666 above was me, FF" or something, i won't ban you. if you go much longer it may cause problems.)

I am typing my name before commenting so that I don't forget it later.

It would have been easier if this blog took usernames like blogger which remembers your ID.

You replied to some of my comments. It seems that if I follow rules, make sense, not troll.. people would read my comments.. I am very happy.

> and, like an anon mentioned, my goal here is *defense*. it has nothing to do with punishment.

Yes, you should protect yourself from trolls.

But asking them to not comment is not a good defense.

I have something to gain from not trolling. What would a real troll gain from respecting your permaban?

> FF wasn't helpful figuring out some good options, but I still, using my own effort, came up with something that allows him to post more.

Thanks for that.

FF at 11:49 AM on July 6, 2016 | #6117
> why do you care what people say?

I don't care what a random guy on the street says.

You care when it is someone important.

> if somebody gave you a criticism, that's something to care about.

Yes.

> is saying you're retarded a criticism? no.

If Elliot calls me retarded shouldn't I cry and hate myself?

> if you care that somebody called you retarded, you're caring about people's approval. you shouldn't care about people's approval. it's second-handed. it's caring about status instead of merit.

There is a reason why people want approval.

Having negative approval gets you banned.

Having positive approval gets you knowledge.

FF at 11:57 AM on July 6, 2016 | #6118
most types of approval have no bearing on whether you get banned.

replies explaining points to disapproved-of people are common.

Anonymous at 12:02 PM on July 6, 2016 | #6119
#6118

>> is saying you're retarded a criticism? no.
>
> If Elliot calls me retarded shouldn't I cry and hate myself?

why would you cry and hate yourself? what problem would that solve?

also do you think you can't change? maybe that's why you are sad, because you think you can't change.

if you think you can't change, you're wrong.

also, i'm skeptical that elliot would say "you're retarded" without also explaining what retarded thing you're doing.

you seem to want to focus on the "you're retarded" part rather than on the criticism about why the thing you're doing is retarded..

further, if you think it's a mistake for elliot to say "you're retarded", then criticize him for it.

Anonymous at 12:20 PM on July 6, 2016 | #6120
> why would you cry and hate yourself? what problem would that solve?

You are right.

Sadness & depression would make me more irrational.

You repeat & rewind bad ideas in your mind when you are very sad.

> also, i'm skeptical that elliot would say "you're retarded" without also explaining what retarded thing you're doing.

I will note it down the next time he calls me a " retard ".

> further, if you think it's a mistake for elliot to say "you're retarded", then criticize him for it.

I will.

FF at 2:44 PM on July 7, 2016 | #6121
Alex Epstein's *Center For Industrial Progress Newsletter* writes:

> Since many readers of my work are passionate about education I wanted to share with you an article I just wrote, “The School the World Needs to Know About.” It’s about a project to redefine what a great education can be by making a documentary about the best school I have ever seen or heard about, VanDamme Academy. While I am not participating in the project (financially or otherwise) I believe in it so much that I donated $5000 to help make it happen. After reading about the school, I think you’ll understand why.
>
> https://medium.com/@alexepstein/the-school-the-world-needs-to-know-about-ca2eb09f28de

comments on the school and on his ideas about education?

Anonymous at 1:08 PM on July 8, 2016 | #6123
wtf Alex Epstein?

Anonymous at 11:15 PM on July 8, 2016 | #6134
You exposed Microsoft.. I didn't know that.

You have been mentioned in many news sites.

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-asus-tablet-vs-ipad-ad-2013-5?IR=T

FF at 11:19 PM on July 8, 2016 | #6136
that one was pretty fun. IIRC it got attention cuz i sent it to Daring Fireball who picked it up.

Anonymous at 11:21 PM on July 8, 2016 | #6137
Why don't you have Re-captcha or something installed for the comments to prevent spamming & other stuff?

FF at 5:53 AM on July 10, 2016 | #6145
Unnecessary. Would waste people's time a little.

Anonymous at 10:41 AM on July 10, 2016 | #6148
> My VPN, Private Internet Access (PIA), just sent out a great email:

I use betternet chrome extension & Tor.

They are free but they make the internet slow.

FF at 8:49 PM on July 11, 2016 | #6151
> but they make the internet slow

sounds bad for torrenting!

Anonymous at 8:56 PM on July 11, 2016 | #6152
> sounds bad for torrenting!

I use it only for browsing.

What does FI think of Torrenting & pirating stuff?

I download/steal stuff a lot. I don't really have a good explanation to defend myself. I feel like a moocher. I stole Ayn Rand's books too :-(

FF at 9:01 PM on July 11, 2016 | #6153
is anyone being harmed? would they have a court case in which they could reasonably demonstrate the harm? if so, what would the amount of the harm be that you could be sued for?

and on the other hand, are you benefitting? a lot? it's a good thing that lots of information can be copied and distributed pretty much for free. this goodness should appreciated and valued in general. that's the starting point. then you make exceptions when someone gets harmed.

Anonymous at 9:03 PM on July 11, 2016 | #6154
another question is why don't you pay?

there are lots of reasons to prefer torrents other than money:

- easy ability to play a file on the device of your choice with the software of your choice, rather than the vendor's video or audio player. a huge factor here is wanting to watch things in VLC at 2x speed and with VLC's navigation hotkeys.

(Or text reader. like kindle's reading software is ok but not great and doesn't offer some important features and isn't great for text search. i do buy kindle books, but then i remove the DRM and convert them to other formats for personal use. having to do that kinda sucks and really doesn't inspire me to pay for kindle books in cases where i can easily find a torrent.)

- the search features, ease of finding content you want, ease of DLing. it's better than various commercial sites in lots of ways.

- some stuff isn't for sale at all (especially old or foreign things), or isn't for sale in a good format (e.g. some books are for sale only as paper books but not ebooks, but you can torrent an ebook version)

- torrenting doesn't cost money. if this is a big factor for you ... **why**? why don't you make more money? what's going on there?

Anonymous at 9:10 PM on July 11, 2016 | #6155
> is anyone being harmed?

Elliot is a programmer. He might get harmed.

His hard work would be copied.


> would they have a court case in which they could reasonably demonstrate the harm?

There are laws that can arrest you for torrenting.

Piratebay's founders suffer a lot.

The site has been killed many times. But it still comes back up.

> if so, what would the amount of the harm be that you could be sued for?

I don't know. The copyright laws are getting stricter.

Ayn Rand loved Patents google says.

> and on the other hand, are you benefiting? a lot? it's a good thing that lots of information can be copied and distributed pretty much for free.

Yes, Especially free knowledge is very good.

Knowledge used to be hidden and out of reach earlier.


> this goodness should appreciated and valued in general. that's the starting point. then you make exceptions when someone gets harmed.

Isn't loss of profits harm?

FF at 9:14 PM on July 11, 2016 | #6156
if someone knew you torrented something, would they be able to sue you in an Objectivist society? they'd have to explain in court what harm they suffered.

lots of things you torrent you would not have bought if you couldn't torrent it. i certainly download lots of stuff just to see what it is and then i delete it fast, but i wouldn't have bought it. or if you're poor maybe you'd just watch way less stuff if you had to pay. if you wouldn't have bought it otherwise, where's the harm? and some things you may have bought without torrenting, but how will they show that in court?

you may want to consider paying for things you think you would have paid for if you couldn't torrent them.

but i'd still consider lots of the other stuff too.

Anonymous at 9:21 PM on July 11, 2016 | #6157
> another question is why don't you pay?

