Gyroscopic Investing

doodle wrote: Well, the rich Christians didn't seem to have much of an issue enslaving people for hundreds of years...I'm not targeting Christianity as such, but religion has shown itself to be just another instrument if power over the millenia.

As an athiest to me it just sounds like nonsense. I hope that is not taken offensively. I am speaking purely for myself. Any religious beliefs, since they are based on what is essentialy unprovable should not be regarded as rationale.

I would say that actions taken based on religious beliefs should not be held as an example of "enlighted" or "rationale" non-violent solutions to problems.

Again i really don't care what someone believes, just how they act so I hope anyone who follows any religious belief system isn't offended. You certainly don't need my approval for what you believe and it would be pretty absurd for me to think so.

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: Well, the rich Christians didn't seem to have much of an issue enslaving people for hundreds of years...I'm not targeting Christianity as such, but religion has shown itself to be just another instrument if power over the millenia.

As an athiest to me it just sounds like nonsense. I hope that is not taken offensively. I am speaking purely for myself. Any religious beliefs, since they are based on what is essentialy unprovable should not be regarded as rationale.

I would say that actions taken based on religious beliefs should not be held as an example of "enlighted" or "rationale" non-violent solutions to problems.

Again i really don't care what someone believes, just how they act so I hope anyone who follows any religious belief system isn't offended. You certainly don't need my approval for what you believe and it would be pretty absurd for me to think so.

You know, I think it would be more logical to become agnostic. Atheism is actually a belief in the nonexistence of a god and If something is unprovable...then it's existence or lack thereof is something we shouldn't logically believe in or not. Better just to shrug your shoulders and say, "I dunno" rather than profess a particular unfounded an unprovable belief.

By the way, when I refer to religion....what I'm really talking about is a social code and set of norms that are generally based off of some understanding of justice, virtue, ethics, morality etc. im not really talking about the institution, but rather the message of love, compassion etc.

So no one wants to read a free, entertaining book that discusses all of these issues in great detail and provides a framework for solving them, rather than trying to make everything up from scratch? I don't get it.

doodle wrote: You know, I think it would be more logical to become agnostic. Atheism is actually a belief in the nonexistence of a god and If something is unprovable...then it's existence or lack thereof is something we shouldn't logically believe in or not. Better just to shrug your shoulders and say, "I dunno" rather than profess a particular unfounded an unprovable belief.

I'll ponder this. I haven't thought about from that angle.

You know it's a curious thing.....based on my own observation (not solid evidence) many self-proclaimed athiests are very big defenders of the state and socialism. When I chat with them invariably they complain about religion causing wars and problems and how religious people believe in something crazy.

I always have to point out that at least the religious person believes in something that is not proven. The statist believes that good can come from the most destructive and vile man-made creation that gives us wars and biological weapons and holocausts and the prison state etc. etc.

Who is more delusional?

doodle wrote: Thuggish oppressors to some and saviours to others. I don't want to intervene in a lot of the types of situations that we expect our police to rush into.....like a few weeks ago when there was a wild man on drugs in the park by my house walking around with a knife in a menacing manner.

You didn't want to intervene there?

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: Thuggish oppressors to some and saviours to others. I don't want to intervene in a lot of the types of situations that we expect our police to rush into.....like a few weeks ago when there was a wild man on drugs in the park by my house walking around with a knife in a menacing manner.

You didn't want to intervene there?

Is that post missing an emoticon?

Another situation that I was thankful for police was  a few years ago when my next door neighbor would get drunk and come home and beat on his girlfriend. He had guns in the house and was a rather large and belligerent looking fellow. One night he came home at like three in the morning and started yelling and whaling on this woman. I called the police and they were there in like 2 minutes....they kicked down the door and 4 of them dragged his sorry ass to jail.

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: Thuggish oppressors to some and saviours to others. I don't want to intervene in a lot of the types of situations that we expect our police to rush into.....like a few weeks ago when there was a wild man on drugs in the park by my house walking around with a knife in a menacing manner.

You didn't want to intervene there?

Is that post missing an emoticon?

