PatrickC

I thought you would find it interesting John, but everyone I know from Brighton have been complaining bitterly about how the Greens have been busy cutting down trees to make way for parking meters. The irony hasn't been lost on people.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. If anything the forums are for the detail now and Stefan often graciously gives us that detail in the donator podcasts. I've watched the board grow and mature over the years which now has some great contributors that Stefan's contribution to it is much less important than it once was. That said, I do miss his contribution, particularly since the call in shows are no longer live events, but understand the constraints on his time. Reaching new listeners is what the show has always been about. Personally I've been seeing this as a means to move on into my own direction and becoming less dependent on FDR as a whole. It feels like things have rapidly changed, which in turn makes my own development all the more important to change and improve as well. Time to take up that gauntlet. Yes, I think Stefan has always had a penchant for trolling the trolls, but in a tongue in cheek fashion and for connecting to the wider audience.

Hi Phil, You are welcome to join our small meet up group in London as Stiofan directed above. No insane people within the group thus far. We mix up our meet ups with activties and chats. Just a way for people to connect well with each other in a safe and civilised way. Our next meet up is in Brighton on the 19th April. But there will be others in London thereafter. Tentatively planning a Sunday afternoon at the Globe theatre sometime soon. All info to follow of course. Nice to meet you all the same.

Yes, they are interesting critiques on modern culture for sure. But I'm left with the rather unpleasent nihilist sentiment in them. That these characters are utterly beyond redemption, depraved and devoid of any hope in them.

It's always been stated with UPB that it will always apply to creatures, aliens or otherwise that are able to concieve of UPB either now or in the future. Evolution would just be another way for certain species to 'wake up' as you put it. That doesn't mean UPB should apply to them now. Referring to those that argue UPB doesn't apply to animals as creationists, is not an argument and neither is the assumed transition animals 'might' take (since we have no idea and when). A species is either UPB aware or not. There is no middle or transitional ground where they become half aware of UPB.

Yea, that was ironic right. Not to mention the creepertarian one where she scolds the creepy guy for taking a selfie with her. How many guys will now be thinking, 'was I that creep that took a selfie with her?'. She's probably right about a few things. Like having more interests than just libertarianism. But much of it seems like a lot of pandering to women's tastes, like choice of clothes and fashion style. Which is fine of course, just be honest about it. The author is a high quality women in her circles, so I guess this is her preference. But I do get a little tired of women that feel completely at ease telling men how to behave and dress themselves. I can only imagine the howls of displeasure if it were ever the other way round. Perhaps Stefan should offer a counter version for women. Then again, perhaps not. That might be considered a pissing contest.

I jokingly wrote on her boyfriend's FB page that they're few women who could benefit from learning No 1, 2 and 7. What I find particularly funny about this article though is that Avens (the author), is a rather outspoken critic of Stefan who claims that he is sexist for pointing out some of the worst habits of certain women. I assume in Avens world that as a woman pointing out some of the worst habits of some men is considered 'helpful' and not sexist.

At least with this episode Louis attempts to understand the family history a bit better. But again he seems only to be drawn in when the offender feels remorse. It seems that Deans mother has no explanation for the sexual assault he committed on her. Other than he was diagnosed with ADD/ODD and narcissism at an early age. No mention of being hit with a rock, which might explain his actions better for those close enough to him to not to be so seemingy baffled by them. How did he become that way in the first place? These instituitions, the parents and Louis seem to assume they are acting on impulses that just happened with no explanation at all. Other than just a mechanical deficiency of the mind.

It's why most people won't learn a thing at University. At least within the liberal arts dept.

Nothing immoral about your actions, absolutely not. However, from a business or aesthetic point of view I'm not sure that engaging this fellow beyond a swift apology and a removal of the flyer from his letter box would not have been your best course of action. You'll meet all kinds of irrationality from actual customers that it's much better for business to try and assuage them (within reason) where you can. As they say, it's not personal when people act like this.

Interesting analysis of the fight or flight mechanism that can occur when peoples world view gets challenged. I'd mostly agree with it. It's just a shame the video came with an argument about climate change that failed even by their own prescribed standards. It does highlight rather well how arguing from 'effect' can be such a circular way to argue. Which is why Jan Hellfeld does it all the time in his debates with anarchists.

I like Louis a lot. He seems like a genuinely empathic chap that tries to understand a persons predicament. But for want of a less trite term to give him, he's very much a 'blue pill' kind of guy and rarely questions any kind of authority. There was a distinct feeling of hopelessness watching that program. Like all the patients were in a state of self managing themselves and the psychs were merely looking for surface signs of psychosis. No real attempt to understand the root causes to their psychosis. Louis himself seemed to be looking for remorse, as a sign of better mental health too. Which was quite disappointing, since the accusation he made agianst his father wasn't explored much at all. I'm no expert of course and I appreciate that meds can probably have their place. But such a lack of curiosity into these peoples history was quite telling.

I say it again, this is all about your preferences. What you're saying is because these people don't want to engage with me or the topics I raise, therefore they're not 'philosophical'. It's a pretty crude and bold conclusion to come to. Which so far you still haven't proved beyond your own subjective standard. It's no doubt this groups preference is to not discuss the things you raise. It may disinterest them or it might be your delivery. Either of which is entirely up to them. As for game theory, well it doesn't surprise me that the exponents of it don't explicitly advise against emotionally connecting with people. The theory itself does that, without much need for further explanation. I know this because 'game' was very much a part of my own history. I'm very familiar with it. My question is compared to what? Compared to people that don't engage in therapy and are manipulative, perhaps never realising it. Or compared to those that do that are manipulative and learn to overcome it. The fact that some manipulative people may never change, even with therapy, is not the fault of therapy. It's not particularly gone unnoticed just how manipulative you are with your own language. You continue to elevate yourself to the one that knows better and everyone else as wrong. I can't take your points seriously anymore and see this whole thread as your crude attempt at psychologically leveling with some members of the NYC group.

