Freedom.U

[anarchei]

Just a little shout out about something I've been working on in the pursuit of promoting reason and evidence.

Freedom.U is a self-teaching learning experience on the subject of freedom. It covers human nature, government, markets, ethics, and religion. It then builds upon those by exploring related topics including justice, taxation, the environment, immigration, war, money, education, health care, family, economics, and limited government.

There are interactive Q&As that provide instant feedback to responses and lists of additional resources for further study.

Freedom.U is a good way to introduce people to the idea of freedom, as well as offer a refresher for people already acquainted with the subject. It doesn't cost any money. The only cost is the courage to explore.

You can find it at freedomu.anarchei.me. Additionally, there are introductory videos that cover each topic of Freedom.U available at YouTube.

[SolInvictus]

its sounds delightfully pseudo-sociological. i didn't read it all, but i'm assuming anarchy is involved somewhere.

hopefully not, because there's a thread for that.

[Bacchanalian]

At 4/13/11 12:30 AM, anarchei wrote: promoting reason and evidence.

learning experience on the subject of freedom.

The only cost is the courage to explore.

Why does it seem that absolutely no one is willing to talk out of their mouth these days?

[anarchei]

At 4/13/11 02:29 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/13/11 12:30 AM, anarchei wrote: promoting reason and evidence.

learning experience on the subject of freedom.

The only cost is the courage to explore.

Why does it seem that absolutely no one is willing to talk out of their mouth these days?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[anarchei]

At 4/13/11 01:58 AM, SolInvictus wrote: its sounds delightfully pseudo-sociological. i didn't read it all, but i'm assuming anarchy is involved somewhere.

hopefully not, because there's a thread for that.

What does "pseudo-sociological" mean?

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

There definition of governance sounds extremely contradictory. "It is to be consistent with human nature the way to arrange relationships with each other is to make arrangements without coercion". When you govern human beings you already coerce or affirm their culture or their lifestyles into the lifestyle as is preferred by the state.

It cannot be stated that human nature is governance, when the state of nature for example is the exact opposite, and that the view that 'we ought to be governed' is a view which we have adopted from traditional morals, the moral governance of Christianity for instance.

It just seems like some tacit consensual crap to me.

[Dawnslayer]

"So, what is your choice?

I am con-vinced. The rea-son-ing and evi-dence in this course are over-whelm-ing and I must fol-low where logic leads so as to remain true to my humanity.

I can-not fault the rea-son-ing in Free-domU, but the con-clu-sion is too rad-i-cal. I will remain con-ven-tional, even if that means liv-ing by myth rather than reality."

There's a word for this, what is it...ah, yes: loaded.

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

At 4/13/11 06:26 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: There's a word for this, what is it...ah, yes: loaded.

I enjoyed reading that like a robot.

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

"learn things they never taught you in gov-ern-ment school."

hahahahaha

[SolInvictus]

At 4/13/11 02:46 AM, anarchei wrote:

At 4/13/11 01:58 AM, SolInvictus wrote: its sounds delightfully pseudo-sociological. i didn't read it all, but i'm assuming anarchy is involved somewhere.

hopefully not, because there's a thread for that.

What does "pseudo-sociological" mean?

its addressing society and human interaction but then claims society and ideology have no power because they are not a physical entity.

[LordZeebmork]

At 4/13/11 12:55 PM, SolInvictus wrote: its addressing society and human interaction but then claims society and ideology have no power because they are not a physical entity.

loooooooooooooooooool

where does it say that? is this another one of those "people are rational!!!" things (which, curiously, seem never to be taken seriously by people who actually get any amount of social interaction) or what

[Warforger]

I read like one section and then noticed how they just assume the reader thinks is Christian and skimmed other sections and wadya know more mentions about how God is the creator and stuff.

This didn't really impress me at all and I haven't adopted any of its idea's. Go read say a book of Karl Marx's writings that's far more thought compelling.

[anarchei]

At 4/13/11 06:58 PM, Warforger wrote: I read like one section and then noticed how they just assume the reader thinks is Christian and skimmed other sections and wadya know more mentions about how God is the creator and stuff.

This didn't really impress me at all and I haven't adopted any of its idea's. Go read say a book of Karl Marx's writings that's far more thought compelling.