I don't pay because I am unsure about the quality of the stuff I am downloading. I need to try it before paying.

I do buy games that I like after trying through torrents. I have bought many games to help the publisher.

I don't do that to movies & software though.

> - easy ability to play a file on the device of your choice with the software of your choice, rather than the vendor's video or audio player. a huge factor here is wanting to watch things in VLC at 2x speed and with VLC's navigation hotkeys.

Yes.. I agree with everything above.

> - the search features, ease of finding content you want, ease of DLing. it's better than various commercial sites in lots of ways.

> - some stuff isn't for sale at all (especially old or foreign things), or isn't for sale in a good format (e.g. some books are for sale only as paper books but not ebooks, but you can torrent an ebook version)

I agree.

> why don't you make more money? what's going on there?

I do make enough money. But I can't pay in some formats.

I don't have a credit card so I had to torrent stuff because of that.

FF at 9:22 PM on July 11, 2016 | #6158
why don't you get a credit card?

Anonymous at 9:24 PM on July 11, 2016 | #6159
> why don't you get a credit card?

I like paying directly.

I have an irrational hatred for debt. I haven't dealt with it yet.

FF at 9:56 PM on July 11, 2016 | #6160
> if someone knew you torrented something, would they be able to sue you in an Objectivist society? they'd have to explain in court what harm they suffered.

Would Peikoff be happy if I told him I downloaded Ayn Rand collection?

> you may want to consider paying for things you think you would have paid for if you couldn't torrent them.

I have bought Assassin Creed series, GTA 5 and many other games that I have liked.

Pirated copies don't have some features so I buy to get the extra features. Like getting updates, online play etc.

FF at 10:04 PM on July 11, 2016 | #6161
> I have an irrational hatred for debt. I haven't dealt with it yet.

credit cards don't have to involve debt. i always (and automatically) pay my card off in full every month. i'm never in debt. i always have more money than my CC balance already available and ready to pay it before i spend anything on the CC.

> Would Peikoff be happy if I told him I downloaded Ayn Rand collection?

Peikoff is a bastard who has put substantial effort into preventing high quality translations of Ayn Rand books into other languages. he's also put a lot of effort into preventing the Objectivist community from being aware of Reisman's books. very sad. he's a destroyer.

Anonymous at 10:30 PM on July 11, 2016 | #6162
The govt is okay with harming people for giving stuff away for free. but it is not okay with pirating which doesn't cause much harm. lol

FF at 11:16 PM on July 11, 2016 | #6163
> Peikoff is a bastard who has put substantial effort into preventing high quality translations of Ayn Rand books into other languages. he's also put a lot of effort into preventing the Objectivist community from being aware of Reisman's books. very sad. he's a destroyer.

Why does he want to prevent high quality translations?

Won't he get handsome royalties from non-English speaking countries if he allowed it?

> credit cards don't have to involve debt. i always (and automatically) pay my card off in full every month. i'm never in debt. i always have more money than my CC balance already available and ready to pay it before i spend anything on the CC.

I just went to a credit card site.. It is pretty confusing.

They have too many cards with too many stupid perks and charges.

I think all sites including Itunes appstore should allow all methods of payment.

I tried many debit cards before Netflix accepted one of them.

FF at 11:41 PM on July 12, 2016 | #6168
if you don't know what credit card to get, you can get an amazon visa card.

getting a card from your bank or airline can work too. or you can go to the money related blogs and get tips on what's a good card.

Anonymous at 12:22 AM on July 13, 2016 | #6169
I like new gadgets but this is one of the gadgets that might be bad.

It is a self-punishing gadget to end bad habits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0WLPVWTEA

FF at 9:22 PM on July 13, 2016 | #6170
I think I will post replies to FI posts here.

Rami has said in one post that reading Elliot is better than reading Rand's books. I think I will read FI and think about the stuff written there.

FF at 4:11 AM on July 16, 2016 | #6175
#6175

Do you think Rami's idea is universal to all people across all contexts?

Maybe you misspoke.

Anonymous at 4:35 AM on July 16, 2016 | #6176
> Do you think Rami's idea is universal to all people across all contexts?

I don't think whether it is universal. It might be helpful for others to do what Rami is doing.

Do you have reasons why others shouldn't follow it?

Is short-cutting in philosophy bad? FI has the essence of all the knowledge these books have and much more.


Rami said :-

"when it’s been suggested to read Popper or Rand, I thought it’s better for me to prioritize reading FI and curi blog. cuz:

- FI easier to understand. understanding FI requires less skilled reading comprehension. or at least my reading comprehension skill is more attuned to FI style text than to Popper or Rand style text.

- elliot is better than either Popper or Rand. sure Popper and Rand said things that Elliot hasn’t, or said them in ways Elliot hasn’t, which would be good sources of learning for me, but my idea is to learn elliot’s stuff first, then do Popper/Rand."

FF at 4:50 AM on July 16, 2016 | #6177
& my comprehension sucks..

I can't understand myth of mental illness & VOS..

I also find reading AS hard.

FF at 4:53 AM on July 16, 2016 | #6178
In #6177

think = know

FF at 4:58 AM on July 16, 2016 | #6179
re #6178

those are hard books

Anonymous at 5:23 AM on July 16, 2016 | #6180
> those are hard books

So am I right to read FI first?

FH & A is easier than Momi & VOS

FF at 5:26 AM on July 16, 2016 | #6181
reading lots of FI and curi blog seems reasonable.

Anonymous at 2:29 PM on July 16, 2016 | #6186
> if i said "faggot" and then said i hadn't identified that "faggot" had
an association with gays, would you believe me?

When insults become overused.. people don't think about it much and use it freely. Am I wrong?

FF at 9:09 PM on July 17, 2016 | #6189
people know what "faggot" means

please quote correctly

Anonymous at 9:10 PM on July 17, 2016 | #6190
Louis CK uses Nigger for white bartenders.

FF at 9:16 PM on July 17, 2016 | #6191
He also uses " Faggot " to mean something different.

FF at 9:20 PM on July 17, 2016 | #6192

FF at 9:24 PM on July 17, 2016 | #6193
Should you not discuss low priority topics on which you will not put effort to study and learn?

I remember discussing climate change with you long back and I didn't read the book ( Alex Epstein book ) you sent me. I wasted your time on that.

I have a bad approach towards discussion. I get excited about topics which are low priority to me and when the other person throws a ton of info towards me I read some of the stuff but I don't go too deep into the subject. Maybe that is because I expect quick knowledge..

But I do try to neutralize my views before running away.

I think I should ignore low priority topics and only focus on high priority stuff.

My attitude & approach towards learning and thinking sucks completely.

FF at 9:38 AM on July 18, 2016 | #6198
> people often miss topic changes, although sometimes they notice. the more your topic is unconventional, **they** less they'll notice the change.

FF at 7:29 PM on July 18, 2016 | #6199
from where?

Anonymous at 7:34 PM on July 18, 2016 | #6200
You corrected it.. Good.

FF at 8:43 PM on July 19, 2016 | #6204
Are you pro Open source?

FF at 10:23 PM on July 21, 2016 | #6215
the open source movement has a lot of idiots. people should sell things and make money instead of begging for handouts. lots of really great open source software is really badly underfunded which hurts everyone.

Anonymous at 10:39 PM on July 21, 2016 | #6216
Stefan Moleneux selling Trump to Democrats..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-jSrS49dss

FF at 7:57 PM on July 22, 2016 | #6217
Anyone want to crit his promotion video of Trump?

