PatrickC

Why are you asking me? You look for a market or you specialize into a market that will pay you for it. Goodness you could even monetize your your music on YouTube like many musicians already do. The fact that you say you cannot monetize it, says you wouldn't be spending your time producing music if it wasn't for the handouts. And hey, you knew this was going to be the reaction you were going to get right? Coming to a forum that holds personal responsibility and the free market as high values. So I can only suspect (whether you realise it or not), you are here to troll us as Dylan suggested. Find you're own way in the world and you'll feel infinitely more satisfaction with your music. Best of luck to you.

Rather than give your music away as you earlier said you did, why not try to monetize it? Giving it away to people whilst on the govt cheese is way too easy.

I think people that consciously like the OP take advantage of a benefit system, can quite rightly be called a parasite. For those that have no access to a private medical system and make use of the health care the govt provides is entirely fine. The OP has other choices to find an income.

Well, I don't know of any particular studies around the topic. But inflicting pain on oneself for decoration doesn't sound like the kind of thing a healthy person does to themselves. From a psychological perspective it's like literally wearing your trauma on your sleeve for all to see. Most healthy people are generally not going to be drawn to these types of people. Of course heavy makeup is not painful to apply, but it's still a disguise of some sort. But like all these issues there is nothing inherently immoral about it. It's just more likely to attract all the wrong kinds of people to you.

Yes, I was surprised by how much I disagreed with Sam and to what degree he is a pragmatist. That said compared to Cenk who is just a dyed in the wool leftist (relativist), he's still by far the more interesting. I agree with m.j. it's unlikely we will ever see a debate between SM and Sam. Perhaps a discussion in the farther future, much like the recent Chomsky ones. Although at this point I am left wondering what they could even discuss that would be of any real interest to an FDR audience, other than perhaps appropriate some of Sams crowd.

I'm conscious this topic has diverged somewhat from the OP's initial discussion, but I think RoseCodex raises an important issue that faces a lot of young women today. I recently listened to this young ladies experience of Sam Pepper which apparently turned into Sam sexually assaulting her by exposing his penis to her. Now for the context, she chose to go to a strangers house (after drinking) to crash for the night and when invited by Sam to share his bed she didn't refuse. She even decided that cuddling (Sam a complete stranger) as being appropriate and innocent. She was then surprised by what later Sam decided to do. What's particularly interesting about this video is that she goes into detail about some of her families history. Her own mother married a child molester that molested her sister (Annies Aunt). Her grandmother upon being told by her daughter claimed that her sister was merely looking for attention. It was only after he molested girls outside of the family that people eventually believed her Aunt. Do I see a pattern occurring in Annies family history? Indeed I do. I have a lot of sympathy for Annies history, but she is definitely using this, 'don't blame the victim' mantra as cover for her families history and indeed she is potentially (unconsciously) inviting future predators into her life, by claiming cuddling with strange men to be innocent. This is a particularly vile consequence of modern feminism that allows abused women to be further abused in my opinion.

Yes, this is really the meat and gravy of the issue facing most men. I recently was invited to a party where there was 2 - 3 very hot ladies who were literally bouncing off of around 10 -12 guys. Who were mostly ignoring the other 6 or so less hot ladies. From a philosophical perspective it was pretty embarrassing to watch, as all these hot ladies had to do was give a smile or wink and that was enough to have men come panting around them. Whilst I still find attractive women alluring, I just cannot bare to have such innocuous conversations with them anymore. It's like playing the lotto when choosing attractive women. You just have no clue what ghastly future you are setting yourself up for. You might get lucky once in a blue moon, but chances are you're going to crash and burn. Trouble with that party was, that even the less than hot ladies weren't that particularly interesting either. But they certainly enjoyed the brief male attention they got from me.

Regarding Hierarchies and structure. I certainly think there is a place for such things within an anarchists thinking. I certainly bow to my dentist and doctors knowledge before my own. I infinitely prefer a well structured efficient institution that seeks to improve quality and value for it's participants, customers etc. Not sure I agree with your definition King David. I just don't see them as being mutually exclusive perhaps.

Interesting question. I certainly think that some horror stories can be reflective of childhood trauma. They were probably stories that were used by adults to scare children into conformity. They were probably also used to hide the violence that was inflicted on them as children. I read somewhere, can't recall exactly now. But children's fear of the dark and nightmares can emanate from previous trauma. That said, I've also heard that this is an evolutionary fear of abandonment in a child. That if left in the woods alone at night, almost always faced certain death. All said and done, I certainly have a distaste for films by Tarrantino these days. He's less horror (in the Horror film genre) and more to do with sadism, but I think it relates.

