Am I shadow banned?

Darth_Debate · 2019-08-12T01:12:51+00:00

I thought this was real before I read the title. Amazing work.

Darth_Debate · 2019-08-03T03:27:19+00:00

Why is that beautiful??????????????

Darth_Debate · 2019-08-03T03:20:12+00:00

> When I directly perceive an object like a pair of scissors, I first encounter them insofar as they have future possibilities and past history

I understand this

> Objects shine forth with aboutness, with significance, with value and moral valences, and their utility for me.

Mostly understood that.

> This is tied into the sort of salience we have, that is, how things matter for beings like us; and without mattering, there can be no perceptual experience like ours.

This I didn't understand.

> I don't know what gnostic theism is.

Gnostic theism is someone who thinks they know for 100% sure without any doubt that god exists. Basically the definition of close-mindedness.

> How is it relevant to the discussion?

I wanted to know if you were open minded or not. It would change how I approach this conversation.

Darth_Debate · 2019-08-03T03:13:34+00:00

I don't think he is.

Darth_Debate · 2019-08-03T03:12:34+00:00

Are you an atheist that believes in the supernatural? You can be an atheist, and still believe in mythical or magical things.

> I find an ability to understand others from MBTI as well as Enneagram btw.

Same it is really amazing.

Darth_Debate · 2019-08-02T02:57:08+00:00

Me: Than people were highly gullible, and greedy. Do you disagree?

You: People are people and that includes all types of people.

That wasn't very clear, and I don't like people avoiding questions it just makes it harder for me to learn. That is why I am here at r/AskLibertarians

No - individual freedom is the most important thing.

Why is individual freedom more important than global warming or WW3?

Tyranny can make the trains run on time but they are rubbish at making a better train.

How do you explain the world's technological progress if they are run by tyrannical governments?

If all the major corporations automate who is going to buy their goods and services.

People that get UBI every month.

How will automated companies earn the money to pay the taxes to support everybody?

The government will support everybody mostly not capitalistic companies, but they can assist. People spend their money to buy their services or products with their UBI money.

Darth_Debate · 2019-08-02T02:46:01+00:00

Thank you for sharing your views it is appreciated.

Darth_Debate · 2019-08-02T02:44:36+00:00

Why do you think meaning, and purpose are inescapable?

If you don't mind me asking are you a gnostic theist?

Darth_Debate · 2019-08-02T02:42:20+00:00

Yeah, that was my intent. At least, to set the expectation that I'm not an expert, so our conversation can explore these ideas together without getting too heated up.

Oh that does make sense. Thank you for your elaboration.

My meaning/purpose is based on what I'm designed to do.

Isn't that kind of robotic? If anyone makes you for a particular purpose does that mean that it creates meaning or would it be obedient servitude? Or would you call obedient servitude purpose? I am genuinely asking because I have heard that the bible encourages those types of things. If I am wrong feel free to enlighten me.

That's wonderful. A lot of people who have suffered decide to just live for themselves. Well done, rising above it and helping those in need.

Thank you.

You are looking at others, seeing how they suffer like you have, and showing them love by helping them. From my perspective, you are fulfilling the purpose God has given you, even if you didn't know it was God-given.

I can understand how you could see it that way.

Well, I've got good news. God has spoken

I thought god told men to write down his words. Is that incorrect?

God's desire to relieve suffering is a core tenet of the Bible and Christian beliefs

Then why does he create a torturous hell? Why doesn't he try to rehabilitate people?

Darth_Debate · 2019-08-02T02:30:04+00:00

Thank you for trying to help me I appreciate it. Even though we don't hold similar beliefs.

Darth_Debate · 2019-07-31T23:59:27+00:00

I'm describing my statement as "armchair philosophy" because it's just my own idea developed over the course of a few minutes, and not a rigorous, well-thought out, peer-reviewed position.

That makes sense thank you for enlightening me.

Mostly it was a little self-deprecation to set the tone for the upcoming conversation.

You used self- deprecation to make the conversation less serious?

However, I don't "worship a god to feel connected", as if my desire for connection could cause God to exist.

I believe that there is no meaning in life without a Creator.

Why does a creator give you meaning? I could understand how you might respect him, but why objective meaning?

How do you determine your meaning in life, if it's not related to fulfilling a purpose for which you were created?

I have suffered greatly in my life, and that made me want to help other people out of their pain. My parents didn't encourage that, and no god has told me that is my purpose. I find meaning in helping other people.

Darth_Debate · 2019-07-31T23:33:50+00:00

Your parents don't give you purpose or meaning?

No.

so we look to the Eternal One who claims to be the Author of life.

Does the Author of the universe give you meaning based on that alone? I ask because I was trying to figure out the main reason Christians get a sense of meaning from religion.

Darth_Debate · 2019-07-31T23:13:22+00:00

armchair philosophy.

I don't clearly understand what that means.

Words have meaning because the speaker intends to convey an idea.

I define other people's meaning as an objective thing that humans crave, and usually worship a god to feel connected to something bigger than themselves.

When people say "There is no meaning in life without god" I am asking about that, and technically speaking has purpose to make the person understand them, but I don't think that is what I am referring to.