FF at 12:50 AM on July 23, 2016 | #6218
it was decent

Anonymous at 12:52 AM on July 23, 2016 | #6219
I am going to read the Paths Forward again... It is so hard to activate the thinking mode..

FF at 10:11 AM on July 23, 2016 | #6226
Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson explaining why people can't study Math.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbrQ8F-LQNs

FF at 10:17 AM on July 23, 2016 | #6227
> Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson explaining why people can't study Math.

two awful people insulting other people? did not click. summarize a bit of it and say why it's good if you want to persuade me to try watching any.

Anonymous at 12:23 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6230

dtv = shit

The Dawkins-Tyson video is shit. I watched about one minute of it. Tyson says our brain isn't wired for logic. That's a crap explanation. Humans are universal knowledge creators, so any person can learn any possible knowledge. Also, it's kinda dumb to say people can't learn knowledge without being able to explain how they managed to create that knowledge.

Alan at 2:07 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6231
> two awful people insulting other people? did not click

I thought they were great geniuses!

Why do you think they are awful?

Tyson (among other things) is pro-GMO which is very good.. I like that about him.. We need popular people promoting GMO.

Dawkins is an atheist anti-islamic crusader.. which is good.. He & Sam Harris are really cutting through Political correctness and pointing out the bad in this world.

Do you mean they are philosophically awful?

FF at 6:14 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6233
they are awful people and awful thinkers (with the exception of Dawkins is good at some limited stuff related to evolution). did you ever look at their stuff?

Sam Harris is super bad too.

they are left wing haters, super condescending. they love pretending to be smart and scientific while presenting their anti-life hateful ideas about the world. they hate capitalism, reason, discussion, criticism, and basically every good thinker ever. (Rand, Popper, Mises, Szasz, me, take your pick). (i mean either they hate the thinker or they would hate them if they bothered to learn about that thinker)

curi at 6:19 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6234
dawkins hates christians and hates morality. he also hates discussion with people who disagree with him and avoids it (including with people already in his social circle). he also hates regular people who he thinks are stupid and is very condescending to. he's also oblivious to the ass he makes of himself.

sam harris goes around pretending that neuroscience gives his moral philosophy claims authority (and he does that instead of having good ideas or good arguments).

long story short, atheism makes people bad because it alienates them from the major Western/American/Christian/Jewish traditions that make civilization exist and make people not suck so bad. atheism is dangerous and helps convert people to left wing evil.

academia is also super bad.

hence people like Dawkins and Harris are **worse than regular people**. Joe Public has more common sense and more traditional good Western values.

TLDR: atheists who don't love Ayn Rand are bad people.

curi at 6:26 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6235
> dawkins hates christians and hates morality.

He hates other religions too.. He hates Islam more.

Doesn't Christianity deserve hatred? It is the most powerful propagator of altruism + other bad ideas. Their ideology starts with sacrifice of Christ.

Morality is said to be not exactly science so it is very hard to decide what is right and what is wrong in some cases. His field of study doesn't deal with morality so he might have a reason to ignore it.

> Sam Harris is super bad too.

You are right.. He hates Capitalism. I thought he was a weird libertarian like Penn Gillette.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-rich-is-too-rich

> atheism is dangerous and helps convert people to left wing evil.

Stefan Moleneux will agree with you on that.

> he also hates discussion with people who disagree with him and avoids it (including with people already in his social circle)

On Camera he is quite calm while discussing with crazy Islamists and Christians.. He explains to them in detail about his criticisms. He engages in many discussions with people whom he disagrees with. On twitter though he is quite the opposite.

> long story short, atheism makes people bad because it alienates them from the major Western/American/Christian/Jewish traditions that make civilization exist and make people not suck so bad

What Jewish & Christian traditions do you think are good?

There are great Jewish & Christian thinkers but they are mostly irreligious or deistic.

The new secular Jewish people of Israel seem good though.. The orthodox jewish traditions look crazy like all other religions.

> GMO

You didn't say anything about this.. Are you pro-GMO?

I think GMO will be better at stopping malnutrition and hunger than socialism..

> they are left wing haters, super condescending. they love pretending to be smart and scientific while presenting their anti-life hateful ideas about the world. they hate capitalism, reason, discussion, criticism, and basically every good thinker ever. (Rand, Popper, Mises, Szasz, me, take your pick). (i mean either they hate the thinker or they would hate them if they bothered to learn about that thinker)

Popular people have to be left leaning or neutral to survive in the world of fame. Individuals become popular by emotional vote of the people. DD seems to have realized that. You need to possess bad ideas to be popular and to spread good ideas you need popularity..so it is hard to spread good ideas.. A million socrates need to be sacrificed before the masses accept a good idea.

PS: I have too many bad ideas which might be apparent from the above comments of mine. Please don't ban me..

Observations : I read stuff on FI and just nod or stay neutral.. I am not thinking much and changing my ideas.. I have started copying good stuff on my notepad so I can remember and think about it.

Stuff I like :

1. It's important to only care much about a small number of people. It's waaaaaay too stressful and time consuming to do more. Don't get dragged into a bunch of people's drama. Don't get very entangled in parochial relationships. Stick to really great people or limited interaction. Try to put life in perspective. There are big things at stake such as spreading TCS, or learning to handle your own life way better. Getting drawn into other unimportant people's parochial issues doesn't matter to this. It's a big distraction. Try to think about what you'll still care about in a year. What is just temporary and will be forgotten, vs. what matters in bigger way.

2. lots of people ask kids what they want to be when they grow up. that's stupid. how the hell should they know? people should do lots of things and see how their interests and skills develop.

3. Capitalism essay

4. Communication is Hard essay

5. Overreaching essay ( They need to back off and limit their activities until mistakes are happening at manageable rate. So they can solve problems as they come up, rather than having an ever-increasing list of unsolved problems. ) [ sadly I have not been able to follow it in my life.I overreach a lot on some stuff ]

6. Philosophy First essay

7. Why is Tradition Important?

8. procrastination essay.

PPS : sorry for wasting your time.. I should study grammar, reread and think about FI essays instead of just nodding, read anthem.. My lazy procrastinating stupid mind should have done these things before talking to you.

FF at 8:39 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6236
> You didn't say anything about this.. Are you pro-GMO?

GMO is good. someone getting one easy thing right (and just the big conclusion, not the reasoning) doesn't mean they are any good at thinking.

Anonymous at 9:03 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6237
> Doesn't Christianity deserve hatred?

Doesn't civilization deserve hatred?

Anonymous at 9:54 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6238
> Morality is said to be not exactly science so it is very hard to decide what is right and what is wrong in some cases. His field of study doesn't deal with morality so he might have a reason to ignore it.


did you bother reading his books before saying this? he has a chapter where he attacks morality in the god delusion book.

Anonymous at 9:55 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6239
> Stefan Moleneux will agree with you on that.

who cares? why speak of him?

Anonymous at 9:56 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6240
> On Camera he is quite calm while discussing with crazy Islamists and Christians.. He explains to them in detail about his criticisms. He engages in many discussions with people whom he disagrees with. On twitter though he is quite the opposite.

those aren't discussions, they are staged performances where he shows off that he has a better accent and more prestigious vocabulary and some related stuff.

Anonymous at 9:56 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6241
> Popular people have to be left leaning or neutral to survive in the world of fame.

false. see Ayn Rand.

Anonymous at 9:57 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6242
> Popular people have to be left leaning or neutral to survive in the world of fame.

false. see Ted Cruz. see Rush. Hannity. Coulter. all their friends. you are not paying any attention.

