The Folly of Intent

Stop trying to assign meaning or intent to every action you see.



If you wish to attack the credibility of another, it is important that you yourself remain credible. Using logical fallacies is the quickest way to lose that credibility. I too think AJ is a DB, but only those agreeing with me already will appreciate such a comment, and those who do not, will only find themselves disagreeing with me more in the future.

It truly is important to stop thinking of others as your 'opponents', or viewing the grasp for knowledge as a conflict.

Competition is not necessarily conflict. My opposing views do not necessitate that we are enemies. This is the crux of the problem. Our natural human tendency is to view everything as a tribe mentality. This is why we have such a natural clumping factor built into our genes.

Good Rape

I may be myopic, but I do not care. There are certain things, certain taboos that I cannot permit.

I venture to guess that you are this way as well. Consider for a moment, full-penetration violent rape.

I really want you to imagine it. A violent force of rape. Lets say, for a moment, that I had incontrovertible evidence, that some how, some way, allowance of rape against certain women from time to time led to lower crime rates; it created a better economy; lowered unemployment.

Let's pretend, in this fantasy world of non-consensual sexual activity; somehow by raping twenty percent of all women, murder was completely eradicated.

Would it be ok? I would think not. Because, as I understand, there are certain rights that an enlightened person needs to respect.

Can we make rape acceptable by restructuring it? Can intent change its outcome? No, by its very nature, it is a violent and coercive act.

But that's it, isn't it. It really is almost an issue of definition. If it is not consensual, then it is by definition very likely to be in AGAINST the will of it's subjects.

I don't care how passionate and pleasurable a lover you are, if she says 'no', its still rape. No matter what kind of sex she gets outside of the Rape, we are discussing right here, right now, today; I cannot condone any type of Rape ever. Ever. Ever.

If for a second, we wish to consider that it is better to be raped by a man wearing a condom and using lube as opposed to going bare-backed, of course the lubed condom is a preferred method.

But my primary concern will continue to be, the rape. As it lacks consent. And is evil.... lube and rubber or not.

I go too far you say. No one is suggesting full on rape. We just want to take money from those who have it to do good things.

So you tell me. Where does it end? Where is that line then? My point is not to equate what is being done now with full-penetration violent rape, but rather to show that it is an issue of degrees.

What if I told you I could make a very real, very serious, very legitimate case for separating people by race and culture? Madness you say?

There is evidence that when you are culturally and/or racially pure, there is lower crime, higher efficiency, etc. etc. see Japan and Sweden for one, and also

here

here

and

here

or just open your eyes and see for yourself. There is not much cime in the areas of IL and CA with low minoritiy census; however HORRIBLE crime in areas with blacks and Hispanics.

I am not advocating forced segregation or anything like it. I am advocating for the opposite. I am pointing out, that when we have a free-for-all any action in any category is o.k. as long as its for the 'greater good' its all good DOES NOT WORK!

You know that old saying, that there are lies, damned lies, and then statistics? It works on these issues too. You can make a case for the efficacy of almost anything, and if you do enough research and enough number crunching, you can trounce anyone, because when it comes to the actions and interactions of human beings, there are too many goddamnned variables to make any kind of real definitive cause and effect statements.

Take a look at what is really happening, and ask yourself if it is good. I'm not sure what would happen without the State, but I have pretty good idea from what evidence I have seen.

What I do know is that right now:

We do have secret kill lists.

We do have robots blowing up children.

We do have innocent's being murdered in cold blood whilst these psychos are trying to eradicate PLANTS.

That's right. Homicide in the name of herbicide.

All I'm suggesting here, is that if we can adhere to some kind of maxim of increasing consent in all human interactions, rather than trying to invent these new ways to rape humanity into acting more "justly", maybe the world could be a better, kinder, gentler place.

Effort v Value

Effort is not value. If I send a retarded monkey to cut my grass clippings with finger nail cutter, it does not increase the value of my lawn. Inversely, if I put the exact same effort seeding and watering a vegitable garden instead of growing turf, despite using no extra effort, I have gained value through use of wisdom.

Do I think CEOs are using 380 times more intelligence than the Janitor? No. Its probably more. But there simply ins't enough money to pay true leaders what they are worth.

