PatrickC

Yes, I've been warming to Adam much more lately. He does seem to be maturing with each step he takes. I'm not convinced about NVC myself, as it can lead to a kind of moral relativism imo. But that said, it's infinitely better than the political activism that so many libertarian/anarchists engage in. So he gets a thumbs up from me.

I think this is certainly how most women can experience white knights. However, it isn't what most men experience, even the white knights themselves from other white knights. I recognise that the above is not an argument as such. But it is based upon considerable experience of how men will often gladly throw their fellow men under the bus, in their pursuit of or validation from other women.

Well it's difficult to ascertain in a board post what entirely happened in NYC. But emotionally connecting with people is an important part of making friends and building trust amongst a bunch of otherwise complete strangers. The meet up groups are designed for people to connect with each other with this in mind. If people are saying they can't connect with you, then why not ask them 'why'. That said, I think it's entirely plausible that people can sometimes have a negative experience of a person and rather than be curious about it, they can start projecting on them. I also think there should be a degree of sensitivity around personal topics too. People shouldn't feel "contractually obligated" (as you suggested) to share anything. So if that were true it would be something I would object too. I believe an issue came up in a meet up group elsewhere about a chap who was insisting another member must defoo his family. This is wholly inappropriate in a first meeting with someone and should mostly be led by the person experiencing the challenge in this regard. So I grant you that issues can and do arise within meet ups that are undesirable. To the degree that they are problematic as a whole (as your opener suggests) is where I would disagree with you. When people have had a negative experience of me, I normally engage them further with my own curiosity about their reaction to me. This either connects us better with a richer understanding of each other or they can escalate or obfuscate. In my limited experience obfuscation is normally the preferred port of call, if they don't want to connect, as most people don't like to escalate in public. ________________________________________________________________________ My experience of you, which I agree is limited to just board posts and one group hangout. Is that you like to write (say) a lot and I mean A LOT. A lot more than the average person I have met at FDR. Well actually that not strictly true, there have been others (guilty as charged). I do think you have some very interesting ideas sometimes, ideas that have influenced my thinking at times. However, I can struggle trying to read some of the reams of text you write. I had to purposefully read your text in your other responses three times. With the caveat that it wasn't because I was dismissing your points, but because I wasn't connecting with what you were writing about and was becoming bored. It seemed on the surface that you had a lot to complain about in others and that your participation had little or nothing to do with it. Now maybe my boredom is born out of my laziness to read large reams of text. Except I do read books regularly and can listen to 2 hour long discussions on a variety of topics. So I'm sceptical that it's laziness on my part. You mentioned in your earlier post that people didn't question their "listening style" with you, which raises an interesting question. Were you talking a lot within this group? Throwing out a lot of information as you regularly do in your posts. I mean it's just a thought, something to consider perhaps. As you seem content to claim that your were the right one, whilst everyone else was wrong. Perhaps you were right, but when faced with that kind of opposition it would give me pause. Pause enough for me to reconsider my own hand in their reaction.

Bumping this Sunday's meet up.. See above for details...

The thing about ex's, is why continue engaging with them. What is the real benefit? You say that it's because you share an intellectual and emotional bond, but to what end? But you can share these bonds with other people that you weren't so intimately involved with once. You said one of the reasons you couldn't deal with her as a girlfriend was because of her draw to superstition and vanity. This is important because what has changed in that regard? Certainly your opinion of these issues as you stated has not changed. So has she now changed and no longer drawn to these issues? More often than not having ex's as friends even if you can deal with it platonically, doesn't mean the ex necessarily can, even if he or she says they can. By the way, something that crops up a lot when Stefan says something, is people often feel that he is laying down the law. This isn't a moral issue at all just an important observation to make in a partner you are dating. I can definitely say that it would be a red flag for me, if a women I was dating was hanging out with her ex. Not necessarily a deal breaker if she then processed her real reasons for it and then decided to give up the friendship. But I personally wouldn't go near her romantically until she had.

Just wanted to point out that I never suggested that she was continuing to act on hypergamy. Neither did I say that the existence of it therefore nullifies any chance of a romantic relationship. I was merely pointing out that it was something to be aware of and might actually have been a reason for her initial indiscretion with you. Her then distancing from you in light of this indiscretion may well have been her re-evaluating her situation perhaps. Just as an aside, I'm hearing a lot of excuses here that she is making and no ownership of errors that she may have made. Her reticence to discuss the topic of friends betraying her any further is also disquieting. I get that some sensitivity is occasionally required at the beginning of a relationship, but given the continued red flags that keep appearing that this topic seems essential to talk about. I'd almost go as far as to say it could be a deal breaker and she knows it. Which is potentially why she is remaining quiet on it. That said, you seem to have made your mind up (for now) and you are at least going to question her further on her experiences with her friends at a later point. Just don't get drawn into protecting her from bad decisions she may have made. If only for your own happiness. Best of luck.