Anonymous at 9:58 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6243
> PS: I have too many bad ideas which might be apparent from the above comments of mine. Please don't ban me..

i don't ban for bad ideas, i ban for things like property damage and aggressive force.

Anonymous at 9:58 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6244
> Ted Cruz

I think ( guess ) most of them like him for his christian, Anti-IRS, Anti-obamacare stuff.. If he was an atheist selling pure Ayn Rand he had no chance.. He still gets humiliated in his own party and everywhere else.

FF at 10:25 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6245
> those aren't discussions, they are staged performances where he shows off that he has a better accent and more prestigious vocabulary and some related stuff.

True.. He is a great performer..

FF at 10:26 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6246
> True.. He is a great performer..

no he's not. you're just gullible or something.

Anonymous at 10:26 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6247
> I think ( guess ) most of them like him for his christian, Anti-IRS, Anti-obamacare stuff..

sounds right wing!

Anonymous at 10:26 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6248
> no he's not. you're just gullible or something.

??

I agreed with you.. You mentioned how those aren't discussions but displays of his accent and vocabulary and I agreed with you.

FF at 10:34 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6249
> sounds right wing!

My focus was on being pure Ayn Rand and atheist.. He would have been treated worse if he was that.

FF at 10:35 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6250
> > sounds right wing!
>
> My focus was on being pure Ayn Rand and atheist.. He would have been treated worse if he was that.

no, you wrote:

> Popular people have to be left leaning or neutral to survive in the world of fame.

that is false. there are popular right wing people. Ted Cruz is not "left leaning" or "neutral". Neither is Ann Coulter. etc etc etc

Anonymous at 11:21 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6251
> True.. He is a great performer..

Dawkins is a shitty performer. you have bad judgement. that isn't agreeing.

Anonymous at 11:21 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6252
> that is false. there are popular right wing people. Ted Cruz is not "left leaning" or "neutral". Neither is Ann Coulter. etc etc etc

You are right.. I made a vague point without much thinking.. I should avoid doing that.

I repeated what people said.. I repeat some heresay ( not all )Hmmm.. You can be popular with right wing thinking.

Maybe I should have said - You can get more popular by not-being right wing.

What do you think of what I said next?
" If he was an atheist selling pure Ayn Rand he had no chance.. "

> Dawkins is a shitty performer. you have bad judgement. that isn't agreeing.

I thought you meant he was good at performing and not at discussions.. Okay he is not good at both.

FF at 11:41 PM on July 23, 2016 | #6253
>> Doesn't Christianity deserve hatred?

> Doesn't civilization deserve hatred?

Are you sympathetic towards Christianity?

FF at 12:14 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6254
> Are you sympathetic towards Christianity?

We live in a civilization built on judeo-christian traditions.

yes i'm sympathetic to civilization.

Anonymous at 12:50 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6255
> Good discussion places also do not moderate (block) contributions for "low quality", or for much of anything besides being automated non-human spam. Moderation policies are a way to keep some ideas out of the discussion, without answering them, even though those ideas could be correct. Moderation prevents some ideas from being discussed and answered. It's irrational (and authoritarian).

Why did you disapprove my low quality posts to FI then? ( It wasn't automated non-human spam )

FF at 12:51 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6256
> " If he was an atheist selling pure Ayn Rand he had no chance.. "

what does this mean? why not? Ayn Rand had a chance. Ayn Rand sold millions of books. she was an atheist. why couldn't someone else be popular with similar ideas??


> I thought you meant he was good at performing and not at discussions.. Okay he is not good at both.

you say that but he impresses you.

Anonymous at 12:51 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6257
your FI posts violated rules like post formatting.

Anonymous at 12:52 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6258
> We live in a civilization built on judeo-christian traditions.

Can you give an easy example?

If you discovered something would judeo-christian traditions get credit?

FF at 12:56 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6259
for example people value freedom because it's part of the judeo-christian tradition.

lefty atheists, on the other hand, do not value, understand or respect freedom.

Anonymous at 12:59 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6260
> you say that but he impresses you.

He impressed me when I was an atheist zealot..

I am not too interested in spreading atheism these days.

> what does this mean? why not? Ayn Rand had a chance. Ayn Rand sold millions of books. she was an atheist. why couldn't someone else be popular with similar ideas??

Had? Maybe she still has a chance through you.

FF at 1:01 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6261
> for example people value freedom because it's part of the Judeo-christian tradition.

Google directed me to -

The term in this case referred to Jewish converts to Christianity

&

American civil religion is a sociological theory that a nonsectarian quasi-religious faith exists within the United States with sacred symbols drawn from national history. Scholars have portrayed it as a cohesive force, a common set of values that foster social and cultural integration.

&

Isolated strands of liberal thought had existed in Western philosophy since the Ancient Greeks, but the first major signs of liberal politics emerged in modern times. In the 17th century, political and financial disputes between the English Parliament and King Charles I sparked a massive civil war in the 1640s. The war culminated in the execution of Charles and the establishment of the Commonwealth of England. The period produced a significant amount of political and philosophical commentary.


I didn't understand how tradition helped.. I thought individual philosophers,experimentation, luck helped liberalism.

Christians burned scientific people who opposed them. I am confused.

FF at 1:18 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6262
people are civilized because they have ideas that come from the past and have been improved over time. the archetypical civilized person is christian or jewish. the values of civilization are roughly what people today would call center-right Republican. (except leftists would call them "extreme right" because leftists are liars).

many atheists still believe most of the same ideas as they would if they were religious. that's why you don't see all atheists being totally uncivilized all the time.

to actually think things out yourself and be a decent civilized person (rather than relying really heavily on tradition) requires being like Ayn Rand level. almost no one can do it.

Anonymous at 1:28 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6263
> your FI posts violated rules like post formatting.

But doesn't that create a loophole for admins to censor stuff.

You only mentioned non-human spam there.

FF at 1:29 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6264
> But doesn't that create a loophole for admins to censor stuff.

it creates a loophole to not be censored – even if you're a bastard – by posting correctly.

Anonymous at 1:33 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6265
>> But doesn't that create a loophole for admins to censor stuff.

> it creates a loophole to not be censored – even if you're a bastard – by posting correctly.

I don't know about that.. The moderator has the final say.. He can make excuses for himself and point out a formatting problem and delete the post.

I wonder whether the moderation page of yahoo groups changes the post formatting.

Some of my posts were impossible to have formatting problems. They were one sentence questions. " Are Yeti's real? " or something like that.
Some were approved by Rami...

I think I know some of the basics.. don't top post, make space and write, make sure it is plain text, delete the yahoo stuff on the bottom, delete some of the piled up email ids on the top, don't post something without content, sign below ( optional )

> You must set your message format to "Traditional" on Yahoogroups. Send a blank email to [email protected] and then reply to the confirmation email. Replying to any email from before you do this will be broken.

I didn't do this..

FF at 1:56 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6266
the yeti post was intentional trolling. that's a fake question. you were trying to fuck with Elliot, not ask a question you were curious about.

Anonymous at 1:58 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6267
> the yeti post was intentional trolling. that's a fake question. you were trying to fuck with Elliot, not ask a question you were curious about.

I wouldn't call it intentional trolling.

It was :-

1. I was irritated that none of my questions were being accepted.

2. I saw a kid's post with a simple question.

3. I thought of a simple question I was curious about. I made sure it was very similar to the kid's question so the mods couldn't delete it for some silly reason. But they still deleted it :(

4. It was an impatient desperate attempt to get something through moderation.

5. I would have posted porn if I wanted to harm FI.

FF at 2:04 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6268
> 3. I thought of a simple question I was curious about.

you're lying. you know yetis are a myth.

