>The thing about not caring to convince, yet preaching relentlessly, is also distinctive of religious zealots.
The difference:
I am not openly and irrationally claiming to have the infallible truth of divine providence.
I base my positions on facts and reasoning, not the assumed authority of something written down.
I openly admit that I may be incorrect and state my willingness to revise my position if facts and reason can show it to be incorrect.
I don't go knocking on people's doors or try to engage them if they do not wish.
>Xochinla's views are a secularized version of these restaurationists' views
> (or possibly of Jewish views, it is close since restaurationists want to go
>back to early Christianity which was essentially Jewish). Note something interesting.
Of course it's much easier to criticize my positions by equating them with religious dogma (essentially creating a strawman argument to rail against) than it is to refute them by addressing them directly with relevant facts and reasoning. You have presented another nothing-burger, and again the intellectual dishonesty of this practice is apparently lost on you.
>In the defense of xochinla, it is very difficult to go out of this situation,
More psychoanalysis of my person which offers nothing of any relevance regarding the veracity of my position.
>But there is another option. Instead of drawing the (crazy) conclusions of our
> (wrong) implicit concept of morality, such concept can be rejected and replaced by a sound one.
You keep stating that "my" morality is wrong. It's not my invention, and you have not even offered any argument against it or criticism of it. Just flat assertions.
>That's the even more moral thing to do. I think I did this, but of course when
> I give xochinla a glimpse of it, I only get moral insults from him.
And anyone who claims to "embrace violence", and advocates it, is a piece of shit. I will continue to stand by this until someone can rationally explain how it is untrue.
>And Mony Python? Wow.
>Who are you in the clip?
Seems to me he's the black knight who is completely unaware of his own defeat and ineptitude, even in the most extreme and blatantly obvious instance, though I'm pretty sure he imagines himself as the guy with the crown.
>toxic
Yes, I am pissed at the state, at everyone who supports, condones, funds, or participates in it in any way. This includes those who vote and fail to recognize the theft of taxation. SUPER PISSED, and a have a big FUCK YOU right up front to everyone who does. That's because I know innocent people rotting in a cell, I see the mangled faces of children with their homes being bombed daily, I see the millions of impoverished starving people downtrodden by state enforced corporatism. I have had my own child kidnapped by the state for the most retarded of reasons (and discovered that this is a problem of epidemic proportions) and have been treated like a criminal because I grow and smoke cannabis (along with countless others many of whom are close friends). I could go on and on. I don't understand how people can witness these things going on in our world and not be just as pissed.
But, the reason I am so pissed, is because I CARE about people. All people, including the people I have to say FUCK YOU to, and including the people in this thread. I have no personal animosity toward anyone, and want only true well being and the highest blessings for everyone. That is genuine, and I'm saying it now because I don't want anyone to confuse my anger with personal hatred or condemnation. I don't condemn anyone, I only want people to heal and wake up from the fog of ignorance and brainwashing that I see as a terrible infection and the root cause of all of this injustice and violence.
Just know that, regardless of anything that has been said, if we were sharing company, and there was anything I could do to help you, alleviate your pain, or prevent something bad from happening to you, I absolutely would, and this is true regardless of whether you are a statist or not, or any other disagreement we might have, and I hope I'm right in thinking everyone in this thread would say the same.
If my communication methods seem toxic or ineffective, I hear that, and for many years, I was far less confrontational and combative in my communication style because of this consideration, but at some point I came to the realization that the less combative you are, the more likely to be ignored. I can no longer live with the disingenuous pretense that I "OK" with people when they are statists. I am compelled to express this anger toward anyone and everyone who is or might be statist, and to make sure they know how I feel about it, as much as humanly possible.
But when it comes to violence, my civility disappears. If it is openly advocated, I will call you out as a fucktard, and if it's being openly practiced in front of me, I will knock you on the fucking head with a baseball bat.
>1. Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?
>2. Do you believe the earth is a sphere?
>3. Do you believe Neil Armstrong was the first human to walk on the moon?
>Yes or no answers only.
We must define "belief". It's one of those slippery words with multiple meanings that are often conflated. I do not rigidly believe anything. I discern between what I know to be true vs what I do not, and must estimate the likelihood of what I do not know to be true. As far as your questions are concerned, I have to admit to not having certain knowledge about any of it, because the criteria for certainty is very stringent. That being said, using a definition of "belief" to mean "estimated as most likely to be true", then I will answer yes or no, but also an indication of confidence level:
1. Yes (high)
2. Yes. (very high)
3. No. (moderate)
I would be happy to point out the facts and reasoning for my position on each of these topics, which I reiterate, will not default to taking anything on faith or authority, and which are open to change in light of new or (valid) contradictory information.
Why answer such dimwitted questions?
By Jove, we do have to maintain a certain standard here!
Grumble grumble
It is a bit of a digression, but so is the deep dive into morality in a bitcoin thread. The way I see it is all these topics are connected, there is no way to really discuss them deeply without addressing the overlap, and this is a rather informal forum.
That being said, these questions are again aimed not so much at exploring the topics (nevermind as they might be related), but at pointing out some flaw in my personal thinking process. It is unfortunate that the discussion can't stay more focused on the relevant facts, logic, and merits of the issues at hand, rather than on me personally.
To be fair, I did ask him to elaborate on why I was so scary, and I guess I am also guilty of being sucked into the focus on my person.
>Though you are very moral and have high standards,
Thanks for this recognition.
>if you were even more moral and had even higher standards you
>would be appalled at how unsound your theory (the "modern" theory
>of moral) is and reject it.
You are not really saying anything here. It's only "you're wrong" using more words. If the moral ideology I have articulated the factual and logical underpinning of is unsound, then explain how, and provide an alternative definition and basis.
By the way, referring to it as the "modern" theory is incorrect. As I have previously mentioned, the KNOWLEDGE of morality has been around and been expressed in countless ways, consistently, from the earliest of recorded history. It is a principle, (not a theory), based on empirical and basic existential facts, applying at all times and places, not based on any particular individual's whims, biases or religious views, and not in response to any particular political or historical events.
Great explanation by E. C. Harwood in the 70's both of why government is slavery, and why something like bitcoin is the way out of it, or at least a large part of the way, from his book: The Money Mirage. From the first chapter, Slaves of the Money Masters:
Slaves may at first be visualized as human beings chained to the oarsmen's benches of a Roman galley, or blacks transported in fetters to a strange land; but when slavery was most respectable in much of the United States, few slaves were physically in bondage. The economic essence of slavery was in the master's power to take without the slave's consent the fruits of the slave's labor in excess of that required for the necessities of life. Judged by this basic criterion of slavery, by far the most of the people in Western civilization have become the slaves of governments and their central-bank collaborators who foster continued inflating.
Lured by the money mirage, all but a lucky few will devote their working lifetimes to accumulating the excess that they produce while in fact their savings are being embezzled by a process little understood and, of course, without their informed consent. In short, economic slavery now prevails in the United States and much of the rest of the industrial world. It is not the imaginary "wage- slavery" denounced by Karl' Marx, who mis- takenly provided the rationale for the obvious "wage-slavery" now existing in Russia, but a more subtle form of slavery similar in end results.
Those who escape from bondage will do so by refusing to chase the money mirage and by realizing that their savings should be accumulated in a form that defies the embezzling arts of the fiat-currency manipulators. If they act accordingly, they and their families may retain substantial economic freedom in a world where such liberty rapidly is being curtailed.
www.aier.org/research/money-mirageI learned of this book from an Ugly Old Goat:
uglyoldgoat.com/