Another situation that I was thankful for police was  a few years ago when my next door neighbor who would get drunk and come home and beat on his girlfriend. He had guns in the house and was a rather large and belligerent looking fellow. One night he came home at like three in the morning and started yelling and whaling on this woman. I called the police and they were there in like 2 minutes....they kicked down the door and 4 of them dragged his sorry ass to jail.

No, I'm genuinely curious. Because all those examples you're giving I make me really, really want to help. I want to defend the innocent in those situations from the dangerous predators.

Out of curiosity, are you a gen-Xer?

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: You didn't want to intervene there?

Is that post missing an emoticon?

Another situation that I was thankful for police was  a few years ago when my next door neighbor who would get drunk and come home and beat on his girlfriend. He had guns in the house and was a rather large and belligerent looking fellow. One night he came home at like three in the morning and started yelling and whaling on this woman. I called the police and they were there in like 2 minutes....they kicked down the door and 4 of them dragged his sorry ass to jail.

No, I'm genuinely curious. Because all those examples you're giving I make me really, really I want to help. I want to defend the innocent in those situations from the dangerous predators.

Out of curiosity, are you a gen-Xer?

No, millennial. Maybe you should become a cop.

Frankly, if there were no legal repercussions and I didn't think shooting someone would traumatize me I would probably be more willing to get involved. I would probably be really trigger happy though. If that guy on drugs with the knife came at me I probably would open fire....what if I later found out that he was mentally ill, had forgotten to take his meds, and his mother just died which caused him to become suicidal?

I also don't have backup like police. If there are a bunch of people involved what am I supposed to do, round up a posse? Besides, a lot of the thugs in my town have enormous firepower...lots of police get gunned down trying to intervene. What do you think would happen if some random stranger like me got involved?

I don't want to die, spend my life in a courtroom, or my money hiring defense lawyers. I'd rather call the cops.

Libertarian666 wrote: So no one wants to read a free, entertaining book that discusses all of these issues in great detail and provides a framework for solving them, rather than trying to make everything up from scratch? I don't get it.

I downloaded it. I'll cruise through. Can't promise to hit every page but possibly.

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Out of curiosity, are you a gen-Xer?

No, millennial. Maybe you should become a cop.

Ouch! What did I do to deserve this insult?


Techno:

I'm reading it too. Although I'll admit the ads have left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Out of curiosity, are you a gen-Xer?

No, millennial. Maybe you should become a cop.

Ouch! What did I do to deserve this insult?


Techno:

I'm reading it too. Although I'll admit the ads have left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth.

My advice, save the hero stuff for video games. Getting involved in this kind of crap leads to outcomes like George Zimmerman.

doodle wrote: My advice, save the hero stuff for video games. Getting involved in this kind of crap leads to outcomes like George Zimmerman.

Part of me thinks that it's somewhat sad to want to outsource helping other people in danger and protecting communities to a class of professional violence-dealers. But I guess it goes hand in hand with rich people wanting to outsource charity. We truly live in the age of outsourcing.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Out of curiosity, are you a gen-Xer?

No, millennial. Maybe you should become a cop.

Ouch! What did I do to deserve this insult?


Techno:

I'm reading it too. Although I'll admit the ads have left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth.

Thanks. As for the ads, I imagine they need a way to pay for the download bandwidth. You can buy it on Amazon if you don't want to see the ads, which are easy enough to skip.

Simonjester wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:
No, I'm genuinely curious. Because all those examples you're giving I make me really, really want to help. I want to defend the innocent in those situations from the dangerous predators.

i concurs with your instinct to want to help but as somebody who occasionally has to deal with sketchy situations i recommend exercising extreme caution and wisdom, call 911 first don't directly engage unless its a last resort or you can do so in a way that is not confrontational, especially with domestic situations... it is more likely the wife and husband team up and both assault you than getting any appreciation for involving yourself... the 2min response time doodle got is not the norm,
i cant think of any one rule fits all for bad situations but misreading one and doing or saying the wrong thing can easily be worse than doing nothing, and sometimes doing nothing is the worse choice..