> I made sure it was very similar to the kid's question so the mods couldn't delete it for some silly reason. But they still deleted it :(

yet you gave a reason:

> 4. It was an impatient desperate attempt to get something through moderation.

you were caught. you posted it to fuck with the mods, not as a regular post.

Anonymous at 2:12 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6269
> people are civilized because they have ideas that come from the past and have been improved over time. the archetypical civilized person is christian or jewish.

Post Enlightenment Christian/jew?

> the values of civilization are roughly what people today would call center-right Republican.

Okay

(except leftists would call them "extreme right" because leftists are liars).

Is it good to generalize all leftists as liars?

They see the world differently and ask different questions.

Being wrong Fundamentally makes them see the world differently and get different conclusions. They think they are the most honest ever.

> many atheists still believe most of the same ideas as they would if they were religious. that's why you don't see all atheists being totally uncivilized all the time.


hmmm.. you are right.

FF at 2:17 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6270
> you're lying. you know yetis are a myth.

I am not really sure.. Mammoths were found in Russia that were in better shape. They might find some Yeti fossil some day.

I am believing that Yetis don't exist on authority while I am actually unsure inside.

FF at 2:21 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6271
> Is it good to generalize all leftists as liars?

yes

Anonymous at 2:24 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6272
> you were caught. you posted it to fuck with the mods, not as a regular post.

Does my third or forth intention matter?

You get many thoughts when deciding something.. One of them was desperation to get my post approved.. I didn't wanted to hurt any admin with that post.

I think the important part I think is that I didn't fuck up plain text, top post etc rules, didn't hurt mods, didn't post porn. ( in that post )

FF at 2:27 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6273
>> Is it good to generalize all leftists as liars?
>
> yes

Is having a bad idea and propagating it "lying"?

Religious people are experts in lying to themselves and to others...

FF at 2:40 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6274
> my dad helped me find that essay. it doesn’t make sense at all. too hard.
>
> is there another way to learn about this? like did someone write a summary of it?

If someone writes a summary on FI in reply to that.. I am interested to read too.

FF at 2:50 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6275
I just found Thales of miletus ( c624-546 BCE ) on Philosophy DK PDF

FF at 3:47 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6276
Thales of Miletus,
the first known Greek
philosopher, seeks
rational answers
to questions about
the world we live in.

https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo_id=21273496329

FF at 3:54 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6277
don't post advertisements. there are tons of picture hosting sites that let you do public links where people can actually see the picture instead of just going to some marketing bullshit

Anonymous at 4:12 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6278
> don't post advertisements. there are tons of picture hosting sites that let you do public links where people can actually see the picture instead of just going to some marketing bullshit

Strange.. It was a direct link to the picture.

It doesn't show any ad while I go to the site.

Don't you use adblock?

FF at 4:16 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6279

FF at 4:20 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6280

FF at 4:22 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6281
#6273 #6274

Remain unanswered.. anyone can answer it at anytime..

no pressure..

FF at 4:25 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6282
> Strange.. It was a direct link to the picture.

no it's not. you're probably logged in...

Anonymous at 4:29 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6283
> no it's not. you're probably logged in...

No.. I didn't sign up.. How is the second link I sent you?

If anyone wants to download the Dorling Kindersley philosophy book .. The link is above.

FF at 4:54 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6284
> curl -I https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo_id=21273496329
HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Location: /


it's literally a redirect to their homepage.

Anonymous at 5:06 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6285
> it's literally a redirect to their homepage.

Strange.. It works fine here.

I think it remembers my cookie.

How is the second link that I posted above..

I am posting link again :- http://oi66.tinypic.com/k9w3fk.jpg

Book link:https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/7976994/The_Philosophy_Book_(gnv64)#filelistContainer

FF at 5:14 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6286
> I think it remembers my cookie.

that sounds suspiciously like being logged in...

don't repost stuff, we saw it, you're wasting space.

why don't you show your curl output or something? or if you have no idea how to use computers, then why would you argue a technical issue?

Anonymous at 5:16 AM on July 24, 2016 | #6287
I just realized that nice people lie and mislead people by hiding and trying to sugar coat the truth.

FF at 9:30 AM on July 30, 2016 | #6303
Truth seekers might get hurt till they get rid of their second-handedness but by being open to criticism they can avoid the real pain.

FF at 9:50 AM on July 30, 2016 | #6304
i have very few decision points in my life..i behave like a automated retard .. i will try to decide more from now on
http://fallibleideas.com/lulie/initiative-and-responsibility

ff at 9:41 PM on July 31, 2016 | #6305
why is the static meme link on the initiative & responsibilities essay
goes to amazon boi page?

ff at 10:04 PM on July 31, 2016 | #6306
cuz BoI explains static memes and cuz they are DD's invention.

Anonymous at 11:20 PM on July 31, 2016 | #6307
you could have given him credit below or something.. people expect to find an essay when they click it..why would someone buy the book just to get a meaning?

ff at 12:33 AM on August 1, 2016 | #6308
linking the book makes sense because they SHOULD buy the book.

it's good to do things correctly. if the book isn't linked where it should be, then how is anyone going to learn they should be reading it?

Anonymous at 12:39 AM on August 1, 2016 | #6309
they should buy the book but you could have linked it to a brief explanation with a link to the amazon page for people who need to know more..

ff at 12:51 AM on August 1, 2016 | #6310
people who want to know more should ask a question, not expect a one-size-fits-all pre-written answer to magically address their personal questions.

Anonymous at 12:58 AM on August 1, 2016 | #6311
Should a person give up philosophy if it doesn't help them in their current situation?

Lets say a person screwed things up so badly that there are no quick solution to his/her problem.

Eg: LG

FF at 7:37 AM on August 2, 2016 | #6320
I think FI needs a FAQ thing..

It is hard navigating stuff.

I had stopped saving important posts to my notepad.. I will start that again.

It is hard to find a post to disprove that FI isn't a cult..to LG

FF at 7:41 AM on August 2, 2016 | #6321
> people who want to know more should ask a question, not expect a one-size-fits-all pre-written answer to magically address their personal questions.

You should have linked this. But it doesn't matter if you don't

I found the link & I am going to read it now.

http://curi.us/1824-static-memes-and-irrationality

FF at 10:08 AM on August 2, 2016 | #6322
> Should a person give up philosophy if it doesn't help them in their current situation?

there's no such thing in regular life. you'd have to be like a soldier in the middle of a battle with people shooting at you right now. then you should focus on fighting.

Anonymous at 2:08 PM on August 2, 2016 | #6323
> I think FI needs a FAQ thing..

everyone can write their own FAQ. then when you have discussions you can link to it if/when it's relevant.

Anonymous at 2:10 PM on August 2, 2016 | #6324
Why Some Countries Are Poor and Others Rich By ADB

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-4V3HR696k

An animated 8 min video on "Why Some Countries Are Poor and Others Rich"

Does anyone want to crit it?

FF at 3:32 AM on August 10, 2016 | #6441
you didn't give any summary or say anything you think is good or bad about it.

