Which state of being? The trusting others part came into being by the kid trusting others. The abuse of trust part came into being by Stefan abusing the trust.
Answer your own question, okay? I’m not here to think for you.
no. the latter is an illogical mash of words masquerading as plausible because of the appearance of grammatical soundness.
‘a man who entrusted somebody else to think for him’.
There really is no difference other then how many steps are involved.
‘Cult-Led’: I trust Jim, therefore I drink.
‘Self-Led’: I trust Jim, following Jim’s orders so far have proved fruitful, if I wish to maintain the fruitfulness of such a state then I should prefer to drink, therefore I drink.
And if the trust is abused then the voluntary action either reduces or ends. The trust vanishes or degrades and purposeful action can then vary upon that state of being. The means of achieve the end change.
Funny debate tactic. Admitting that two different things are the same in one attribute does not amount to a denial of the two things being different in other aspects. And, if being self-led and being cult-led are the same thing, then you must condone being cult-led as much as you condone being self-led. Kudoes to you for bucking the trend of endless promoters of critical thought.
Really, it reduces or ends? So there are not religious people being abused by their religious leaders up until the day they die? News to me. Beautiful theory, but I’m guessing it would be hard to make it conform to empirical knowledge.
No I didn’t.
I could either take that to mean, I should never learn anything from somebody else again, and thank somebody that I’m old enough that I already learned the English language because if I didn’t, then I’d be out of luck because I’d have to learn that from somebody else. I guess I shouldn’t ask my wife if we should go out for dinner or eat at home. I should just think for myself and never deliberate with anybody else in my life.
Or. I could take that to mean Stefen is using a cult personality and is mind-controlling youth like taking candy from a stranger that grabs the child and drives off with them.
I said either one could be true and it is a real community that hashes this out. Like I said this discussion has delved into opinions. There’s most definitely nothing wrong with people haggling out their opinions.
I think you missed my point.
cult led and self-led are to each other as altruistic and egoistic.
all altruisim is merely a facet, or outplay of egoism, (egoisim is always present) yet manifests in features that those of us steeped in our culture are taught to categorise as separate and distinct. If there is no obvious material motive for the giving of funds to the ‘less wealthy’ we call that charity and altruisim, we talk not of the egoism that underpins it.
I promote voluntary exchanges and interactions. If that means that some people like to be lead around then so be it. Being self-led or cult-led is just a matter of means in achieving an individual’s ends. I have my own preference, does it shock you that I tolerant the opposite of my preference?
Hello? “I trust” and the opposite of that is “I trust”? Hello? No, the opposite of “I trust” is “I think for myself” - which I am not seeing a lot of here - and if somebody chooses to drink himself to death for his own reasons, I have no problem with that.
Sheesh. The opposite of “I trust” is “I trust”?
what do you even mean by ‘trust Jim’ ?
If the self-led didn’t trust Jim…then why are they in Jim’s cult? We are still talking about the juice drinkers in Jim’s cult right?
Jim Jones. The self-led people who decided to drink the juice. Aren’t we still on that topic? Honestly, this thing has become so convoluted but don’t worry it is not a result of any of our actions.
Edit: Yes it was about the ‘self-led’ in Jim’s cult and how they arrived at drinking the juice by not cult-led behavior.
Again, you run and hide in a false dichotomy. I’ve already rejected your dichotomy once. How many times should I do so? Tell me. Name a number of times.
Nobody is asking what you should be tolerant of. Okay? Turn the volume up: Nobody is asking whether or not you should be tolerant of Stefan, racists, bigots or idiots in general. Did you catch all that? We take for granted that people are free to be as stupid as they like.
The question, then, is whether people should use that freedom to be cult-led instead of self led? That is the question. Would you recommend that somebody abandon critical thinking and submit himself to a coach or mentor who may very well abuse that trust?
Well, I don’t know. Odd, huh? I guess everybody in Mises cult trusts von Mises. The possibility that we all thought for ourselves and arrived at a similar conclusion, naw, that’s not it. We trusted von Mises. Yup, that’s it.
What dichotomy? I just said I promote voluntary exchange and interaction…that isn’t a dichotomy.
And I will answer with my own question: Is it voluntary?
If they’re the expert why not? If the coach of the soccer team said you have to do this or you’re off the team, so, I run laps and kick the ball around. Ends up that guy was a good coach as the team won many games that year.
or maybe he is a jim jones and after practice they sip the punch, but nobody listened to the kids that quit the team and now are saying ‘I told you so’.
Being a parent can be rough at times, no doubt.
I’m still confused. You seem to be portraying pre-cult behavior as cult-behavior. As if the cultist is a cultist before they are a cultist. Like a bizarre backward casualty model. You talk about individuals surrendering their reason and abiding by the edicts of the leader..well they have to be able to choose to do that themselves don’t they?
The question, then, is whether people should use that freedom to eat pancakes instead of eating toast? That is the question. Would you recommend that somebody abandon eating pancakes and commit themselves to eating toast, when the toast may very well be burnt.???
Now, who could think that was a false dichotomy? Nobody, right. So turn the intellect on, and think what false dichotomy I would be referring to.
Could it perhaps be the false dichotomy of “either condone a practice and allow it” or “condemn a practice and ban it”?
Yes, that’s the one.
It’s false because we can condemn being cult-led without resorting the employing the government to ban it.
Um, how many times did I say it was voluntary? Huh? Yes, it is voluntary. Cheating on your wife is voluntary. Overeating and becoming obese is voluntary. A lot of things that people should avoid doing are, in fact, voluntary.
Now answer the question.