PatrickC

I would really enjoy Stef's persopective on the Game of Thrones series.. Particularly the perspective on family obligation and the experience of childhood for some of the characters. [View:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzI9v_B4sxw] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzI9v_B4sxw Cant seem to embed the video.

She tried to publicly humiliate and shame someone for making a penis pun. Yes I'm still at a loss as to why this chap lost his job over a private joke.. I now hear that apparently it was only she that construed it as sexual and not the chap who uttered it.. As someone mentioned to me, compared to Sharon Osbournes pleasure at a penis being cut off, this joke is small fry by comparison.

I will concede that that I'm not altogether keen on Judgybitchs style or content and I rather agree that these situations are done more out of spite than anything of real value or mutual understanding. I think Adria as well as Judgybitch are probably guilty of that. From the little I know Judgybitch is one of several women that have been making YT videos in favour of mens rights. Judgybitch has been the most controversial making videos that generally mock feminists. It's kind of written into her name what she does of course. So I do think it's meant to be taken as a parody of a certain type of feminist.

Thanks for the links.

Do you think Warren is a supporter of rape culture? And if so, where is the evidence beyond one interview written over 30 years ago. Ian do you have any links to the Good Men Project at all, I'm very curious. I would agree that AVfM is anti-feminist, but I don't necessarily see a problem with that. Feminism is an ideology after all and so it can be criticised objectively. As to claims of misogyny over there, I have yet to see any from the numerous writers they use. I'd be happy for you to correct me and show me evidence of such behaviour. Of course it's readers may share all kinds of unreasonable views about women. I would say this is also true of readers of most feminist groups on the internet. AVfM is very clear mind that it will ban anyone that advocates violence or threats of violence against anyone from its boards. I will agree that where the MRM fail is in its adoption of a single issue based upon a class of people (in this case men). But this is equally true of feminism as well. But given the political, financial and social ramifications that many men face at the hand of laws inspired from feminist thinking not that much of a surprise that the MRM exist. Personally I don't advocate violence or threats of against anyone and making class distinctions are not very helpful, particularly when other classes are entirely ignored, such as children. This is true of both sides I think with the exception that they will both genderize the children into boys and girls. Personally I have found the MRA's to be more empathic with children, but I will concede that this could be confirmation bias on my part, because I have struggled to really take many feminists seriously of late. However, if you know some great feminist thinkers that you would consider worth a read or listen to then let me know.

Seriously Rick the onus is on you. The evidence is available all over this website if you care to look and examine. Otherwise I cannot take your grievience at all seriously.

The question that a parent needs to ask themselves when assessing their need for spanking. Have they used enough foresight prior to the incidence in which the child needed a sudden scolding. Take a hot stove or running into the road. What are the calculated risks that a child of a certain age may make a poor decision and either tip a pan of boiling water over themselves or run into a passing car on the road. Has the parent taken enough reasonable steps to avoid these dangerous situations? I understand that you can never avoid risk entirely. My own brother lost his 3 year old son last year to a rickety iron fence that fell on him. He'd opened that gate a number of times previously without any problem, so on the surface it had seemed quite safe. However, whilst people can argue my brother could have done more and maybe he might have discovered the hinge was broken I can certainly understand that risk assessment can sometimes be an emergency situation which may require a sudden yanking or pushing of a child as a means to averting them from more danger. However, Hot stoves are in kitchen’s with doors that can be blocked or locked. The risk is very obvious and real. Likewise with the road, we hold a child’s hand to in order that they don't just dart sideways into open traffic. These are preventative measures a parent can take to avoid any potential calamity. It's somewhat unjust that a child gets hit for not understanding the brevity of a situation they have been allowed into by their own parent. This would be what makes spanking about parental laziness. You don't need much scientific research to understand that prevention is the best way of averting danger. Children will probably experiment with hot water at some stage and recognise it as painful. They then don't require further pain in the form of a slap to work that out. But your point was that you believe that you somehow deserved your spanking because you were deliberately annoying your parents. That they deserved more appreciation because they had brought life to you and taken care of you as a child. This is a whole different area to your argument regarding hot stoves and open traffic, which I think was a distraction on your part, because I think you understand the argument I have made above. I say good for you if your parents were wonderful loving and kind people, that is a marvellous thing indeed. Parents like that are indeed worth cherishing. I disagree with their slapping, because I believe it's unnecessary and potentially harmful. But if you truly believe the wrist slapping you got was reasonable and rare enough that it didn't take much away from them as loving parents overall then I'm not going to argue with that. Unfortunately many of us received quite harsh beatings as children which were unjust and not born out of love. But I understand that the parent child relationship is often complex. That it is for each individual adult child to process and assess for themselves. However, there is good evidence as Stefan has brought to bear many times on this board, that spanking lowers IQ, can leave the adult child at the risk of addictions and unhealthy behaviour. Examine the data yourself and you'll discover virtually no competent paediatrician agrees that spanking or even wrist slapping benefits the child. This doesn't mean that parents who have engaged in this sort of thing are stone cold evil. It just means that they were ignorant at best and some were lazy in their approach to prevention. I'd like to hope that parents confronted with this data might now change their minds and apologise for their previous infractions with their children. Especially if the overall parental experience had been a net postive for the child. There admission and apology could only improve and strengthen that relationship.