Anonymous at 3:43 AM on August 10, 2016 | #6442
Here is a transcript:

0:00There are 196 countries in the world. 25 of them are very rich, defined as having
0:06an average wealth per person of over $100,000 a year.
0:10They are:
0:12But far more countries are quite poor, and some - which we’re considering here - are
0:16very very poor.
0:18These are the 20 poorest countries in the world: where the per capital wealth is under
0:22a $1,000 a year, or under three dollars a day.
0:26Every country is now more or less on a path to growth, but the poor ones are growing very,
0:31very slowly. If Zimbabwe continues at its current growth rate, it will qualify as a
0:36‘rich country’ in 2722 years.
0:40What we want to know in this film is why some countries prosper and others stagnate:
0:45- so we can understand what rich countries are doing right
0:47- and get a better grip on the challenges and hurdles facing poor countries.
0:51There are basically three factors that determine whether a country will be rich or poor.
0:56The first is:
0:57INSTITUTIONS
0:58Institutions are beyond important. Broadly speaking, rich countries have 'good
1:03institutions' and poor ones have very, very bad ones.
1:06The correlation between poverty and corruption is direct. The richest countries in the world
1:11are quite simply invariably also the least corrupt ones.
1:15And the most corrupt countries are also the poorest.
1:19When countries are corrupt, they can’t collect enough taxes to get the good institutions
1:23they would need to escape the poverty trap.
1:27Half of the wealth of the world’s poorest 20 countries goes into offshore accounts.
1:31Lost revenues in these countries totals between $10 and $20 billion dollars a year
1:36Meanwhile, without an adequate tax base, poor countries can’t invest in police, education,
1:42health, transport.
1:43Now, a more generous way to look at corruption is that it’s really a case of clan-based
1:48thinking. Say you’re hiring someone. In the rich countries, you’re meant to do so
1:52simply on merit, interviewing lots of candidates then picking the best one irrespective of
1:57any personal connection.
1:59But in poor countries under the sway of clan-based thinking, that approach would itself be corrupt:
2:05it’s your duty to disregard the so-called best candidate from an anonymous bunch, in
2:10order to pick someone from your own team: your uncle, your brother, your second cousin,
2:14the guys from the same tribe.
2:16As a result, poor countries don’t allow themselves access to the intelligence and
2:20talent of the whole population.
2:22There’s a second thing that keeps countries poor:
2:25CULTURE
2:27- what goes on in people’s minds, their outlooks and beliefs...
2:30A striking statistic pops up here in relation to religion.
2:33If there’s one generalisation you can make about religion and wealth, it’s that the
2:37less people believe, the richer they stand a chance of being.
2:4119 of the richest countries in the world have 70% or more of their populations saying religion
2:47is not at all important to them.
2:50The exception here is - unsurprisingly - the United States, which manages to combine great
2:54religiosity with huge wealth (more on that in a second).
2:58And conversely, the poorest nations in the world are also extremely believing ones. Here’s
3:04how many people think religion and the supernatural is deeply important in the following countries:
3:09In the world’s poorest country, simply everyone is a believer.
3:14Why is belief quite so bad for wealth creation?
3:17Because in general, religiosity is connected up with the idea that the here and now can’t
3:21be improved, so you should focus on the spiritual and look forward to a next world instead.
3:26It makes quite a bit of sense when you live here.
3:31In the rich world on the other hand, people are generally great believers in their capacity
3:35to alter their destiny through effort and talent.
3:38Incidentally, to explain the anomaly of the United States, religion seems not to slow
3:43down economic growth here because it is a particular sort of religion: an overwhelmingly
3:47Protestant and exceptionally materialistic kind. The American god
3:52doesn’t want you to think of building the new jerusalem
3:55in the next world, He wants it here and now in Kansas or Houston.
4:00There’s another big factor that determines the wealth and poverty of nations:
4:03GEOGRAPHY
4:05Poor countries are overwhelmingly located in the tropical regions. This isn’t a coincidence.
4:11Life is, in many ways, simply far far tougher there.
4:14The problems begin with agriculture:
4:17Tropical plants are generally a lot less packed with carbohydrates.
4:20Poor countries have worse soil too. Also, and perhaps surprisingly, a tropical
4:25climate can be disadvantageous to photosynthesis.
4:28Historically, a key determinant in the likelihood of societies growing rich was their possession
4:33of large domesticated animals (such as horses and oxen) which liberated a huge part of the
4:38workforce from having to plough by hand.
4:41But in tropical africa, domesticated animals have throughout time been devastated by a
4:46further appalling scourge: the Tsetse fly.
4:50This small fly—exclusively present in Africa because of its heat and humidity— knocks
4:54out animals on an enormous scale, making them sleepy or inactive - and has had a profound
5:00effect on the ability of Africans to develop technology, increase agricultural productivity
5:05and amass wealth.
5:07-- It isnt just plants and animals that suffer
5:09in the tropics. In the middle latitudes, humans are open to a terrifying array of diseases
5:14including
5:18100% of low-income countries are affected by at least five tropical diseases simultaneously.
5:24The magical temperature which has helped to make rich countries rich is 16 degrees centrigade.
5:29However superficially unpleasant, that drop below 16 degrees as autumn starts to bite
5:34is quite literally, a foundation stone of civilisation.
5:37Geography also encompasses transport and poor countries are, on the whole, very badly connected.
5:44Landlocked Bolivia and semilandlocked Paraguy are the poorest nations in South America
5:49Africa has only one major navigable river, the Nile and hosts 15 landlocked nations,
5:5411 of which have average incomes of $600 or less.
5:59Not coincidentally, the poorest country in Asia, Afghanistan, is also landlocked.
6:04Then there’s the matter of natural resources.
6:07Natural resources (like oil or precious metals) can be real trouble - and, paradoxically,
6:11poor countries tend to have them in spades.
6:14These natural resources are what economists call intensifiers: they will help to make
6:18a country with good institutions richer, but one with bad institutions get even poorer,
6:23precipitating what’s called the resources trap.
6:26So the Democratic Republic of the Congo is one of the world’s most mineral rich countries;
6:31holding most of the world’s Coltan, which every mobile phone has a bit of inside.
6:36But natural resource wealth helps elites to grab money without requiring the cooperation
6:41of the whole society. If the only way to grow wealthy is to assemble high tech aeroengines,
6:46for example, you’re going to need your whole society to buy into the project but if you
6:51just need to extract a few minerals, you can do so with a small labour force, guns and
6:55an airstrip long enough to ferry your loot out to market.
6:59The wealth from Coltan keeps DRC armed rebels in guns and corrupts every level of society.
7:06So how should one weigh up the relative importance of all these different factors, institutional,
7:11cultural and geographic, in determining the wealth of a nation.
7:14There’s no hard and fast rules, but as a guide, one can suggest that:
7:1850% of a nation’s wealth comes down to its institutions
7:2120% is due to its culture. and 10% each can be allocated to latitude,
7:27connectivity with the rest of the world, and geological good fortune.
7:31If you’re a policy maker, this discussion has wide practical implications. But at a
7:36more personal level, one might take away two things from it;
7:40Firstly, Modesty: you should have a better idea of what you owe your individual success
7:44to - which is not so much your own hard work or fine mind, as the broader society you live
7:50in which was produced over centuries and which you now draw benefit from unknowingly.
7:55And at the same time, Sympathy: an ability not to see failing societies just as basket
8:00cases, but rather as countries facing comprehensible and hugely difficult problems. Our sympathy
8:06can be enhanced by reflecting that the troubles of desperate lands are to a considerable extent
8:12to do with malaria, a lack of navigable river and the horrific buzzing of the tsetse fly
8:16- rather than always some more intimate human failing which we would ourselves never manifest.

FF at 3:45 AM on August 10, 2016 | #6443
Oops.. I didn't know it was that long when I copied!