For fear of going round in circles here. The whole point of philosophy is about putting the theory into practice. Emotionally connecting with people and expressing vulnerability is how you make strong friendships with people built on mutual trust and empathy. You consider 'game' as your way to do this philosophically. Except game is very much about artfully dodging emotional connection with people. Which I proffer is the whole reason for this thread. You disagree with their application of philosophy. Yes, the negative issue around therapy is that it's about self reporting and it's true that clients can and do attempt to manipulate their therapists. However, there are therapists that have experience of this and will prompt their clients into areas they might be managing or avoiding. Of course it's by no means an exact process and it's entirely plausible that areas may get overlooked, important ones even. Therapy is just one part of a continual process of development. You get from it what you're honestly willing to put into it. My own personal development and even Stefan's has far exceeded the therapy we've been through. There are continual challenges we face in our lives that only philosophy can deal with, aided by a deeper understanding of the self. That means that we can change our minds about something we previously held as true or unimportant. I also want to point out that people (including yourself) are free to exclude whomever they wish. If people excluding you upsets you then I would suggest a private conversation with that person or persons. Rather than a long board post, which they are likely (with some merit) to construe as passive aggression. Albeit perhaps unconsciously on your part. The trouble is you're equating other peoples application of principles to that of the actual principles. I don't see anything wrong with the principles themselves. But sure I've seen people apply them poorly, sometimes manipulatively even. But so far the conversation has been about I like chocolate, they like vanilla. The fact that you have reached an impasse speaks more of the relationships you're having (or not having), rather than something inherently wrong with the principles of RTR. __________________________________________________________________ On an aside I'm completely with you on the definition of rape. Insofar as the definition has been extended further and further into the grey areas, where rape can be said to not exist. That said, I'd probably advise anyone to try their best to avoid those grey areas, not just for legal reasons, but for reasons of integrity, personal happiness and safety as well.

Yes, that's a fair point. For those of whom it serves the least are those that will complain the most. Be interesting to see what comes of it eventually.

I've asked some chaps from your neck of the woods to help out Andrew. All the best and welcome.

I have to think this is just another attempt of a company nailing their political (cultural marxist) colours to the wall. I get there are some leftists that think this campaign is racist. But then they would think that. They think the mere suggestion of a race debate is racist.

I hate to be an annoying contrarian. But this is the first time I've listened (I watched this and another video) to someone explain the facts about marijuana use from a scientific unbiased perspective. Breaking the myth that it's less harmful than alcohol seems like an important myth to debunk. Thanks for sharing.

The preference and bias of your Reddit readers then. Although I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity for ignoring the evidence as stated.

Interesting so you ignore the evidence that more listeners download these shows for your own bias and preference. A preference which so far no one really knows, other than it's meant to be new and innovative for you and your reddit readers perhaps.

I like both Tom and Stefan for different reasons. I think as Crallask points out, the empiricism is in the growth of listeners and that the call ins are by far the most popular shows in Stefans repetoire. However, I personally listen a lot less to either these days. Mostly because with philosophy and libertarianism you reach a point at which you understand most if not all the arguments. At which point it's time for ourselves to ferret for the new information and discover it for ourselves. Demanding these guys to produce more new content, sounds a lot like central planning. (I jest with you of course)

I certainly have empathy for your feelings here. What one of us men can honestly say we never experienced some of what this boy is experiencing now.

One way to test this in your mind. Is reverse the genders and ask yourself how does it feel for you then. It's by no means scientific, but it will give you some idea as to the validity of this complaint. First thing, why is this mother not teaching her daughter that this is normal for boys to ask her out. That they can get crushes on girls and it's something young ladies have to go through. That it's very often a compliment. There is very little background to this, since we don't know how long it's been going on for. It could have been a month or it could have been a year. However, if it's now becoming "harassment", as the mother is suggesting. Then it's the mothers duty to either try and connect with the boys parents or the schools principle to see if there is an issue in his personal life that is causing him to not understand her disinterest. But no the mother goes on YouTube and posts a shaming video for all the world to see. It's a low rent response that is only teaching her daughter that publicaly humiliating guys that she doesn't like is normal and preferred behaviour.

I have to disagree with you here ETU. The State can lock you up, empty your bank acoount and take away your children if it so wishes. The church simply doesn't have that power anymore. Granted, if we were living in Iran or Saudi then that would be a different situation. But here in the west religion is largely voluntary and free of coercion. I agree, certainly the pious can often be more interested in what others think about them and anything but virtuous. I'd probably put my own father in this category, except for one thing. I believe he knew he had a tendancy towards being sadistic. Well at least he knew enough about himself to know he needed something to help temper his behaviour. His faith was probably one way that helped him, albeit very often poorly. I'm not making excuses for him either, I'm just seeing it as it is. I've since met sadistic people without faith and those people are downright scary frankly. Well at least compared to my father. I think it can be difficult to see how awful the effects of nihilism are if you have been raised in a religious household. At least it was for me. I'm not saying that you can't have full on sadists in the church either, you probably can. But I think religion can act as a buffer between some peoples terrible urges and their actions. That said, I'm cautious not to suggest your experience isn't true or even irrelevant ETU. That would be disingenuous of me, as I'm quite sure it is true and I'm sorry you have a family like that. My experience is anecdotal and limited to the circumstances I found myself in. Also it should be noted that this new thinking I've had recently is not a reason to forgive my family. It's just been a way to make sense of my history and in that regard it's very personal to me. My corollory regarding Christians I now meet in my life is as I mentioned in my previous post and a quite seperate issue to that of my family itself.

Thanks for the update.