PatrickC

Yeah Aaron is one of the best people to unpick this battle after Stefan. I heartily recommend him for youngsters considering going to college. That said, ignore his advice on the millitary.

I mostly find human ownership as being a tax payer and not generally my friends and lovers. Your argument reminds me of some feminist rhetoric I've read, whereby it was seen in the past that women were in hock to their husband throughout their life. I believe it was this kind of thinking that led to, 'no fault' divorce being eventually introduced. However, your position is slightly different, insofar as you believe the relationship enslaves both parties, male and female. Would I be right in understanding that you think comittment is the enslaving part? I find it fascinating that you think this way, partly because a large part of this forum is dedicated to understanding interpersonal relationships. In particular the voluntary nature of those relationships. Including having a deep understanding for empathy and virtue. Therefore it would figure that any enslavement you had in a relationship would be your own enslavement. Since the only relationship anyone is bound too are young children to their parents. Personally when I eventually marry, I will willingly serve my wife. But not as some grovelling schmuck. But because by the time we both get to the point of marriage, we would both know that we wanted to be together for the long haul. The relationship would have been cemented in reciprocity and a deep trust. You can only have those kinds of relationships by offering such a commitment to eachother. Of course marriage doesn't have to be the legal kind we are faced with today. But making a committment would be the key part, however which way you did it. This is a strawman. The choice isn't sex or friendship. The choice to kevin is romantic relationship or no romantic relationship.

Hi Eva, I'm curious what you mean by these terms being exploitative exactly. And what are your thoughts on the terms 'wife' or 'girlfriend'?

Yea, as far as aesthetic means within APA, it is just a preference. The words within UPB are interchangeable. Hope that helps.

Giving this thread a bump, as I will be joining Tom and others tomorrow.. Late comers are always welcome of course..

I'm not really sure I really understand what you mean by a 'tautology' in context with my earlier post. Racist views are merely preferences. which is why I would put them down to the realm of aesthetics, aka APA (Aesthetically Preferred Actions) from UPB. APA comes with a number of categories as I recall, for which 'rudeness' is one of them. You could categorize a racist as being rude I think, since it's clearly irrational to be fine that his girlfriend screws a guy from a different race, but shouldn't be in a picture with him. Regarding racism meaning a violent act. Well this is clearly a cultural conflation of the facts. Much like the mindless so called 'hate crime'. These are just modern techniques to attack your enemies with. Racist, comes with all this subtext which people just add to it. Whether this particular example makes Sterling a racist, I'm not really sure. Certainly it doesn't deserve the moral hysteria being displayed in the media. The Daily Mirror in typical fashion attacked Jeremy Clarkson (Top Gear) recently for apparently using the N word, which required experts to make out the word, because there was nothing recorded. This is a classic example of a left wing paper attacking a media personality who happens to be associated with the right or at least Conservatism. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-clarkson-top-gear-host-3484849

Yes, I get that.. Preference within ones own racial group makes some biological sense. But personally I find it mostly redundant I guess.

Racism is an aesthetic. Insofar as it is just a preference. The trouble is, that for most people it has been conflated into meaning a violent act. Personally I don't particularly want to hang around people who share this preference. But for merely holding a preference it's certainly not a moral issue. I would probably categorise it within APA, as within the 'rudeness' category. Mostly because racism is to a large degree fairly irrational.

Casey I believe you deserve a round of applause for such a well meaning and thought out rant indeed.

As a corollary, I don't always think shame is necessarily always a bad thing to do. It can be quite appropriate in circumstances where negotiation has completely broken down. The troubling thing about this letter, is that it offers an 'all or nothing' solution. But more particularly that this is a letter from her father and not her son, who she so egregiously treated. I can see how the son (grandson) could well feel the same about his mother too. But any bridges that were left open between them have now been burnt down by the grandfather. He has in effect escalated the conflict and perhaps caused a potentially lifetime stalemate for this family. Despite the rhetoric this letter has not helped his grandson in any way whatsoever.

" I think I'll take this moment to say goodbye to you. I now have a fabulous (as the gay put it) grandson to raise, and I don't have time for heartless B-word of a daughter. [if] you find your heart, give us a call." This parting line is essentially meant to shame his daughter into accepting her son. Which is interesting because the daughter had mentioned previously that there was a, "shame in the family" Referring of course to her own son's sexuality. Given the letter has now gone viral I can only imagine that making it public, was as a means to heap yet further shame upon the mother. And in turns it has served the self-aggrandisement of the grandfather. It's certain that 'shame' rather than negotiation, are the only way this family attempts to resolve conflicts amongst them.

You do have my sympathies mind, but my experience tells me, if there is an attraction then make it clear the moment it occurs. It will avoid a lot of heartache and confusion believe me. Obviously I don't know the full circumstances surrounding this relationship you had. But also try to avoid becoming second fiddle to a ladies (or a mans, in a women's case) poor self esteem. Those types will merely use you for their own ends.

My only question would be why did you allow your feelings for her to escalate, before finding out she had a boyfriend?

