PatrickC

Defense is not force. Force is force and defence is defence. They have two very different meanings. If Marxists choose to see it as the same thing then they are truly fabricating the libertarian position to suit their own purposes. Remember, philosophy will call things by their proper name.

Yes, I am surprised by your sisters response. Most women I've known have always enjoyed being asked out on dates. Of course I guess it depends on the way the guy approaches her and how she reacts to them perhaps. But even shy guys are mostly a charm for many ladies, even if they may not date them eventually. Unfortunately, despite all rhetoric otherwise, it's pretty much down to us guys to make the first bolder steps in asking for dates. As a result we have to experience quite a bit of rejection at first. Rejection can be more or less painful dependent on ones history of course, so be conscious of your feelings and don't attempt to bulldoze through them. However, I think experiencing a certain amount of rejection, allows you to become more finally tuned (in time) to the signals women might be giving you. You'll get better at recognising those that are keen and those that are not. Join some meet up groups in areas that interest you, such books, theatre or film clubs. It's not only a great way to meet likeminds, but you can also meet some more interesting women that way too.

I'm glad no one told Hitler that "baldy" has a German lineage..

The trouble with the 'cultural Marxist' or 'leftist' ideology as I'm beginning to see it Alan and you may agree perhaps. Is that it hides in many foxholes that most of it's followers seem consciously oblivious too. That of religion, relativism, identity politics and many more of course. Of course these positions can all be summed up within the belief that the 'collective' always morally outstrip the 'individual'. Except collectives cannot be seen of course, only individuals.

Yes, I think the British popular humour has nearly always been about lending itself to self deprecation for as long as I can remember.. Yes I go back as far as Morecambe and Wise even. I have met some great self deprecators in my time privately over the years. But the best ones tended to do it sporadically.. Certainly I can see how the popular TV stuff, more often by men portraying themselves as buffoons as being seen as a attack on maleness. Much of that early comedy (particularly 70's) I now find rather droll these days. Although Fawlty Towers remains a classic frankly.

Yes, I can see how sometimes that could be viewed as problematic. I suppose I tend to think a woman of that age is mature enough to make those decisions by then. But I hear you, it's not necessarily the most optimum position to be in perhaps.

Theft from whom exactly? If I build a great condo by a lake in a wilderness region for my leisure time, completely superfluous to my families living needs. A place where my children, wife and friends can enjoy together, beyond the necessities of life itself. Whom am I stealing from?

"It is said that men are capable of great creation, great destruction, or great hedonism." ~ Karen Straughan (24 Feb 2012)

Why is 60 considered dicey with a 37 yr old woman Tamslab.. I mean the idea is just median of course.. We're not meant to use it as an absolute, just a guide I think.

Interesting idea.. That piece of 'folk wisdom' makes sense in terms of a woman still being reproductive and a man having worked up enough resources to provide for them.

None of that made sense at all.. except you still seemingly loathe human kind and proved my point rather well.

You have a hopelessly sentimental and romantic view of nature. You also do that classic trick of separating man from nature. How do you think Beavers manipulate their environment or predatory animals survive. The very fact that you are able to have the time to think such thoughts today, is because you are no longer concentrating all your mind on hunting, finding food and building shelter. Shelter which regularly got destroyed by nature, in the way of flooding, high winds, forest fires or any number of other natural disasters nature can throw at us. We have mostly conquered the affects of nature these days to our betterment and comfort. But nature is still as powerful and potentially destructive as it always has been and always will be in the future. Like I've mentioned before these kinds of ideas often underscore a deep mistrust and loathing of our own (human) kind. There is frankly no chance of creating a better environment for animals whilst there exists this deep mistrust of ourselves. Trying to understand that mistrust with consistent philosophical principles (and indeed self knowledge), would be a far more productive way of bringing peace to the world for all living things.

Hmmn, 'philosophy slut'.. An interesting marketing term for the call perhaps Phil.. Kidding of course.

If you are going to create a consistent moral theory which includes both animals and humans, then you are going to need to hold those same humans and animals to the same moral theory. Since we know that a lion's survival is dependent on killing other animals. As humans we are unlikely to reason with them in this regard. However, as I have said previously within this thread. As we become more empathic with each other (humans), a natural empathy will occur with animals. That has certainly been the case for me. Meat eating has indeed evolved into more grass fed organic methods, which is a great start. How the future decides about their meat diets is speculative at best, but I imagine it becoming more empathy led as it is already becoming.

You are not even attempting at philosophy here STer I'm afraid.. You are using a 'pragmatist' argument, utilitarian at best perhaps... Much of which has been discussed on this board ad nauseam.

An understandable summation to make I think.. STer is quite the wordsmith, try not to let him overwhelm you.

Rape has to remain either as a most egregious assault involving force or we change the definition to lesser degrees and therefore apply the appropriate restorative (justice) values accordingly. The trouble with expanding the definition, is that it is nearly always considered and judged by its original definition. These days rape can indeed be something a person considers true after the fact.

Ah, the great statist 'what if' conundrum. The conundrum having been statist caused, statist led, statist managed and then magically statist resolved. I leave this conundrum in the statists hands because it certainly remains their moral conundrum.

1) You're still taking responsibility for your brothers actions (at least internally). Something worth exploring I think. 2) When I meant 'close by', I meant keeping in contact with him, which is not dependent on his proximity to you necessarily.

Thanks Wesley... Yea, I hear you Barden, I certainly think exceptions can be born from this community of great minds.

Hey Rick, I believe we connected via Skype some months back, regarding my then involvement with the Euro call.. I no longer host that call myself anymore (although it still exists), but time zones permitting, feel free to hit me up again. And welcome to the boards

Whilst I think it's great that you and your partner have managed to overcome these obstacles. They are still the exception that proves the rule. I've met my fair share of teenage single mums (through my work) and for the most part they attract 'low rent' partners and thereafter it's an uphill struggle for them to become of quality themselves to a quality man that is willing to take this option. However, still very happy to hear of the occasional exception, good for you man.

I had a further thought on this, which may well have already passed your minds. But how about a duo show with Stef and Laurette Lynn.. You guys always seem to have the most interesting of conversations and Laurette is funny and very knowledgeable and always curious too.

Not up much on Soviet history, but I have some thoughts about why the US enter so many wars, at least the recent ones in the Middle East. It is primarilly all about protecting the dollar. I believe that there are more dollars buying oil (petrodollars) than in the entire domestic US economy. The Middle east is where most of the dollar transactions take place as the world buys its oil. However, some of these Middle Eastern countries have been attempting to use different currencies to buy oil, such as Iraq, Libya and Iran. This may include Syria, although I'm not so sure. That petrodollar market almost single handedly allows the Fed to keep the printing presses on 24/7. If that market were to fall into the hands of other currencies, then it's likely they would have to switch off those presses or risk hyper inflation. There is probably a lot more detail I've missed out, but that's the long and the short of it.

You know, you cannot change anyone right? Which in turn means you are not responsible for them or their children. This is just a thought, so take it with a grain of salt if you want. You may not think this right now, but this problem you think you're having with your brother has little to do with him. This is about your relationship with philosophy. You have my sympathy there, because it is often our family that are the first to challenge these ideas either directly or indirectly by their behaviour and beliefs. Having said that there could be all manner of unconscious reasons why you might still need your brother close by. Give yourself some time to work that out. You don't have to do or say anything to him, but for philosophy's sake be aware of the reasons why you're not.