Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

SirJamesIII

Core Member
  • Content count

    5,036
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About SirJamesIII

  • Rank
    Core Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTJ
  • Enneagram
    Type 5/5w6
  • Global 5/SLOAN
    SCOAI/Calm
  • Astrology Sign
    wut. lame
  • Brain Dominance
    Right

Converted

  • Biography
    Student. Musician. Athlete(?)
  • Location
    New York, New York
  • Interests
    I play guitar, and I play squash. yes that is a sport.
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

14,056 profile views
  1. Aren't you just begging the question? Taxation as a norm is acceptable to society because it has always been acceptable in society? My point is that clearly there was a genesis of the state. Was that social contract legitimate and did it constitute a violation of property rights? As I mentioned, fabricating a social contract when people act decent due to their own incentives is redundant and pointless. We do not need to create a term for such implicit agreements. We already call it decency. Hobbes' philosophy is pretty clear. The social contract is an exogenous force that disturbs the natural order of things. You are referring to when people behave decently under a natural order without explicit agreements. That is not at all what Hobbes is referring to. Hobbes says that what you say actually doesn't occur naturally. Hobbes thinks that in a state of nature, humans are at each other's throats like animals. We therefore need to make an encompassing social contract so that we all "agree" to defer defense services to a monopoly to be the ultimate decider to break up humans who are inherently at each others throats. Hobbes has an incredibly pessimistic view of human nature, and statism inherits this pessimism. I think people behave decently when their values are decent and indecently when their values create conflict. I don't think it is a given that we are at each others throats.
  2. matt damon too. Women who are self conscious about their height are a dying breed. Tall is generally considered beautiful now. It's common to find female fashion models 6' and up now. Though hollywood is a bad example. Tall actors are hard to cast. Will Ferrell is 6'3", which is pretty tall, but he looks like a giant buffoon in movies. ...... added to this post 33 minutes later: The hypocrisy isn't overblown, just the estimates of how prolific these hypocrites are. Indeed "body positive" types who find short men unattractive are hypocrites. But their hypocrisy isn't the bad part. Their insistence that body positivity be a guiding rule in dating is dangerous. Clearly we should be body positive in the sense that we shouldn't make people insecure about their imperfections. But it doesn't mean that someone who feels unattractive because someone whom they find attractive isn't giving them the attention they want is a victim of body shaming. Their lack of self esteem is a product of their own psychological hangups and not turrible society. So in a way red pill types can bait feminists into looking inconsistent themselves. Red pill types just use feminist logic for their own arguments then feminists argue against them. But in reality a man must be greater than 4-5 inches shorter than average for him to not just be pissed at tall women for not giving him attention. Women are on average 4-5 inches shorter so even a below average man doesn't necessarily have the odds stacked against him.
  3. I think this is a dichotomy that only petty folk mope over in daily life. Good deeds can be selfless, but they don't have to be. Bad deeds can be selfish but they don't have to be either. So ultimately this is a discussion about personality traits, not ethics. Granted there is an element of selflessness that seems to be a part of good ethics. You don't want to endorse behavior where one benefits at the expense of someone else. That said, you could say the same for selfishness. Selfishness should be ethical because it would be draconian to prohibit behavior that enables self preservation. Self-defense can certainly seem selfish in some situations. I think there are people who feel ashamed of being selfish but shouldn't. There are people who feel like they are owed something zero point, so they probably are offended by "selfish" people. These people probably use the term "selfish" in a unnecessarily pejorative way. There are people who lack self respect and detest "selfless" behavior, but shouldn't. These people are resistant to outside support for more than just pride. I have respect for some egocentric people, but there are some who's stubbornness only hurts their own cause. Altruism and selfishness can both be arrogant. Someone who says their altruistic may say they have other people's needs in minds, but they may just be bad at reading people. They may just be spineless and are afraid to offend, so they label their dishonesty as altruism. Arrogant selfish people may think their moral code is superior or that their way is better, but that may not be the case and it may be that such judgements do not even merit the situation they are in. Mutual benefit elevates everyone and gives real incentives for cooperation. Altruism can only promote cooperation in a less authentic way.