I can see how it looks that way, except as you point out they don't have to keep re-entering the Matrix, which puts them at high risk of being killed. This risk then puts them in the position of killing many innocents in their struggle to free Morpheus. That said the risk is still apparent even outside of the Matrix with the ever present sentinel threat. But one has to assume that Zion is a place of relative safety. I see the movie more as a metaphor, that these threats are mostly in the mind of the individual, but that the consequences are real. I will extrapolate further in Saturday's show. But thanks for the feedback.

I see empathy as both emotional and cognitive. You cannot ignore the emotional any more than the cognitive. Regarding therapy over compensating the emotional parts of ourselves. I can agree with this in part. Therapy isn't the only methodology one should apply towards gaining better empathy overall. However, we already have philosophy to help compensate us in that area. That said, there is often a period of time in which it takes a person to connect with their emotions fully and cognitively even. It can often transpire with someone in the throes of connecting with themselves emotionally (particularly during therapy), that they can re-enter a child like state in situations with other people. This means they can start overtly defending their inner child as an adult. This can be a correct reaction (albeit unhelpful to them perhaps) or a projection at times, depending on the circumstance. It takes a fully empathic person to recognise this when it happens and to point it out in a compassionate way. To those that are not fully aware of it, it can seem very child like and emotionally fragile. They are usually just growing pains, so to speak. I'm going to guess here (so correct me if necessary), that your negative experience of the NYC meet up was that you probably didn't connect very well with people emotionally. In which case it would seem that you are potentially guilty of what you are charging the FDR community with. Except you are over compensating in what you describe as cognitive empathy and potentially ignoring your own emotions. All said and done I do think it's a useful thing for people to better understand what empathy is and just how important it is to juxtapose ones emotions with philosophy. The last thing we need is another kumbaya community.

I'm beginning to have a much greater loathing for white knights. Much more so than feminists these days. The enforcers and the enablers.

Well going back to the original Telegraph article: “This reinforces our conviction that interest rate rises, while likely to be very gradual, will probably increase at a faster pace than the market expects. We expect the first hike to come in early 2016 and for rates to reach 1% by end-2016 and 1.5% by end-2017.” My modded post will provide some further links which discuss the BoE's general opinion about low inflation/deflation in more detail.

My previous response was modded and still yet to appear. Yes, broadly speaking that is correct. However, they tend to paint it mostly as a net loss to the citizens, as in the supposed economic downturn that might occur can mean job losses or mortgage interest increases.

"Don't settle for a fantasy. Insist on a man who shows up magnificently in all circumstances of life, particularly when the pressure is on. Follow the truth of your intuition and demand that men rise to actually fulfill their potential rather than accepting just the 'promise' of the potential you believe is in them." There is something about a women wanting the best in her man, which I don't really have a problem with. 'Follow the truth of your intuition', this sounds like anything you want it to sound like. Potentially meaning, 'ladies you know what you want, so demand it from him because only you know, he wont'. Which would be errant nonsense of course. Men know just as much as women do when it comes to their relationships and family. Women don't have some special access to knowledge. Demanding this kind of stuff from your partner is probably something you should do before you meet him, as a list of values you expect in a husband. After that you can merely encourage and trust him to do the right thing. I'm not surprised it's written by a guy frankly. The ladies in that group are loving him up for it. It's the kind of sophistry banter I might of played to a female audience in my past, for some unbridled female attention.

Well the theory is, that if we have inflation, then we will spend our money more quickly, thus keeping the economy constantly refueled. Savings are a distaster for the BoE and banks in general of course, as we borrow less. They're also a disaster for the state that relies on the inflation to keep its debt levels and repayments at bay. The latter being something they wont tell you of course. The BBC can explain the propaganda better than I. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30795424 Going back to the original article, this was the specific warning the BoE gave the Chancellor recently, which extrapolates my earlier point about the state needing inflation. "Carney warned in his letter to Osborne that if low inflation persists for longer than expected and the global economy is weaker, the Bank stands ready to cut interest rates further and pump more money into the economy through quantitative easing."

For those of you that aren't aware the Philosophy Film Club (PFC) had a a listener hangout the other week which you can listen to below. We also have a live stream Afterthoughts show this coming Saturday, where the hosts and one caller get to put their final thoughts on the movie. That show will commence at 3 pm (CST). Details available in this thread. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/41977-fdr-film-club/page-2?hl=+fdr%20+film%20+club

Not like countries like Lithuania weren't losing enough of their youth due to economic reasons. They now add a further incentive to leave. I also notice it's a female president that instigated it. Oh the irony. Having spent some time in Lithuania. There seems to be a national obsession with Russia invading them. That's amongst the citizens of course. The establishment probably know better, but seem to be taking advantage of that paranoid sentiment.