Any mention of religion, god, or creators in Freedom.U is certainly not in support of these concepts. They are flatly rejected as they are irrational and superstitious.

[Warforger]

At 4/13/11 08:37 PM, anarchei wrote:

At 4/13/11 06:58 PM, Warforger wrote: I read like one section and then noticed how they just assume the reader thinks is Christian and skimmed other sections and wadya know more mentions about how God is the creator and stuff.

This didn't really impress me at all and I haven't adopted any of its idea's. Go read say a book of Karl Marx's writings that's far more thought compelling.

Any mention of religion, god, or creators in Freedom.U is certainly not in support of these concepts. They are flatly rejected as they are irrational and superstitious.

Uh what?

"Humans are very spe-cial cre-ations, made in the image of God - who cre-ated every-thing in the whole Uni-verse. We gain ful-fil-ment only when we find out what He desires for our lives, and then fol-low that divine plan."

http://freedomu.anarchei.me/1-human-natu re/

That seems pretty suspicious.

[Bacchanalian]

At 4/13/11 09:40 PM, Warforger wrote: "Humans are very spe-cial cre-ations, made in the image of God - who cre-ated every-thing in the whole Uni-verse. We gain ful-fil-ment only when we find out what He desires for our lives, and then fol-low that divine plan."

http://freedomu.anarchei.me/1-human-natu re/

That seems pretty suspicious.

You have to click on it to see anarchei's response. They're bottled call&response.

[anarchei]

At 4/13/11 09:40 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 4/13/11 08:37 PM, anarchei wrote:

At 4/13/11 06:58 PM, Warforger wrote: I read like one section and then noticed how they just assume the reader thinks is Christian and skimmed other sections and wadya know more mentions about how God is the creator and stuff.

This didn't really impress me at all and I haven't adopted any of its idea's. Go read say a book of Karl Marx's writings that's far more thought compelling.

Any mention of religion, god, or creators in Freedom.U is certainly not in support of these concepts. They are flatly rejected as they are irrational and superstitious.

Uh what?

"Humans are very spe-cial cre-ations, made in the image of God - who cre-ated every-thing in the whole Uni-verse. We gain ful-fil-ment only when we find out what He desires for our lives, and then fol-low that divine plan."

http://freedomu.anarchei.me/1-human-natu re/

That seems pretty suspicious.

On the landing page for Freedom.U it explains that under each question there will be multiple responses in italics that people can click on to reveal feedback. What you are pointing out here is one of the responses to the question. Check the feedback to that response to see what I mean.

[Bacchanalian]

At 4/13/11 02:45 AM, anarchei wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The implication is that you're talking out your ass, mr.naturalistic-fallacy.

[anarchei]

At 4/13/11 10:32 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/13/11 02:45 AM, anarchei wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The implication is that you're talking out your ass, mr.naturalistic-fallacy.

Yes, I got that much. What I was really asking was: How did you come to that conclusion?

[Bacchanalian]

At 4/13/11 10:50 PM, anarchei wrote: Yes, I got that much. What I was really asking was: How did you come to that conclusion?

Perhaps the use of positive buzzwords to hype, passively, something distinct from them. And then the subsequent aggrandizement of your theories as requiring courage.

It's a sales pitch. And I'm tired of sales pitches - extra tired when I first responded to this thread.

[anarchei]

At 4/13/11 10:55 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/13/11 10:50 PM, anarchei wrote: Yes, I got that much. What I was really asking was: How did you come to that conclusion?

Perhaps the use of positive buzzwords to hype, passively, something distinct from them. And then the subsequent aggrandizement of your theories as requiring courage.

It's a sales pitch. And I'm tired of sales pitches - extra tired when I first responded to this thread.

When people are faced with knowledge that threatens everything they know, I presume it takes courage to face that knowledge and accept it. Some of the content on Freedom.U may very well be threatening to some people.

[Bacchanalian]

At 4/13/11 11:15 PM, anarchei wrote: When people are faced with knowledge that threatens everything they know

*sigh*

One day one of you will drop the act. That'll be a nice day.

[Bacchanalian]

Gah double posting, but this shit is wearing on me.

