Leaderboard

Negative freedom is freedom from as opposed to freedom to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

For sure. I terminated counseling with my first therapist to work with my second because the second had values that were in more alignment with what I was looking for. Both therapists are/were great, but the relationship is also important too. I would add that finding someone who continues to do work on themselves and seeks consultation/supervision/therapy with another provider is another thing that's really important. I admit that there might be bias, as that is exactly what I do, but the way that I see it is that if you want to learn how to play guitar, you don't go to someone who has studied musical theory, but to someone who actually has learned how to play guitar and is still practicing and learning.

Interesting discussion. I think that OFD's suggestion is one of the most likely. But there are so many factors that could change the direction: war and depression among them. The UK currently has an influx of about 1 million Muslims per decade. If you pan that out, that is 8.5 million by 2100, plus the likely 4 million here and a + replacement fertility rate it's quite feasible that we could see 15-20 million Muslims in the UK by 2100, At the current rate the general population will be about 90 million. So you could be looking at about a 20% Muslim population by 2100; and on the same trajectory that will probably be a Muslim majority by 2200. I suspect the trend in other North European countries is similar. This will be a drastically changed society in any walk of life, particularly if you happen to live in an area where Muslims have become the majority. It's a question of if our politicians will do anything to change that immigration course. At current this seems unlikely. In the UK the biggest issue (polled at around 40% of people) is reducing immigration and it has been like that for some time. Yet no political party will seize the lead by quietly suggesting the roll out of a Japanese or Australian-style immigration program and not even go into all the topics Stef would. This suggests to me that the politicians are either spineless or serving an agenda, probably both. All the fake Conservatives would have had to do to win the election by a good margin was say they are bringing in a points-based immigration system and say they'll provide more money for the NHS. That's all they'd have to do. Polls have also shown that the most solid support for Labour is immigrants and for the Conservatives it's the old, followed by the young. If your the Conservative, you thus grow your base by encouraging citizens to have children, giving care to the old and limiting immigration. But I have no faith that corpse of a political party could shift for the current course. So if we continue to slowly economically deteriorate over the next few decades I think we will find little changes in terms of immigration and the political approach to Islamisisation. And that we will need a depression, a war or some other catastrophe to shake us from this course. Luckily a depression seems inevitable and I think that the EU political order will break down in the face of unpopular mass immigration and depression. So as OFD says, I would go with the creation of US-style ghettos, which are varyingly populated by Muslims, other third worlders and poor whitea, while the rich whites and non-white move away from whereever the ghettos encroach into and remain virtue signaling in their residential safe spaces. Following this course, the affects of economically unviable and culturally backwards immigrants will become more apparent: more welfare, more criticism of white privilege etc., more terrorism... This will continue until a major societal breakdown. Given that we have more than 100 years on the current trajectory, the likelihood of societal instability is high. Personally I am done with the West. I'm leaving in less than 48 hours and have no plans to return. I can no longer bare the pain of clearly seeing the insane, anti-fact, incoherent downwards spiral of Europe. Over the last few years, I've lost 'friends' I've known for half my life for daring to present factual information compiled by Western governments, the UN, academics and polling agencies on to the negative effects of mass immigration. These have all been thrown back in my face with hysterical hissing and spitting. I've been othered. I'm less than human. I'm basically a member of the National Front. That I'm of a non-white immigrant background hasn't granted me anything. So I cut these white-middle-class, virtue signalling cunts out of my life before they had the chance to. I don't know how this will pan out, but there is also an internal decay of Islam and it's difficult to know how profound it is as Islam has it's own political correctness. Islamic political correctness is the exact inversion of Western political correctness bar one facet they have in common - THOU SHALT NOT INSULT ISLAM. If you are an apostate in Islam, it's likely that you're going to need to shut up or face your life being ruined, being abandoned by friends and family and possibly being killed. But you can see quite considerable, largely anonymous apostate communities online. From studying the act my observation is that apostates tend to be above average intelligence, even by Western standards. If they are in the West it tends to happen when they go to university, which is when they are likely to first have any real considerable contact with non-Mulsims. Obviously low IQ individuals aren't going to get into this position. And another big factor behind them leaving Islam is the amount of violence that is attached to it; in the texts, cultural practices and terror. Since most Muslim countries have low sub-80 IQs, there is little chance of these people slipping out. When you live in a fascist society that presents a very narrow realm to live in and enforces it with considerable violence, ignorance and blind faith, you're not going to be able to understand that if you have an 85 IQ. Goodbye cruel West. Enjoy your enrichment.