On the Illusion of the State

Consider for a moment; that the 'State' is not a real thing. Not real like your table, or your hat, or your house. It is just an idea. It is an agreement, between individual actors to act in a certain way, or according to certain rules. But this agreement, these rules, they also do not exist.

Perhaps they are written down somewhere, they exist as ink or as digital numbers, but really, that ink isn't anything serious either. It does not serve a function by its self. It requires thoughts. It requires understanding. It requires a concious, active, aware human brain to make a decision.

This human brain, makes mistakes, and more importantly, has its own aspirations and desires acting only for the purpose of furthering its own interests.

A truly alien perspective on this, would to ask why so much pomp and frills around the replication of DNA?

The answers of course lie within a mistaken belief that these illusions keep us safe some how, or that without them we would lose our humanity.

I'm not sure; I'm really not.

When I look at shit like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/video-watch-judge-jail-teenager-1589558

I mean, really, a judge is just a man who wears a dress and bangs a wooden mallet. Even worse, the so-called law-enforcers doing his bidding are just psychotic apes that have devices capable of lethally throwing metal around... for what?

For an idea in their head.

Perhaps in the days of the Khans, with roving barbarians, when war-fare was fought with steel, blood, and sweat, maybe then the State was an idea worth holding onto.

As I see it now, in this modern age with modern communicative abilities, it is a way to rob us of our humanity; the only apparatus capable of creating terrible, pointless weapons of mass destruction, and even worse, capable of senselessly unleashing those weapons upon human beings. Not for reasons of a single rational mind, but rather because of the kind of hodge podge decisions and outcomes that come naturally from group decision making.

RE: Conservative Liberarians

Contrary to your premise, my 'libertarianism' is not based on 'rejecting' or 'conforming' to instinct or nature; but rather is an advocacy based in maximizing prosperity and minimizing suffering. Putting any kind of power backed by overwhelming violent force into the hands of a human being has never proved to do anything but the opposite of what I advocate, and therefor is also the opposite of what I advocate.

If, however, you are in some way advocating a peaceful and voluntary rejection of traditional roles and culture in advocacy of something more consensual; then I think it would be a mistake to think that all 'libertarian's are insisting that that not be done.

I assure you, it is only with the issue of coercion with which I am concerned. Indeed, it is a hallmark the State, and without it, it would be called a belief, a club, a religion, a business, and insurance, or many other peaceful things; but only the violent coercion is what makes a thing a part of the State, and is the only principle reason I am against such a concept.

Rand Paul and the Status Quo

It is important to draw a clear distinction between Utopia and the path to it.

Upon examination of politics, as a liberty minded person, it is easy to cast all of its activities away as being less than utopitarian. It is true. They will be. Almost all of them. However, the perspective to be gained is 

If you judge each

In judgement of political actions, the morality of endorsing or allowing the status quo is net zero.


What exactly, do you think, decrim is going to look like on the national stage? You think the old guard GOP and many of the dems are just going to throw their hands up and say "ya got me! man I was silly!"; look to the actions of incrementalism, as it will be the only way to start cleaving this gordian knot.

Make no mistake fools. Undoing of incarceration for crimes is a sales worthy approach, and a good direction to go on many things. Knocking something down to a violation offense is a major step in an awesome fucking direction.

What Science Doesn't Do

Science does not tell us why. It is not a value judgement tool. It's really not either a tool for helping to describe what reality is, only does it tell you what reality does.

Science is a tool for giving us useful information. Science is not necessarily in competition with other information sources.

Science only needs to do one thing; produce reliable and measurable results. Nothing more, nothing less.

Its important to understand this. Gravity might as well be caused by invisible, weightless, scentless, ethereal gremlens who have very strict mathematical guidelines for their actions. Science does not care about that which is non-predictive and that which does not leave detectable evidence.

Those who work to "undermine" Science, really must not understand it; for viewed through the lens of those who understand what it is; all a science denier is really doing is screaming at a trendline on a graph.

Unless you have some radical new set of points to place onto that graph; no amount of pleading, begging, or snide remarks will change that trend line.

Simply because you can find collaborative evidence for what you beleive is true; does not mean that it is true. What is true must be determined by a natural repeatable occurrence upon the trend line. Anything else is called Cherry Picking.

Starting with a single idea, and building like a tree upwards and outwards in several branches is not the way your knowledge should be; but rather it should be the conclusion of reoccurring, predicatable, likley activities, which survive the null hypothesis as well.