For sure. I've gone over this stuff a million times in my head; 911 comes first, for sure. But part of me just really wants to defend the innocent, though. And another part of me is resentful that this desire is something I need to hide from the mainstream of feminized liberal society that practically has a heart attack at the mere mention of people wanting to defend themselves or--shock! Horror! ...other people without licenses and certifications and qualifications and a badge and a uniform and 20 years of sensitivity training and the endless acknowledgement that I'm a very bad person who should feel shameful for following in the footsteps of my ancestors who were surely ruthless oppressors.

Okay, that's enough conservatism for one day.

Simonjester wrote:
there is really an art to dealing with potentially explosive situations and not all cops learn it, they have "athoritah" guns and backup on their side, you don't... being non confrontational and having the ability to direct and influence a potentially bad situation requires you keep your own ego out of it, stay calm and strong at the same time, have your eyes open and being aware of the psychology of the people you are dealing with, successfully navigating these situations requires thinking your way through,, as fun as it is to fantasies about Chuck Norris round house kicking the bad guys who "done somebody wrong" in the real world your brain and well chosen words work better
think "WWATD " what would Andy Taylor do

ps you don't need to defend the urge to me i understand it...

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: My advice, save the hero stuff for video games. Getting involved in this kind of crap leads to outcomes like George Zimmerman.

Part of me thinks that it's somewhat sad to want to outsource helping other people in danger and protecting communities to a class of professional violence-dealers. But I guess it goes hand in hand with rich people wanting to outsource charity. We truly live in the age of outsourcing.

If police are professional violence dealers, what would that make you...an amateur one?

Kshartle wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: So no one wants to read a free, entertaining book that discusses all of these issues in great detail and provides a framework for solving them, rather than trying to make everything up from scratch? I don't get it.

I downloaded it. I'll cruise through. Can't promise to hit every page but possibly.

It's well worth the read in my opinion, even if just for the story. He also has a good nickname for free-market types, which may seem a bit familiar. 

Pointedstick wrote:

Simonjester wrote: i concurs with your instinct to want to help but as somebody who occasionally has to deal with sketchy situations i recommend exercising extreme caution and wisdom, call 911 first don't directly engage unless its a last resort or you can do so in a way that is not confrontational, especially with domestic situations... it is more likely the wife and husband team up and both assault you than getting any appreciation for involving yourself...  the 2min response time doodle got is not the norm,
  i cant think of any one rule fits all for bad situations but misreading one and doing or saying the wrong thing can easily be worse than doing nothing, and sometimes doing nothing is the worse choice..

For sure. I've gone over this stuff a million times in my head; 911 comes first, for sure. But part of me just really wants to defend the innocent, though. And another part of me is resentful that this desire is something I need to hide from the mainstream of feminized liberal society that practically has a heart attack at the mere mention of people wanting to defend themselves or--shock! Horror! ...other people without licenses and certifications and qualifications and a badge and a uniform and 20 years of sensitivity training and the endless acknowledgement that I'm a very bad person who should feel shameful for following in the footsteps of my ancestors who were surely ruthless oppressors.

Okay, that's enough conservatism for one day.

You are no longer defending yourself when you get involved in another situation. You are making a personal judgement and then setting yourself up for a potentially very messy situation. If you were a million mile from civilization, then sure there are no other options. But when there is, best to just call the police. The risk of something going wrong and you then having your life ruined like mr Zimmerman just isn't worth it. Sad....maybe...but that is the modern world we live in.

doodle wrote: You are no longer defending yourself when you get involved in another situation.

Like I said:

at the mere mention of people wanting to defend themselves or--shock! Horror! ...other people

doodle wrote: You are making a personal judgement and then setting yourself up for a potentially very messy situation. If you were a million mile from civilization, then sure there are no other options. But when there is, best to just call the police. The risk of something going wrong and you then having your life ruined like mr Zimmerman just isn't worth it. Sad....maybe...but that is the modern world we live in.

Yes. I agree with you. I'm just expressing exactly what you said: it's a bit sad, in my estimation.

That said, at the risk of totally derailing this thread, Zimmerman was attacked absent any legally justifiable provocation, as proven time and again in a court of law. That Zimmerman's life has been ruined as a result of his reluctant defense of himself is indeed sad, and I would posit that it's a direct result of society's hysterical tendencies that I mentioned earlier, especially when it comes to protected classes who we all know never, ever cause any trouble and would certainly never batter a man for possibly being gay and "looking at them funny." 