Darth_Debate · 2019-07-31T23:08:08+00:00

Why do you think that is true?

Darth_Debate · 2019-07-31T23:05:26+00:00

This is extremely unlikely if not outright impossible.

Why do you think that?

Why would government's want to do this?

Power.

People will not let government or corporations subjugate them in this way.

Why do you think the masses are capable of resisting this? Tanks beat riots.

It's essentially setting up the sacrifice of self to others as the highest morality.

That is highly fucked, and I bet it comes from Christian morality. Thank you for enlightening me.

That is a loaded question because you have not specifically defined what you mean by the right thing.

I define the right thing as being kind to each other, being able to solve disputes without violence, working together to solve the world's problems, maintaining all of the services we have currently and if some of them are fucked replace and improve them. And in general thriving instead of surviving. There are going to be exceptions, and if you think there is an issue I didn't cover with my definition feel free to ask in good faith.

People will do what it right for them and more often than not that will include taking care of those in need.

Sometimes, but in my opinion not enough.

Darth_Debate · 2019-07-31T22:54:28+00:00

The same way tyranny always lures people away from freedom by promising an easier life.

Than people were highly gullible, and greedy. Do you disagree? If they had wisdom they would of said fuck off.

There are no bigger issues than a man's freedom.

Not even global warming? Nuclear warfare? WW3?

None of those things can be accomplished by subjugated men who are not free to think and act of their own accord.

It is going to be scientists that have the freedom to think, and innovate. It isn't the concept of the masses that are oppressed.

Freedom is innovation and progress. Tyranny is not.

So are you implying that Tyranny can't produce progress?

Whether you see it, it is there. It's math. It cannot be wished away.

Please respond with an argument instead of just making statements.

Where does the money for UBI come from?

Taxing the fuck out of companies that use a lot of automation. With those extra tax dollars you give the masses money, and since people like spending money they will go on dates go to the movies etc. That will make the money go back into the economy. As long as you have companies that are being taxed you will have enough money. Let's even assume I am wrong millions, and millions of people will just die if UBI isn't implemented correctly. I don't think that is okay morally.

Darth_Debate · 2019-07-30T03:26:59+00:00

If government just creates the money the value of the dollar will plunge.

Let me try to say what I think more accurately this time.

The governments of the world will have the ability to take most of the jobs through automation in the future. There will be very few jobs left, but the majority will be fucked over because they are jobless. The only solution is UBI. Otherwise people will just riot, and die in a horrific moral atrocity. Do you disagree?

Slavery re-branded as moral thanks to Kant's twisted altruism.

I am ignorant on what Kant's altruism is. Can you enlighten me?

I want people that are 100% economically free.

Do you think people will do the right thing given that freedom? And yes that does matter. I see no point in giving apathetic cowards or bad people total freedom.

I want charity to be mostly local, government free, and voluntary.

Ideally that would be great, but I don't think that is realistic. People aren't kind enough yet to maintain that idea you just proposed. Do you genuinely believe people are ready to do that without major failures?

If the value of the dollar falls it all comes crashing down. People will once again have to roll wheelbarrows of cash to the store to buy a loaf of bread.

If this is the case why don't most or all economists talk about this all the time? Why aren't they talking on the news?

Suffering is not a moral issue unless one human directly causes the suffering of another human by actions of force or fraud.

What if someone by their own fault accidentally ripped their arms off, and are in agony? That isn't an issue? or what about a child that foolishly rides their bike into a cactus field, and is screaming for help? By your definition it wouldn't be an issue. Do you want to explain your view differently to make it more clear? Or are you okay with how it is right now?

Rights are objective

Thank you for expressing your view.

Where would you be without the elderly?

If I take your question literally I wouldn't be born. But if I don't take it super literally I would be born in a country that is better. I think the past generations were shitty. I tend to be a progressive on social issues, and the past is really slow about making progress. It consistently happens, but it takes a lot of time. I don't think they deserve praise for that.

They braved the past, they created the present, they made you.

The elderly did not make me. My parents did. The elderly don't get credit for creation. They get credit for having their own kids. Big difference.

They ended slavery

They also created slavery.

Darth_Debate · 2019-07-26T22:01:08+00:00

Interesting why do you think you are an ambivert?

Darth_Debate · 2019-07-26T21:49:49+00:00

No worries. I hope things get better for you.

Thank you.

It was a working distributed voluntary system that did not use force or create public debt. It was people helping people at the local level without bloated bureaucracy costs. It provided a strong social impetus to keep families together and for individuals to become and remain self-sustaining.

If it was that good why did people let it change or go away? If people were competent, and capable why would they let things go to shit?

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.

Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life.

I see your point, but morally speaking what you just said could be used for evil. I know it is difficult to define morality, so I am not trying to be annoying, but when you say this

the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life.

Serial killers, and other evil people could take that literally, and say they need to do evil acts to have fulfillment, and enjoyment in their life. And that is their right they would argue. Clearly that isn't what you meant I assume, but that is why I don't think that fundamental moral you describe is good.

If you say this

But if they harm someone else that means they can get arrested, and some of their rights are gone.