Yes, it does seem that like european Protestantism, Catholicism has decided to go down the 'Leftist' (political weasel) route... 'Words' have always appeared to have been more productive in the desire to evade responsibility for the left minded, than the actual 'deeds' themselves. It also makes sense mind, because the church has always been inherently pro state and pro culture too and will happily metamorphosis into whatever the prevailing thoughts are of the time.

Oh that resonates with me. It almost reminds me of Hamlet and Ophelia in part. Looking back there were certainly high quality women I completely overlooked for entirely shallow and utterly vain reasons often. Like you, definitely my loss sadly. ____________________________________________ To the OP Philip, I had a similar intensely religious upbringing. Which in my case incurred a rather incompetent father that just never gave me any useful advice about the ladies. I can only assume and can confidently say that he was repressed in this area. Young men (and women) need a lot of truthful guidance when it comes to navigating the opposite sex. Otherwise it can become deeply confusing for them. And in my case a sort of Lord of the Flies situation as I looked to my peers for advice. I'd say look to therapy, but also mentoring from older men (Stefan being one) that know better. Most young men have simply been left to paddle aimlessly in the dark in this regard. You have my sympathies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhPkPg7uQ1E I initially thought this video was going to compare Joe Rogan with Stern (aka the title). But somehow the author messed up, as it has nothing to do with Rogan at all. However, it actually turned into a rather interesting psychological conversation into Sterns's personality and about relationship passivity (mainly from his fiance). It's rather long, but funny all the same, but mostly it was insightful from a psychological perspective I thought. Dr Ablow was quite impressive for a mainstream psychologist and in my opinion far better than Dr Phil even. He wasn't able to get out all his points because of the intense banter on this kind of show, but you could tell he wasn't pulling his punches either and was quite prepared to take it as deep as was necessary. The Doctor would be an interesting guest, if he was ever available.

No, I'd say your concerns with the grandfather were totally valid. The trouble with these kind of politically correct topics, is they are often a way for certain individuals to direct (what they consider as) moral culpability onto others, whilst absolving themselves of any immorality. There was frankly a much better and less confrontational approach this grandfather could have taken with his daughter. But sadly he decided to act out instead.

Imagine trying to chat with a friend whilst having a boner.. It might allude to the difficulty.. Not impossible, but somewhat debilitating..

Yea, I'd say that was a Mills & Boon in the making. Romance would follow by then, pretty sure. fireworks even! st434u Seriously fella stop knighting. Of course people can talk in generalities. No one has explicitly said 'all anyone'. Mostly the discussion has been around the biological traits of both men and women.

No thanks, I have my fair share of Leftist twaddle I must endure in my everyday life, without having to endure it here as well. My best advice would be learn math and logic and apply those principles to everything else. Toodles! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e03hQELqvMo

That's mostly because of priorities. In general a mans priority is to have sex. Whereas a womans priority is gathering resources from other men. Many women might see attraction as useful in that pursuit. Of course there are varying shades of grey between them and certainly all women desire sex. Except, since they are the gatekeepers of the frolicking garden of love they can be more choosy about whom they have it with. It's an interesting topic. I will say that before philosophy I did'nt really have many interesting conversations with women and since being burned by the friendszone a couple of times in my teens. Women were strictly a pursuit of pleasure or they were a romantic relationship we both wanted to pursue. Female friends were mostly girlfriends friends or male friends wives or girlfriends. That said, these days I tend to agree with Fractional that it's kind of absurd to say it's impossible. I have females approaching me for conversation and interaction enough times to understand that it's not always about sex or my resources. Certainly advice, listening and sharing are a kind of resource. But when it comes to philosophy and those willing to listen, it's mostly a pleasure for me. I will say however, that often the richest relationships I have, other than the romantic ones with women, do tend be with other men. I think this is because men often share many more interests than they do with women.

"Ophra is not even a mother".. Oh my the chucking. Thanks kevin

Many thanks Michael, truly appreciated. But I assume we are allowed to buy the pair of you lunch and dinner at least. Hey Ruben, I'm not clear what I'm doing Friday as I'm hoping to catch up with some old board friends in Veenendaal Friday. But that could be the evening rather than during the day of course. I'll PM you my mobile number of course, so we can arrange meet ups.

Personally, I would just go get some help and find a good therapist. Since you do sound clearly depressed. It's not unusual to become enamoured with a great thinker, it's quite normal actually. However, if it really is that troubling for you, then a therapist would be the best one to try and understand that. Like you I came from a strongly religious background and my first anxiety with Stef and FDR was that it felt a lot like those religious communities I grew up in. So I panicked and worried what had I gotten myself into. Of course it had nothing to do with Stef or FDR, it was all about my own personal history. So I'd say go explore that history and take a hiatus from the boards and the podcasts if you think that will help. Philosophy can be a harsh mistress for those that try to pretend or avoid her. Sadly the red pill has already been swllowed. Best of luck!

Yes, I thought it was the bravest show you've done to date. Discussing a taboo topic for which many people are often way too emotionally invested in the opposite view. But also doing it on someone elses show and with a much wider less knowledgable audience than usual. Bravo indeed! I think a show on 'white knighting' should be next. Some guys really need to be told the truth about the effects they have. Well said lians!