  4. fyi I literally only use digital delay and reverb. Still use the an axe fx as a preamp tho. I still prefer my keeley compressor to digital. But there just isn't an economical way to have analog delays and reverbs that have all the features and flexibility you want in a convenient and cheap package.
  5. You don't require a contract to justify an action you don't do (i.e. I won't hit strangers out of nowhere). It would be a waste of time since you are attempting to justify something that is already justified by the current state of affairs. It is not a proper analogy to compare to that to a social contract for taxation and a territorial monopoly of conflict resolution. Someone who wants to tax someone will have to justify it before they attempt it if they want to claim the contractual obligation to pay taxes is valid. We should probably also clarify the differences between Hobbes', Locke's and Rousseau's theory if the state. Hobbes doesn't really attempt to justify social social contract so much as seeing it being a necessary component to nature. People are inherently in conflict so the state must provide defense. Rousseau says the state is the product of the general will of the population. Social contract is emergent but just nonetheless or at least in his normative view. Rousseau is offended by the naturalized view of social contract but he can't deny the empirical evidence. As much as we want a state that has a one to one relationship with the "general will" it is unsure whether that is even defininable. It is hard to say that a general will is even confined by territory per se. It's really more based on values. Ultimately the Hobbesian account is closer to reality. But Rousseau has attempted to define norms for a good state. Locke is the most wishy washy. He simply redefined social contract to mean the same as a contract in the classical sense, but makes an exception for the state as he sees it a necessary component for civil recourse of those who want to preserve their property rights. Basically Locke is saying we "consent" to the state because property owners are defenseless. Hobbes seems to have persisted through the ages. While from Rousseau's perspective it may seem more difficult to justify how the "general will" to manifest without the state. But anarchic legal orders are empirically way more common than anarchic forms of defense services (though that itself may counterintuitively easier to justify intellectually).
  6. Digital fx can be good. Reverb, delays, chorus. Some modulation is better with a pedal (really haven't found a digital phaser I like) but I've heard some decent chorus and flanger. Digital compressors are also pretty good. My main rig is pretty much a digital/analog hybrid. Axe fx ultra into a Marshall 9200. And I use a midi pedal for digital fx and changing channels and analog pedals I prefer.
  7. Scorpio and I are going way back. The first examples of personalized pottery (no division of labor between gender either, suggesting pottery was for personal use) predate the first tax records by thousands of years. The earliest known form of syllabic writing is on a receipt for a grain shipment. My point is that private property clearly predates the state.
  8. I got this once. Pretty much the exact same symptoms, mostly triggered by movement or I breathe deep while straining my chest. Just took anti-inflammatory meds till it got better. Mine was pretty bad though since I've had both my lungs collapse prior and the inflammation was from irritated scar tissue (most likely from stress) so it took months to go away and couldn't really sleep on my side for that period of time. But it's literally just inflammation. Vaping CBD oil honestly gave the most instantaneous relief. Aleve works pretty damn well for otc (its the same as naxopren right?) I just took it twice a day, but the CBD oil helped considerably with flare ups. Aleve works pretty well IMO. I dunno about muscle relaxants lol. If the pain you experience is from inflammation then it's not going to help. But if there is some kind of mechanical dysfunction between your muscles and the joints of your ribs, then it should help, but I don't think your symptoms sound like that though I'm not an expert. But it was physical trauma after all. You really just have to wait. Kind of a bummer.