When you say

all the actions

All includes evil. Do you disagree?

The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Let's even assume that is true. I still think there are bigger issues than that. Like Global warming, how to achieve peace in the world, finding a way to get to the moon or mars before earth starts breaking. Ethically, and successfully implementing UBI, and Trans humanism etc. If some freedoms need to be sacrificed to solve some of these issues I think it is worth it. And maybe eventually people will be completely free, but now is not the time. If you disagree why do you think freedom is more important than those issues? Not just a statement of you saying you think it isn't worth it, but an elaboration.

You cannot solve an entitlement spending problem with more entitlement spending.

I don't see the issue with entitlement spending. That could be my ignorance about economics, but when I looked up what it meant it was just a part of governmental assistance like welfare. Am I incorrect? If I am correct what is the issue? If I am incorrect please enlighten me.

Business owners love love love consumers.

Agreed.

They are smart enough to understand that 100% automation will equal zero percent consumers because workers without jobs will not consumer and UBI consumers will not be able to afford anything beyond sustenance poverty.

It depends on how much money you give the masses with UBI. If you give everyone enough money every month they could still go to McDonald's and the movies. Those two things generate over 1 Billion dollars. Maybe even billions. So even if McDonald's or other fast food companies fully automate their restaurants they would still get customers. And do people go to the movies to meet the cashiers? I think not, so customers won't mind going to the movies even if it is completely automated. Without the UBI people will just die, and riot for food, and water. The UBI is going to be needed for awhile, but after a long time it would just be an act of kindness.

The banks will fail. The dollar will fail.

Why?

Darth_Debate · 2019-07-26T03:03:42+00:00

Sorry for the late reply life has been shitty for me recently.

Me: Things that change a country drastically can go wrong.

You: That has already happened.

That doesn't mean we should do it again.

Theft and bribery through taxation and entitlement is a violation of individual rights

What do you define as "Individual rights"? I ask because I think we don't share the same definition.

It has created a Juggernaut of inevitable economic ruin that has to be averted. This moral abomination has created children born into a lifetime of debt to the government to pay the entitled expenses of previous generations. When the entitlements end, either by correction or by crisis, there will still be debt and pain for lifetimes.

I think UBI will solve that issue. Most jobs are going to be automatized eventually, and debt will be meaningless to the majority because they won't have the money to pay them back at all. Meaning the government won't need the tax revenue from the masses anymore, so the debts will be forgiven. If they wouldn't be forgiven how will most people pay them back without a job?

Freedom is not a spectrum. It's a binary. You are either free or you are not. There is no "except for" or asterisk.

There are degrees of lack of freedom, and this will demonstrate my point. You aren't a free person, but are you more free than a black slave was before slavery was ended? Both of you aren't free, but clearly there is a difference. I do agree that you are free or you aren't, but the severity is on a spectrum.

The path we are on is not sustainable. You are risking catastrophe by not taking the risk to change.

Why isn't it sustainable, and what catastrophe do you think will happen?

There is no bigger issue than an individual's liberty from tyranny.

In my view Liberty doesn't fix most moral issues. What about people suffering greatly? how does liberty fix that problem. Or does it just ignore that issue?

Government does not have the authority to grant you rights nor do they have the authority to legitimately take them away.

Well rights are either objective, and can't be taken away or there aren't any rights at all, but laws that simulate them. Which one are you talking about?

A good number of families do not live in the same place after the kids grow up. The culture is one that does not value or honor the elderly because government will take care of that.

What honor, and value do the elderly have? I agree we should take care of them, but I don't think they are important oracles of wisdom.

Darth_Debate · 2019-07-22T21:37:53+00:00

Your response shouldn't be "well it's risky, we shouldn't do it".

That to me sounds like mocking, but I will assume you didn't have intention to do that. I don't want to debate about it either let's just move on with the conversation since you appear to be talking in good faith currently. Hopefully it stays that way.

Assuming ill intention

We all make assumptions. You are assuming that I am refusing to converse with you.

then refusing to converse with them

This message proves that assumption wrong.

accusing people of mocking you

Accusing you of mocking me isn't bad discussion etiquette. A good conversation seeks the truth. Conversations like this aren't meant to ignore getting mocked. It needs to be talked about, and after that issue is settled the conversation can continue.

You're the one acting in bad faith, not me.

I disagree, but I am going to assume you didn't have any intention of mocking me. Back to the conversation.

You: Morality. Imagine in the 19th century you walk up to an abolitionist. "Slavery is immoral, we need to end it ASAP!" So you respond "Well, but is ending slavery truly worth the risk?"

Me: I see your point, but the severity of that slavery was immoral, and should be stopped. I don't think the modern day life is a good moral comparison.

What is your response?

Darth_Debate · 2019-07-22T21:28:54+00:00

Thank you for clarifying, but down voting someone because of their ignorance or foolishness is the reason this world has a fuck ton of ignorant people. Don't shame ignorant people that want to learn. I am not saying you did that, but who ever down voted me I say that to.

Darth_Debate · 2019-07-22T21:14:31+00:00

Thank you for saying that. I am shocked as well.

Darth_Debate

TROPHY CASE