FF at 3:46 AM on August 10, 2016 | #6444
Israel is rich and religious too.

i kinda skimmed and saw no interesting idea about WHY countries are rich or poor.

Anonymous at 4:00 AM on August 10, 2016 | #6445
> Israel is rich and religious too.

The orthodox jews hate Israel.. Isn't Israel mostly secular Jewish?

FF at 4:05 AM on August 10, 2016 | #6446
I take the (#6446) comment back..

I googled..

FF at 4:13 AM on August 10, 2016 | #6447
> All the great atrocities of the modern age until now have been committed by atheists - Nazis & Marxists. - David Horowitz

Why should atheism be blamed for this?

Atheism has no religious book.. No instructions..

It is stupid evil Ideas that made them to that and they happened to be kinda-atheists (Hitler-skeptic,confused | Stalin- atheist)

FF at 7:47 PM on August 11, 2016 | #6457
> Individuals? No Lenin, no Communism, no 40 million dead. No Mao, no 70 million dead. -DH

I doubt that.. The ideas were prevalent and someone else would have taken their place..

FF at 8:01 PM on August 11, 2016 | #6458
when Christianity is a major part of civilization, and people reject it and then slaughter millions ... they absolutely are to be blamed. atheism has consequences.

Anonymous at 8:46 PM on August 11, 2016 | #6459
I think atheism is neutral just like science. People need to have morality separately to prevent bad stuff.

When people giveup religion they should have kept some of their morals and improved on some. Atheism isn't responsible if people behave stupidly. Atheism/agnostic atheism is a way towards rationality.

FF at 9:15 PM on August 11, 2016 | #6460
People can blame freedom too similarly.. Freedom shouldn't be infringed if some idiots do something bad.

FF at 9:18 PM on August 11, 2016 | #6461
> Atheism isn't responsible if people behave stupidly.

atheism is a word which refers to millions of people behaving stupidly and dozens who aren't. the stupid ones have slaughtered millions of people. so it's understandable that it's a smear.

Anonymous at 9:26 PM on August 11, 2016 | #6462
Freedom, Science & Technology, Freedom from religion etc - all these things can be used for bad stupid stuff.. These things don't care about morality. They are neutral power things that help progress.

Humans should possess morality while using these good things.

Atheism is being free from one stupid/irrational idea (religion).. It doesn't tell him to adopt another stupid idea. He should go to philosophy from there.

Attacking Atheism harshly would strengthen religions. Instead they should be encouraged to giveup religion and adopt philosophy.

FF at 9:35 PM on August 11, 2016 | #6463
Correction:

remove "power" from neutral things.

FF at 9:36 PM on August 11, 2016 | #6464

Leonor Gomes's Crit of FI

>> "i always get ideas to post when i am not available to post. and then
once i would be able to post, i don’t want to anymore. or my ideas
don’t seem worth posting anymore."

> no self-esteem. afraid of crit. doesn't really know anything about fi.

> he sucks more than what elliot said.

> "part of me thinks i should just give up and leave, since i am not making progress."

> he knows elliot considers this suicide.

> he also knows this reply won't help him have elliot care to help him.

> elliot attracts ppl who want help from a philosopher. depressed people.

> and elliot wants ppl who want to be philosophers. these people don't
want to be philosophers. they want memes. and imo they have the right
not to be. not everyone can or should be like not everyone should be
an architect etc.

FF at 11:54 PM on August 15, 2016 | #6493

Leonor Gomes's Crit of FI

> lol precipitated myself

> there is more

> "the other part of me thinks it is really important, and i need to make progress now. i have problems in my life. i want them to be better"

> he wants a philosopher to tell him how to live. to give him
solutions. memes mottos.

> he doesn't want to be a philosopher.

> elliot is not understanding this. why?

> "but with posting it is different. sometimes it feels like i just have no ideas. other times i come up with some ideas, and write them down. but then later i just “forget” to even look at the ideas. i “forget”
to try them."

> he doesn't want to be a philosopher. he doesn't like philosophy. he
just wants life help so he can carry on doing the projects he likes.

FF at 11:55 PM on August 15, 2016 | #6494

Leonor Gomes's Crit of FI

> a moment where PAS was a better person than Elliot and Elliot needs
him. Elliot needs the ppl he trashes (or gifts with crit, whatever the
perspective):

> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/topics/17958

>>> rami's kids:
>>
>> Why refer to them by their relationship to Rami?
>>
>> Why not name them?
>
> that would have been better. my mistake.

> but note how elliot doesn't explain why it would have been better.
it's a tradition. TCS questions it. but PAS is not TCS and argues
against it.

FF at 11:56 PM on August 15, 2016 | #6495

LG's Crit of FI

> nobody else seemed to have responded to elliot's post. not even alan
or justing, his favs. he is biased cause they are his best friends.
sad.

> some might be on holidays at the beach without internet BUT ELLIOT HAS
CRIT OF THAT lol

FF at 11:56 PM on August 15, 2016 | #6496

Leonor Gomes's Crit of Curi

>> leonor: some good comments sometimes (bad ones too – mixed overall) but unstable, angry, hostile. she made her blog private to prevent us from reading or replying.
>
> why are you talking about me? i'm not fi community anymore.
>
> 1. you banned me.
>
> 2. i'm not sure i want to be involved with fi anymore. seems dangerous
> for mine and my son's welfare. kinda can't let go though. feel i'm on
> limbo. between the world and not belonging anywhere. not nice.
>
> 3. quite depressed atm. be nice. dead ppl can't help you.
>
> 4. the comments on my blog were hostile and destructive and i want my
> story to remain private until it's finished. i don't thrive on crit
> but on support. and why do you think i should care what benefits you?
>
> commenting on your crit of jordan but counts for everyone else too:
>
> jordan (and most ppl who come to fi) doesn't want to be a philosopher
> but to find life help so he can continue to pursue the projects he
> likes. the memes of his culture don't help him for some reason, he
> wants better ones. he wants ready made solutions, not to be a thinker.
> he wants a ready made life instruction set.
>
> people that come to fi are not really persuaded they should be
> philosophers, they play along out of pressure to play along.
>
> and this is your fault because it makes no sense that everyone should
> be a philosopher the same you don't have to be an architect, a chef,
> or a brain surgeon to benefit from having a home, good meal, brain
> surgery. etc. you might say is different cause philosophy is the
> groundwork for anything else but most people live from memes they
> cannot argue and do not understand. acting on an idea is possible
> without understanding it.
>
> rand was also wrong in this. the world needs good philosophers
> spreading good ideas. it doesn't need everyone to become a
> philosopher. and then she didn't manage to get anyone becoming a
> objectivist philosopher. not even peikoff! because he treated
> philosophy as a thing anyone can and should do.
>
> there's ppl who are on fi for other reasons, mostly to feel
> intellectual, because of their class, they need to be posh, have
> pastimes where they are "intellectual" and you have them in high
> regard. their pretense is even worse than people pretending to be
> philosophers when they want therapy.
>
> you don't have anyone who wants to be a philosopher on your list.
> nobody. so you have to change your strategy.
>
> ppl come to fi like ppl looking for a restaurant. they don't want to be chefs.
>
> you make several mistakes:
>
> thinking everyone should be a philosopher.
>
> thinking ppl come to fi to be philosophers (but in fairness ppl are
> deceiving you in this regard and deceiving themselves too so you're
> not entirely to blame)
>
> treating ppl as they already know the philosophy to enjoy crit and
> enjoy being judged and etc.
>
> being aware they don't like crit and criting them the same knowing
> they get hurt. violates your own phil. raping minds is not ok.

