On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Elliot Temple <
cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Jason <
auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Anontwo Too <
anont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Jason <
auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Anontwo Too <
anont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Jason <
auv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Anontwo Too <
anont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> I think the best traditional parenting works better but still has problems.
>>>> I think the best traditional parenting supplemented with some ideas
>>>> from TCS works even better but still has problems.
>>>
>>> how can u implement some ideas from TCS?
>>> ur either conventional or u r tcs
>>
>> If we accept your statement at face value, then my theory is that
>> everyone who is actually a parent is conventional. No one is TCS yet.
>> A few people say they are, but they aren't. What they mean is, they're
>> trying in some degree and fooling themselves in some degree.
>>
>> But I don't accept that all or nothing statement even if there are
>> really parents who are already TCS. I think you can apply TCS insights
>> to some situations but not all. You can find common preferences in
>> some areas without committing to always find them in every area.
>>
>> Oh and don't forget: There are only 10 types of people in the world -
>> those who understand binary, and those who don't. :-)
>
> Anontoo's statement is important. It's related to, "You can't be half free."
>
> As there isn't conditional freedom, there isn't conditional TCS.
>
> In an important sense, there is no partial freedom, either you're free or you aren't. If your parents do "trial TCS" with "trial freedom" - to be rescinded if they don't like what happens next enough - that isn't freedom. It's not some freedom, it just isn't freedom. And it's not TCS.
I'm trying to figure out what it means if we take seriously this idea
that there is no partial freedom - that either you're free or you
aren't. There seem to be problems with that idea which I don't know
how to solve.
To start with, by the "either you're free or you aren't" way of
thinking are the adult citizens of the United States free?
If they are free, then how do we reconcile that with well known legal
restrictions on drug use, forcing citizens to pay taxes, etc? How does
it fit with democracy and the fact that even if you had a freedom last
year (like the freedom not to buy health insurance) if enough of your
fellow citizens decide you don't have such a freedom they can take it
away this year as they have done with ObamaCare?
Or do you say that the citizens of the United States are not free by
this standard?
--Jason