The Philosophy Film Club has set a date for the next show on Saturday 15 Nov at 8 pm (GMT). We will be discussing the movie Gravity, which I believe will be a most exciting film to discuss philosophically. Hit the link below to add yourself to the show as a caller. Looking forward to another exciting show and discussion. The invite is only available to Google+ accounts. Google+ Invite As before I will be providing a listener only livestream via YouTube/Google+ and will post the link to that stream in this thread. It shouldn't clash with the Saturday night call in show either. If you join the livestream via Google+ rather than YouTube you will be able to pose questions live into the show itself. Here's the extended trailer as a taster for those that haven't yet watched.

Actually it is after that 42 minute mark that we understand the degree to which some men have the capacity to self loathe their own gender. Michael conflates 'competition' to that of war. Adam wisely points out that war was often never a choice for men. We also see the absurdity of (heroic) single mothers being compared to that of veterans of war by Todd. When Jordan brings up the 'Wordle' designed by Facebook and the word shopping seemed to be the most popular word used amongst women. Russell laughably then says, "Do they (women) have to be". Which is just Russell's way of avoiding the truth about gender differences. This ignorance is further extrapolated by Michael when he claims that "gender generalisations" poison our thinking. Finally Russell explains that he lives in a world where masculinity doesn't matter to him. Thus asserting that it shouldn't matter to other men. I just have this image of Russell having his balls held in a vice like grip by his female colleagues. Michael and Russell are why men are singing the masculinity blues.

I would say that virtue is the philosophical definition. But it relates strongly integrity and a commitment to truth.

Giving this a final bump before tomorrows meet up at 12 pm

The same old useless debate you would expect from the main stream media. Everyone skirting around the hidden violence of schooling, parenting and taxation. Seriously it's like listening to people discussing the world as flat.

Hi Jascol, if you have an account with Facebook, there is a rather large and growing FDR fraternity in Europe, if you would like to join. I also know of a meet up group as well. I'll put the organiser in touch with you. https://www.facebook.com/groups/FDR.Europe/

The highest standard would be 'virtue'. You discover these virtuous principles as you learn self knowledge. Each individual may have different things to learn about themselves, but principally they are the same as a whole.

Oh for sure. Those in power want people at each others throats of course. Jack Donovan talks about this in his book, 'The Way of Men'. Whilst I don't share Jack's apocalyptic view of the future. He certainly has an insight into masculinity that is all too often scoffed at these days and at society's peril. "...One of the reasons the topic of masculinity has always been so confusing. Is that people in power have always exploited the natural desire of men to be seen as masculine. They use the idea of masculinity to manipulate men, to get them to sign onto their own agenda... ...Today people that don't want men to act like men are doing the exact same thing. They say that men are insecure, that they're afraid of women, that they're afraid of change. This is just another trick, another way to say that, men who don't do as their told, are weak, inept or cowards" ~ Jack Donovan

The Left are unable to distinguish between classes and the individual. This is why they are divided on this issue. They applaud 'tolerance' as a virtue of course and elements of the left have managed to make hatred of religion as breaking that solemn virtue. It is hilarious as Josh points out. It's a similar problem for leftists like Tfoot and the Amazing Athiest have when they confront feminism.

Yes, I'm going to be circumspect here realising that people have their own history to discover for themselves of course. But the kind of love Cantwell talks about in that post he wrote, reminds me of the kind of love (or lack thereof) that he probably got from his mother. He chose the bitch that ripped his heart out, because she was a mirror of his mother I imagine. These kinds of stories remind me of the turbulence that Hamlet went through with Ophelia and his mother Gertrude. Which completely replicates some of the sentiment of kalima's post. Claiming that love is for the weak and dysfunctional. Hamlet felt like a wretch who was ultimately having his strings pulled by his mother. These kinds of relationships are toxic to a mans heart. If not cured with self knowledge. They will forever be doomed to seek out this toxicity or eventually give up and replicate the same toxicity on a much weaker woman.

Welcome Mysogynerd, what an interesting name indeed. Anyway, if you are on Facebook at all there is quite a large community of European FDR listeners attached to this group if you would like to join. Including Meet ups too. All the best. https://www.facebook.com/groups/FDR.Europe/

I enjoyed the video.. subbed

The next meet up is planned this Saturday. https://www.facebook.com/events/710272662385419/ We shall be discussing this short video from Stefan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv6xLk-MlbI