Actually Mike that is a very interesting way to look at this debate. Just to play devils advocate, haven't many of them already attempted to scare us with sea levels rising to catastrophic flooding levels being one that I can remember. I think that was the infamous Al Gore claim if I'm right. I'm certainly unconvinced myself. Not out of bloody mindedness, but purely because we were told 20 years ago that we would now be experiencing the beginnings of catastrophic climate change that was supposed to be noticeable. So whilst I grant FriendlyHacker that taking daily anecdotes of the weather isn't the way to look at climate change. I can at least say that I haven't seen any noticeable warming since 30 years ago. If anything I've noticed a marginal cooling of summers and a warming of winters. At least here in the UK that is. Also 30 years ago it was global cooling that was the issue and we were heading for an ice age. Whilst I agree this isn't evidence, but it stil seriously hampers the enviromentalists position all the same. Particularly as each decade passes by and virtually nothing changes. There does come a point when your average Joe can say, 'what the hell are these climate scientists talking about?' One of the worst aspects about the philosophy of enviromentalism is the sheer ignorance of the economic disaster that would ensue if enviromentalists got their way. It's really one thing to go back to an agrarian age when it's fully understood that we are definately heading for a climate disaster if we don't stop 'anthropegnic' climate change. It's quite another if the hazards are otherwise unknown, based on speculation and potentially benign even. The ensuing economic catastrophy could potentially kill millions in the process too. That said, I don't see either happenning thankfully.

In regards to a 9 year old, I think we can say that UPB has been violated. A child of that age (pre-pubecsense) is easily physically verifiable and therefore unable to make a decision of rational self interest, as they don't possess sexual desire in quite the same way (if at all) as a post pubescent person does. It only gets complicated when it's between adults and post pubescent children (teenagers) that APA would apply. All said and done APA doesn't mean it gets the older person off the hook. They can still face significant sanctions from the broader community for their actions. It's just from a philosophical (enforceable) position that UPB does not apply.

UPB requires that both actors are moral agents. We cannot hold a lion morally culpable for the killing of an antelope (or even ourselves) and then in turn hold ourselves to a higher standard, as the lion posseses no free will. This is not how UPB works. Our ethical preferences may be many and varied and indeed they can often be quite reasonable too. If enough people hold the same values then the person that breaks those values can still face significant sanctions as a result (take a drunk driver for instance). However, if they aren't enforceable by UPB standards they then come under the auspices of APA (philosophically speaking) as I earlier explained. UPB isn't interested in our preferences, only universal principles and whether they are enforeceable or not. To better understand APA I suggest reading the chapters that refer to them in the book, as there are many categories for them, which are better explained in the book than on this forum.

Yes, I agree with this, particularly in light of where there is consent, which statutory rape generally ignores. However, depending on the age difference and position of authority, it is still likely to accrue some serious negative consequencies for the older persons reputation. RJ does raise an interesting point about fraud, but I don't think it's enforceable by UPB standards, unless they were significantly younger (as in pre-pubecsent).

Well, this is depressing. The Bank of England openly admitting it wants to curb zero inflation. Up is down and black is white again. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/12/bank-of-england-warning-over-impending-interest-rate-rise "Britain is sliding towards its first bout of negative inflation in more than half a century, the Bank of England has said, but strong economic growth should stave off the threat of a deflationary spiral. The slump in oil prices and falling food prices is likely to push inflation to zero in the second and third quarters of 2015, probably dipping into negative territory for one or two months this spring, the Bank said in its February inflation report."

Well in the context of that call, it was pretty clear that the boyfriend was dabbling with unprocessed feelings for his ex. He had also admitted to his girlfriend that this ex had ripped his heart out in the past. So the caller would have had every reason to tell him it was a bad idea. In this regard remaining friends with the ex was both deceptive and unhealthy. The fact that you say it works for you, doesn't mean anything. My question would be, why do you want to be friends with your ex, when you both decided to break up?

Where have I once discussed the rights and wrongs about eating animals? I really suggest that you read the book. There is little more that I can say in this regard that can't be better expalined in the book.

It's not an opinion. Animals cannot think as moral agents. Just a fact. People are free to offer their ethical opinion on the matter. But in terms of UPB, it's not immoral.

You both understand that I've already explained the philosophical principle to you in the post that you've both quoted. It was further explained in Fractional Slacker's post too regarding 'free will'. You'll need to be more specific, if you want me to extrapolate any further for you.

Well the first thing regarding UPB is not to muddle it up with the NAP. They are distinct from each other, philosophically speaking. As far as UPB is concerned, the part that can effect our behaviour towards animals would be APA (aesthetically preferred actions). So for instance being cruel to animals would fall under a negative APA action. Which would likely follow through with negative consequencies for the person doing it. It can still be considered repulsive by people, just not violating UPB. UPB requires a moral agent for their ability to think morally about their own actions. Animals simply cannot and will not think at this kind of level.