If he does it too much, Paleolithic Women will avoid such a "stoner".

While finding a red-pilled / FDR therapist can be nice, it's not necessary to achieve your personal growth goals. A therapist with similar values, like a Christain therapist, for instance, is an option in a small town. That being said I have heard Max Tsymbalau is good, and he offers online sessions. http://www.maxcounseling.com/ If you're looking for general tips on finding a great therapist check out my book: https://www.amazon.com/How-Find-Great-Therapist-Surviving-ebook/dp/B0713XF6DN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499877540&sr=8-1&keywords=how+to+find+a+great+therapist

Your exceptions break your argument. If all infanticide is murder, even in situations of rape, you would be a murderer. Change your logical reasoning, yours is not a good argument as is, unless you also argue that sometimes its acceptable to be a murderer. But that would require its completely own argument and one I don't think anyone is up to the task for.

Not objective. That is your opinion. Definition of human: having human form or attributes. Definition of being: the qualities that constitute an existent thing. Neither of these terms expressly defines a combined egg and sperm as a human being. Combined sperm and egg do not have the form of a human and but they share one major attribute of DNA, so certainly they fall under the realm of human but not so much of human being. They are both words dealing with whats called "essence." When I say I am wearing a shoe, you can look at it and know, yes it is a shoe. It might be made of leather, or pleather, or fabric or rubber... but it goes on my foot and I wear it to protect my feet. If I put a hat on my foot, it may be made out of fabric and have a piece of rubber on it AND be on my foot, it is not a shoe. If I have just a shoe lace, it is not a shoe. If I have a raw piece of leather and a raw piece of fabric and a raw piece of rubber... still not a shoe. A shoe is a shoe, not something else. Just as a human being is a human being, not cells. So you don't have a right to not be murdered? Then why are we even arguing over abortion? LOL If the mute cannot speak, or write, or do anything at all to communicate, then sure, same category as an infant or coma person. If they speak a different language that would enable them communicate No now wouldn't it? We are talking about their ability to mentally function, not your language education. If you believe in voluntary society, why would you pretend to know what is best for someone else? Do you believe they should just pay taxes too because its only such a small amount of money that does a great amount of good? Same logic. You didn't answer my question. Who mandates they have to care for the infant? Who would hold them responsible seeing as nobody cared enough to take the infant?

Wait what? *facepalm* I am not going to respond because you didn't address really anything I said, while introducing other concepts without explaining... such as genocide.

How is killing a "child" from rape not murder but euthanasia? A child from rape is no different than a child from normal relations. I am assuming you only want to allow abortion from rape to spare the mother... in which case that is proof that the mothers feelings and autonomy is more important than a child. Still not logically consistent.

Why not also allow abortion if the woman is under lets say 16 because the child will also have a shit life. What if the mother is a drug addict? Then abortion should be ok too. Or just really poor? What about date rape, not violent rape. What about condom stealthing situation? Someone needs to decide the specifics of your "rule". So you believe there should be some kind of master planner or government to enforce subjective reasons for which murder is allowed? Why should your opinion be law? Are you an expert in moral philosophy? A medical doctor specializing in pregnancy? What makes your opinion any different than every single other person in the worlds opinion? I guess your mom didn't say you were special from your comment in your post... but obviously someone did. Why are you so special such that everyone should defer to your judgement? And if your opinion is so great, why can't you convince everyone to follow it voluntarily? Ideas so good they need violence to make them mandatory. lol