We start with "the only cost is courage." That gets ramped up to a ridiculous "I'm threatening everything you (royal) know." And then immediately gets chased with a substantially smaller claim to try and give the larger two legitimacy. Fucking shifty.

I could make a website, scrawl "God is sending you to hell" across it, and be well within reason to make the same claim that it just might maybe to some people be threatening. But that's by no means what the greater claims intend to get across. It's not about making the point that at least someone out there will need courage to read your site. It's about playing your shit up as being so god damn profound that everyone and their dog who don't share your views are going to get their minds blown the fuck out.

Above all. It's a cheap dare. Like a sign that says "enter if you dare" on the entrance to a haunted house attraction.

None of this shit needs to be explained, but god forbid anyone even begins to suggest your shit is just more words in a pile of words on the internet. Sell mode on! Tell me how you're deconstructing the very fiber of my being!

[BrianEtrius]

"Learn about freedom and think for yourself"- by reading a website telling me what to do?

Anybody else see this hilarious irony here besides me?

I am not a sheep, I will think for myself....

BRAINS..................

[SolInvictus]

At 4/13/11 04:49 PM, LordZeebmork wrote:

At 4/13/11 12:55 PM, SolInvictus wrote: its addressing society and human interaction but then claims society and ideology have no power because they are not a physical entity.

loooooooooooooooooool

where does it say that? is this another one of those "people are rational!!!" things (which, curiously, seem never to be taken seriously by people who actually get any amount of social interaction) or what

i enjoy when people question my comprehension of presented material;
"This is the great decep-tion of the last hun-dred years, and is absolutely wrong, totally at odds with basic human nature. As young chil-dren there is no alter-na-tive. We need to learn at first by tak-ing things on trust from the author-ity fig-ures, our par-ents. But as we grow up, more and more our own rea-son-ing can and must replace that so that we do in fact develop as human beings. Author-ity fig-ures hate been ques-tioned, it deflates their mas-sive egos! They want to keep us all like chil-dren, depen-dent upon them. So they use schools and media to spread the fic-tion that 'experts say...' is the only basis for reli-able knowl-edge. That is the exact oppo-site of the truth, and to the extent they suc-ceed, they are dimin-ish-ing the extent to which we are fully human, and sab-o-tag-ing humanity's abil-ity to progress in the future."

it deals with issues of human nature, socialization, and social structures, and some considerable fear of anything conventional, be it social or scientific.

p.s. after "where does it say that?", your response if fairly unintelligible.

[SolInvictus]

ew, i thought the weird spacing was part of a joke...

[anarchei]

At 4/14/11 02:19 AM, SolInvictus wrote: ew, i thought the weird spacing was part of a joke...

No, it's a Wordpress plugin called WP-Typography.

[LordZeebmork]

At 4/14/11 02:16 AM, SolInvictus wrote: it deals with issues of human nature, socialization, and social structures, and some considerable fear of anything conventional, be it social or scientific.

Uh, I don't see that in the quote. Link?

What he's saying there is that appeal to authority is a fallacy, which is accurate. I doubt the underlying assumption that it's possible for someone to completely logic themselves out of their culture, but it's not exactly denying the existence of society to say that society indoctrinates people.

p.s. after "where does it say that?", your response if fairly unintelligible.

What I said is that people who believe that people are inherently rational have almost never had any significant experience with people.

[SolInvictus]

At 4/14/11 04:44 AM, LordZeebmork wrote: Uh, I don't see that in the quote. Link?

really? human nature, issues with the manner we are brought up to accept authority figures....

What he's saying there is that appeal to authority is a fallacy, which is accurate.

...you identified the discussion on authority but couldn't identify the question of child indoctrination into accepting this authority (socialization)?

I doubt the underlying assumption that it's possible for someone to completely logic themselves out of their culture, but it's not exactly denying the existence of society to say that society indoctrinates people.

i hope you don't think my argument is that anarchei's site is denying the existence of society...

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

At 4/14/11 11:36 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/14/11 04:44 AM, LordZeebmork wrote: Uh, I don't see that in the quote. Link?

really? human nature, issues with the manner we are brought up to accept authority figures....

What he's saying there is that appeal to authority is a fallacy, which is accurate.

That's not the naturalistic fallacy BTW.

[Elfer]

Sorry dude, I just finished my master's at the Time Cube Institute.