  9. black and yellow is ancap ...... added to this post 5 minutes later: of course a state must be tolerable to maintain legitimacy or face revolution. Clearly common law never required state actors for its enforcement. It is just as relevant today with multinationals and international disputes. The EU is convoluted with its relationship to sovereignty and the UN is more for show. Likewise a few hundred years doesn't make much a difference considering the state had existed for thousands of years before. I'm saying ancient law was literally cryptic. Church and state did not separate till way into the arch of the state. Instead of exploiting "hedonists" like the past, we exploit minorities, and now neoliberals treat all people more like cattle in the bio-political era. My point was that it wasn't suddenly the case that the state (via Leviathan) and property (via The Second Treatise of Government) suddenly became justified once these guys wrote about it. That is basic white chauvinism. Common law, contract theory, prisoner's dilemmas and commonwealths all existed prior to these guys. Nor does the lockean homesteading principle contradict that property is legitimized by common law/voluntary contract. The homesteading principle does not violate common law. It just isn't relevant to a lot of current behavior. Granted it still is contrasted to eminent domain. Arguably there are invalid property titles that exist because someone may claim unused land they did not homestead. Granted I do think Locke's "mixing labor with land" definition is ambiguous. It takes labor to burn a forest down, but that wouldn't make it yours. Your labor must bear fruit.
  10. agreed with all this. The debate is just whether or not global temperature rise necessarily equates to feedbacks that will create bad climate. Obviously as the air gets hotter, more water evaporates which means more cloud cover. So air temperature is correlated to water temperature, but not directly. We've had very mild hurricane seasons pretty much since Katrina. But New York gets hurricanes now. There are less tornados now, but a higher rate of f5 tornados. Some areas may be lost to rising sea levels, other places may have reinvigorated agriculture. I think there is a moderate sentiment to have on this issue. It's silly to choose between denier and alarmist. We should ask questions like, are there runaway affects of anthropogenic that cannot be mitigated by the earth's natural feedback mechanisms? Are feedback mechanisms themselves zero sum or do they just slow the rate of change? Not that I really agree with Dyson, but he makes a good point: There are plenty of other variables we should be wary of. The fact that so much investment goes into modelling rather than towards more on the ground observation (as Dyson says he conflicted over with the DOE) shows special interest involved. I do think there is a huge push to spread weariness over a particular interpretation of climate change to cater to alternative energy special interest (though yeah definitely end subsidies to fossil fuels as well, but I see natural gas as the most cost effective for the near future). ...... added to this post 7 minutes later: also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States highly doubt solar and wind would be as competitive without a massive public backing atm. R&D is still cranking away. gazprom loves renewable energy subsidies lol
  11. I agree Scorpio. The state is a reflection of societal norms. I guess you and I differ in that I believe the state to be ipso facto parasitic. You say people wouldn't want a state if they already had a civil society. I honesty don't think that concept arose in politics until after the Middle Ages. Statesmen were more akin to priests before. IMO there was hierarchy creates between those who could read and interpret the law and those who couldn't and were forced to be subjected to it. Law remained incredibly cryptic until far into the existence of states. It definitely wasn't that we had to wait for Locke and Hobbes to tell us how they think modern states should function. They are hardly original philosophers, but did write in universally comprehensible language. But your quote demonstrates my point. Property emerged as a mechanism to store surplus grain/seeds. I think it is very telling that the state emerged very soon after that. As in taxation is impossible in a self subsistent society. Property rights were a civilizing force. It meant you could keep things you weren't using without having it stolen.