FF at 12:09 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6497
> 4. the comments on my blog were hostile and destructive and i want my
> story to remain private until it's finished. i don't thrive on crit
> but on support. and why do you think i should care what benefits you?

this is dishonest. the comments she didn't like stopped after she deleted some comments and added rules prohibiting many comments. then she made the blog private, later, due to *offsite* commentary on posts, not due to "the comments on my blog".

on a related note, FF should not be posting private writing, from Leonor's private blog, to the public like this. he is betraying her.

Anonymous at 12:16 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6498

Betrayal

> on a related note, FF should not be posting private writing, from Leonor's private blog, to the public like this. he is betraying her.

It is much worse.. They were private emails.

Crit doesn't serve a purpose if it is hidden. It should be given to the right person.

The right person may use the crit to better himself and create new knowledge.

FF at 12:43 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6499
I was being whimsical.. that was bad.

Can someone explain to me about consent?

When I get whimsical I go to my default mode.

My default mode on consent is:-

1. I don't need to ask for consent if the info being shared isn't too private (Eg: address, emotions,family info, pictures etc)

2. Sharing philosophical stuff is okay. There is no harm possible from that. We can gain knowledge from sharing crit and thoughts.

3. The content a person shares with through email is owned by me.

FF at 2:29 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6504

FF and consent

> 1. I don't need to ask for consent if the info being shared isn't too private (Eg: address, emotions,family info, pictures etc)

the right thing is to assume the thing shared privately is private. if i write to you i don't intend it to be public. you have to ask consent for everything shared privately otherwise you don't care for consent.

you want to rationalize being a common person that likes to gossip. "oh, i'm not just a common person, i know philosophy so it's ok to the same thin common people who don't know philosophy do."

not ok.

there's less harm in sharing what you call "private stuff".

it's people's philosophical ideas that are the most private thing about them. people do not share their ideas with others. for instance, at work, they just talk about menial stuff where disagreement is impossible or expected or irrelevant, like football and etc.

on facebook they post pics of themselves with their mates drinking and on holiday. there's no content. ppl do not speak their minds.

sharing my ideas is are more dangerous that you posting my boob pics.

what is the big deal about address btw. any company you order from knows your address. what can you do about my address that my neighbor can't. i never got this one. it's like not speaking about your children online. but anyone who lives next to you sees your kid and etc? explain. you don't hide your kid and how you relate your kid from strangers in the supermarket.

> 3. The content a person shares with through email is owned by me.

this would make you a copyright owner of anything people ever wrote you which is bad.

there is an aspect that we are part of other people's life experience and become part of their problems so they will have the need to talk about their problems. but doing it publicly without consent is a betrayal and bad and immoral and evil and ugly and stupid.

without privacy is hard for people to discuss issues, solve problems.

it's like samaritans saying "oh, we won't tell anyone you are suicidal" and then the police are at your door.

trust is a tradition.

Leo at 2:39 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6508

ABSOLUTELY NO DOXING

> 1. I don't need to ask for consent if the info being shared isn't too private (Eg: address, emotions,family info, pictures etc)


if you share someone's street address or phone number i will consider you a violent criminal and bitter enemy for life. that kind of posting is used to either harass people in person or to threaten it. it intimidates and scares people about IRL violence.

doxing is absolutely and utterly prohibited here. no exceptions.

the only comments i've ever deleted from the site are doxing and spam. (only literal uncontroversial spam posted by bots, like viagra and poker links.)


no comment on the rest. i just wanted to speak about doxing.

curi at 2:41 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6509
> #6508

Does anyone want to crit what LG said?

Does FI agree with her? On what points do you agree and what points do you have disagreement?

> there's less harm in sharing what you call "private stuff".

The stuff I listed is what people normally consider to be un-shareable.

btw did you get consent to post here?

FF at 2:46 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6511
> if you share someone's street address or phone number i will consider you a violent criminal and bitter enemy for life. that kind of posting is used to either harass people in person or to threaten it. it intimidates and scares people about IRL violence.

That is what I said.. I am against sharing phone numbers, addresses etc.

FF at 2:48 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6512
#6512 you said the opposite. i'm glad to hear you didn't mean it as written and it was only miscommunication.

Anonymous at 2:49 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6513

FF trying to impress Elliot

> btw did you get consent to post here?

how is that your concern? i was already posting through you. why should you be my filter? why should what i say be shared in public by intermediaries?

why are you not posting my crits anymore? i guess it gave pleasure you when it was betrayal but now i turned the tables is not fun anymore.

Leo at 2:53 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6515
> #6512 you said the opposite. i'm glad to hear you didn't mean it as written and it was only miscommunication.

LG understood it the way it was supposed to. Maybe I wrote it with errors.

" 1. I don't need to ask for consent if the info being shared isn't too private (Eg: address, emotions,family info, pictures etc) "

I gave examples for stuff that is too private to share.. not that I don't need consent to share them.

FF at 2:55 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6516
> no comment on the rest. i just wanted to speak about doxing.

i'd comments on the rest.

what makes you believe your best friends will never doxe you? if people are fallible and can always change can't they go anyway, for good or evil? what makes you think their moral code makes it impossible for them to be evil?

Leo at 2:55 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6517
> why are you not posting my crits anymore? i guess it gave pleasure you when it was betrayal but now i turned the tables is not fun anymore.

It didn't give me pleasure.

I was irritated with opposing ideas and wanted to get it cleared. I was being whimsical which is bad. I stopped after a while.

FF at 2:57 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6519
> I was irritated with opposing ideas and wanted to get it cleared. I was being whimsical which is bad. I stopped after a while.

you make no sense.

Leo at 3:00 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6520
> you want to rationalize being a common person that likes to gossip. "oh, i'm not just a common person, i know philosophy so it's ok to the same thin common people who don't know philosophy do."

lol..

Me posting your essayish rant isn't gossip.

I wanted those ideas to be seen through intelligent minds so that it can either be accepted or rejected once and for all.

Maybe it would help Elliot see his mistakes and create new knowledge or help me not get persuaded by Fake crits by you.

FF at 3:01 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6521
People on FI had BCC'd you posts and claimed that you have intrusive preferences right?

FF at 3:07 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6523
> Me posting your essayish rant isn't gossip.

as i explained, it's gossip.

sharing a person's ideas is gossip.

"essayish rant" dismissing hatefully what my ideas without argument or crit. how cute.

> People on FI had BCC'd you posts and claimed that you have intrusive preferences right?

i can't parse this, what are you saying?

Leo at 3:10 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6524
> as i explained, it's gossip.

I don't think so.. atleast I don't consider it gossip.

Talking and critting Rand's ideas aren't gossip.. How is it gossip when your ideas get shared?

> sharing a person's ideas is gossip.

I don't think so.. SOMEONE PLEASE CRIT THIS ^^

> "essayish rant" dismissing hatefully what my ideas without argument or crit. how cute.

Why do you think it is hate?

FF at 3:32 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6527
> sharing a person's ideas is gossip.

I think sharing a person's weird actions might be gossip..

EG: Rami Mallone trip and fell near the Big Ben.

FF at 3:34 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6528
tripped

FF at 3:34 AM on August 16, 2016 | #6529

Simple stuff

1. I like chocolate bars

2. Ayn Rand was influenced by Aristotle.

3. I am a slow learner

4. I lack initiative.

5. iBooks app is good for reading books.

FF at 8:02 AM on August 28, 2016 | #6604

What do you think?

(This is a free speech zone!)