This is the published blog for the podcast above for the first show on Dead Poets Society. The podcast is shared via a public folder in Google Drive. Drive tunes would be the better way to listen to it, otherwise you can just download it from that folder as an MP3. Let me know if you experience any difficulties with accessing it. http://philosophyfilmclub.blogspot.co.uk/ Blog entry below - Well, what an interesting film to discuss for our first show. At first I was struck by how dated the film had become. I probably last watched this film back in 1995, so no surprises there I guess. But in all fairness this was rather inconsequential, as the film is still quite rich in metaphor all the same. I will give you a brief outline of my own thoughts on the movie, but the real 'meat and veg' so to speak lies within the podcast above. We had an excellent band of callers that provided some great insights. Carpe Diem Ah yes, 'Carpe diem', Seize the day. Probably the most enduring mantra of the film. An ode to critical thinking and living a life of self expression. How does the film fare in regard to this theme? Certainly Keating (Robin Williams) gets off to a swinging start with his nonchalant whistling as he enters the class for the first time which raises the curiosity of the boys. His rather eccentric disparity of normal schooling practices are in full display as he takes the boys into the hallway of the school to show them the pictures of past, but long since dead students. There is a very palpable moment of realising ones own mortality within this scene, which is why in my opinion it's Williams greatest scene in the whole movie. Carpe diem becomes more than just a fancy expression, but rather an urgent call to attend to ones personal life. By this point Keating finally captures the attention and respect of his class and indeed the audience too. So what are the tools that Keating uses to inspire the boys to seize the day with and what are the hindrances that face them. Poetry Keating is of course an English teacher, so his preferred tool for enlightenment and a life worth living is poetry. Certainly there are some great moments of poetry, such as Todd’s (Ethan Hawke) first classroom recital and Charlie’s (later preferring to be called Nuwanda, Gale Hansen) rather irreverent poem he recites in the Dead Poets Society cave. Certainly these boys come to life and are seemingly inspired to take life by the horns. School As you know the whole story is set within a boarding school. A school that has a history of highly successful students. The school motto of tradition, honour, discipline and excellence is later replaced by the boy’s interpretation of travesty, excrement, decadence and horror. It’s a telling indictment to an institution that couldn't be any further removed from values of the Dead Poets Society. School becomes a stifling environment for self expression. Parenting Some of the worst examples of parenting are on display throughout this movie. It’s interesting how so little has been mentioned of this in any of the major reviews of the film. The expectations and opposition to their sons self expression are all to vividly clear by all the parents we meet. The sense that these children are indeed prisoners to their parents unmet needs and desires is I think the most poignant part of this whole story. Not least, but including the collusion of the school in this regard. This is made abundantly clear by Neil’s (Robert Sean Leonard) father (Kurtwood Smith) who routinely removes him from his interests that he believes will distract him from his academic work. This parenting leads directly to Neil’s eventual suicide of course. Philosophy So how does the film fare in terms of philosophy. Well, as a friend said to me, ‘it’s about poetry right?’. Whilst poetry can indeed be liberating and a way to self examine. It can also be way to self erase. Knox’s character (Josh Charles) does this in full display by falling in love with Chris (Alexandra Powers) the moment he sees her. The claim here that her beauty trumps any kind of knowledge about her person hood or virtues. Indeed she even says, 'you don't even know me'. For me and some of the callers disagreed with me on this. But as far as my lasting impression of the theme ‘carpe diem’, was that self expression brought about a whole world of pain for those that engaged in it. From being beaten up, corporal punishment, expulsion and even suicide. Conformity and obedience eventually seized the day. This was no more better described than by Meek’s betrayal of Keating after Neil’s suicide. Since I have ended with perhaps a negative view of the film. It only really failed by philosophy's standards, which doesn't make it a failure as a story. This story could be recited year after year, school child after school child. It should be a wake up call to all parents that treat their children as devices for their own unmet needs. I don’t blame Meek’s for betraying Keating, he did what was most expedient for him. That would protect him from the harsh punishments of those that controlled his life. _______________________________________________________________________________________ As for the schedule of the next show on the film Gravity. This will now take place on Saturday 15 November 2014 an hour earlier than the previous show at 8 pm (UTC). Not UTC +1 any longer, as the UK clocks will have gone back an hour by then. UTC is also known as GMT. I will be expecting all callers to participate in at least a one minute introduction about their experience of the movie at the beginning of the call. So do come prepared to answer a few questions here and there. Otherwise you can always just listen to the live broadcast, which I will post on this thread of course. I'm hoping to add a chat server too, so that listeners on the livestream can interact with the callers and myself (via text) in the show.

Hey Stiofan, thanks for the positive feedback. You're local right? (as in London).. If you want to hang out and watch the next movie together after the above (The Giver), let me know. Be glad to have your company.

Thanks Ady. Your contribution to the call was very much appreciated. As was everyone else's too. Couldn't quite believe I got a full house on my first go with others attempting to join. I know there was a number of people listening in on the livestream. Any feedback or criticism regarding the sound and or content would be appreciated, if you had time. I'm looking forward to the next call which will be in November sometime. Gravity is my choice this time around. I'll be letting people know the date and time within the next few days, but approximately a month from now. Gravity 2013 No spoilers here, but think about the 'helpless child', which I believe will add a very special richness to this film.