There is obviously a role for a police-like group of people in society simply because a lot of people struggle to live peacefully in society (especially places that are crowded) and it's helpful to have a pick-up and storage service for such individuals.

The problem is in the application of the police concept, which can quickly spin out of control into a domestic paramilitary force capable of all sorts of misbehavior.

Another iteration of the police concept that I think works better is the security guard, who is market driven, his power is much more limited, and yet he can take care of the people who can't behave themselves just as well as the police can, but if the security guards start getting "power mad" you can just hire a different security company and that solves that problem.  You can't hire a different police department if you don't like yours.

MediumTex wrote: There is obviously a role for a police-like group of people in society simply because a lot of people struggle to live peacefully in society (especially places that are crowded) and it's helpful to have a pick-up and storage service for such individuals.

The problem is in the application of the police concept, which can quickly spin out of control into a domestic paramilitary force capable of all sorts of misbehavior.

Another iteration of the police concept that I think works better is the security guard, who is market driven, his power is much more limited, and yet he can take care of the people who can't behave themselves just as well as the police can, but if the security guards start getting "power mad" you can just hire a different security company and that solves that problem.  You can't hire a different police department if you don't like yours.

Yes, and this is also covered to some extent in Alongside Night, but more thoroughly in other works such as L. Neil Smith's "North American Confederacy" series (which is also excellent writing).

MediumTex wrote: Another iteration of the police concept that I think works better is the security guard, who is market driven, his power is much more limited, and yet he can take care of the people who can't behave themselves just as well as the police can, but if the security guards start getting "power mad" you can just hire a different security company and that solves that problem.  You can't hire a different police department if you don't like yours.

+ 1 Yes this is a great example

MangoMan wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: You know, I think it would be more logical to become agnostic. Atheism is actually a belief in the nonexistence of a god and If something is unprovable...then it's existence or lack thereof is something we shouldn't logically believe in or not. Better just to shrug your shoulders and say, "I dunno" rather than profess a particular unfounded an unprovable belief.

I'll ponder this. I haven't thought about from that angle.

I used to subscribe to that angle. Until I was discussing my agnosticism with a friend who said, "Agnostics are merely Atheists with no balls." So now I am an Atheist rather than an Agnostic, because I hence saw the lack of conviction. I mean what is an Agnostic really? It's all about faith or lack there of in the existence of God, so if you don't truly believe, you are basically an Atheist whether you want to admit it or not. The implication is that Agnostics are just Atheists who are trying to hedge their bets - just in case. Thoughts?

Atheism does not mean "belief there is no god". It means "lack of belief in god".
Just like anarchism does not mean "belief in no government", but "lack of belief in government".
In other words, the "a" at the beginning negates the rest of the word.

the meaning of gnostic "based on Gnosis, the knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means.Gnosticism  rests on personal religious experience, Gnosticism expresses a specific religious experience, an experience that does not lend itself to the language of theology or philosophy,"
  so agnostic doesn't mean "atheist" i believe a more accurate description is not believing in religion that is not based on personal experience, an agnostic person could include a wide range of religiousness from none, experienced nothing (but willing to accept their own experience if they have one ) to religious experienced quit a bit. 

or instead meaning of  "i don't know" it means " i only know what i have experienced"

MangoMan wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

MangoMan wrote: I used to subscribe to that angle. Until I was discussing my agnosticism with a friend who said, "Agnostics are merely Atheists with no balls." So now I am an Atheist rather than an Agnostic, because I hence saw the lack of conviction. I mean what is an Agnostic really? It's all about faith or lack there of in the existence of God, so if you don't truly believe, you are basically an Atheist whether you want to admit it or not. The implication is that Agnostics are just Atheists who are trying to hedge their bets - just in case. Thoughts?

Atheism does not mean "belief there is no god". It means "lack of belief in god".

I disagree.

wikipedia wrote: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Conversely,

wikipedia wrote: Technically, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

For that matter, someone who believes is God is essentially basing that belief on faith rather than fact, correct?

What are you disagreeing with? The authority you cite agrees with me. See bolded text.