  12. And some ancaps think voluntary slavery is ok whatever that means. It's hard to keep track of what ancaps and other libertarians have and have not retracted. Rothbard wrote about child rights before argumentation ethics. Rothbard pretty much ditched his own ethical doctrine on the spot. Likewise, standardized currency existed prior to legal tender law. In fact, legal tender law didn't exist until 6th century BC with King Croesus of Lydia. The touchstone was the necessary discovery that led to the standardization of currency, and according to the above wiki, they had been in use thousands of years before legal tender law. Same goes for private property. It existed empirically before the state. No archeologist/anthropologist would dispute this. Without people saving up their property, there would be nothing for the state to tax. We simply didn't go from self-subsistent primitive agricultural societies right into the state. There clearly is a gap in reasoning there. People argue that there would be no "civil society" without the law and order of the state. But in reality, there must be a civil society already in existence for the state to be parasite to. So it is a total caricature to say that ancaps are hermetic beings. It's that the state is a parasitic entity and that what many believe the state as providing a civil order is in fact and anti-social order. The most civilized states just tend to be the most capitalist ones, but that doesn't render the state "civilized." Nations are civilized in spite of statism. On the other extreme, you could compare soviet russia to stateless hunter gatherer societies. A hunter gatherer society only starves if the land isn't fertile. In Soviet Russia, millions starved to death on some of the most fertile land on the planet. Maybe some people in stateless societies beat each other with clubs but they never eat their own children to survive.
  13. The best deal is the Mesa (from their price charts it looks like those amps ran about 1400 used only a few months ago). But the peavey is one of the best bang for your buck amps to begin with at retail let alone used. You also have sunk costs to deal with if you do want to swap the tubes out. So if you get a used one that will be enough to compensate for those sunk costs then go for the peavey. The peavey wouldn't be my preference due to the speaker. I've got a mahogany guitar which has a lot of bass to begin with. The Mesa has the drool factor. Session musicians wish all studios had those.
  14. My Mac and cheese is dank and doesn't have to take long 1. Boil salt water (rickster is right about oil) and cook .5 pound. macoroni till shy of Al dente (around 6 min). 2. While pasta is boiling, make a roux in a large saucepan (enough to fit the pasta). About 2.5 tablespoons worth of butter and add flour till you get a nice paste (add the flour while butter is melting and is starting to foam). Once you have a roux pour 1 3/4 cups of milk onto the roux and mix till milk starts to thicken (figure 8 is best to stir with). Once it's started to thick (but still creamy) add salt and half your cheese (12 ounces out of 24. Three cheeses of your preference). Maybe throw some nutmeg in. Stir till melted. Should look like gooey goodness. 3. Drain pasta. Throw some salted butter in. Throw the pasta into the cheese sauce (called a bechamel). 4. Empty half of cheesy pasta from sauce pan into baking dish then throw dried basil and half the remaining cheese then repeat for the top layer. If you're an animal you can pour an egg yolk in. But top with breadcrumbs and Parmesan. 4. Broil till it looks professional af 5. Eat not the easiest Mac recipe but you don't have to bake it so it saves time.
  15. well looks like cornford went out of business. They shipped with el34s (I'm gonna guess you're a 6l6 guy, but still has some grit with the el34s). also I don't really see the point of a stack for a 30 watt amp. If I have a stack, I want it to be driving at least two speakers. So you'll pay extra for a stack to drive one more speaker, which I'd prefer to run hotter with a 50 watt head anyway so I don't have to crank it to practice. I have a friggin 200 watt dual monobloc marshall powering my stack and that gives me much more flexibility if the venue has a cab themselves (I'm not lugging a 4x12 around). But 30 watts is fine for a 1x2 or 2x12 combo. I don't see why you'd sink more money into it unless you were thinking about stereo setups or something (which I still prefer a dual amp setup with anyway). I'll stick by my recommendation (no amp with better touch sensitivity): and incredibly professional lead tones to boot listings are going to be tricky to find but the 30 watt seems to be all under your budget. If you can't find any cornfords then I'd go with Orange. peruse ebay: http://www.ebay.com/bhp/orange-th30 I'll also second hackerx's recommendation of a blackstar ht. well within budget: http://www.musiciansfriend.com/amplifiers-effects/blackstar-venue-series-ht-club-40-40w-tube-guitar-combo-amp ...... added to this post 7 minutes later: so emminence over celestion? ...... added to this post 40 minutes later: not a bad deal: Mesa Boogie Lonestar 1x12 30 watt