Agreed.. This was very much my experience as well Ian I gave you one example that happened to me, but I can count many more that happened to me and other men. Of course I learnt how to navigate the risks more successfully as I got older, which I know was true of women too. However, statistically men between the ages of 16 - 24 are the most likely to be the victim of a violent assault, by up to 4 times more compared to women of the same age group. 8.4% compared to 2.1% for 2011 in Britain. Personally I prefer to try and salvage this debate philosophically, rather than statistically. Since if the claims are true we can decide on those claims and their consistency. If I'm wrong or experiencing some kind of confirmation bias then I would like to try and find out.

Since you are discussing anecdotal evidence and not philosophy I think you are discussing the issues experienced by beautiful women. I can tell you I experienced quite a lot of harassment from gay men in my youth. I'm not a particularly strapping chap either and some of these guys were built like houses. However, other than the odd occasion my 'no' was entirely respected and I learnt how to gently let these fellas down each time it occurred. I totally get how some women feel around this area. But for the most part it is generally beauty that attracts this attention, not gender. Having spent some time with hot women, most of them have developed a method for dealing with unwanted attention. And it works exceedingly well for them for the most part. As to other forms of harassment such as female cashiers being yelled at as opposed to their larger male counterparts. I've seen women screaming at male shop attendants in a disproportionate manner as well. It's also quite well known that young men in their teens (and I recall this myself) that are often harassed by older boys or men. I still bare the scar on my upper lip thanks to some thug who felt he could punch me outside a cinema when I was 15 for no other reason than I was talking to a girl who had rebuffed him. So it's still unclear to me that this reflects any kind of overt rampant misogyny. This is just harassment from humans who think they have some power over another human whether male or female. Whilst no one on this forum would dismiss the feelings of a woman that was being harassed Suggesting this is just an experience that women face or understand even would be a stretch too far I think. Men are very often victims of harassment, often for different reasons, but no less victims of it.

Well I disagree, a parent knows only to well that their baby will develop into a fully grown human with all the capacity for communication, empathy and knowledge. It would be up to you to provide a moral consistency that both animals and humans would abide by. Perhaps that is possible, but I've yet to hear a cogent argument for it.

The problem with relegating a class of people, in this case white, male and middle class to a lack of knowledge about another class (women). Is that if this is true then it would figure that feminists would also lack the knowledge to know about mens issues correctly. Since I know you are familiar with UPB you've got to recognise the philosophical problem with that approach. Not to mention the difficulty that most anarchists would have with people being judged by their collective class.

Do you have any evidence for this. As far as I've seen it has been a very civil discussion both on the boards and the podcasts. The discussion hasn't disintegrated into men against women or vice versa. In fact for the large part it has been loosely egalitarian in outlook. I would say this is also largely true of the MRM, with some exceptions here and there. Personally I do prefer to have a more holistic approach to philosophical questions rather than concentrate on one topic. But that doesn't mean the commentary coming from those that do has no value. You had a point about it just being humour, which for the most part I would agree with you. Most guys find Homer Simpson very funny. But the irony here is that I grew up with a feminism that was constantly complaining about the sexist portrayals of women on TV and magazines etc. They even complained that Shakespeare was sexist because of his portrayal of Orphelia or macbeth. So it's kind of hard to take your point seriously, since I think some women (whether feminist or not) had a point about the way they were portrayed sometimes. Thanks Greg, this was great food for thought. My first thought (bias or otherwise) was that many British portrayals of men were generally misandric. However, there were also notably times when women were dreadfully portrayed as inane bimbos or fiery old dragons.Which on hindsight displayed a kind of rampant repression that was very prevalent in Britain at those times.So like you might be suggesting, more an effect of the family rather than gender roles per se. This may have been different in the US as I do recall a number of those shows you mentioned which often had some great male and female characters. I do think there has been a more recent trend in making women appear more clever, strong and resourceful than men and for those women to actively humiliate their male counterpart.

With all the caveats up front that I have a great fondness for animals. I rarely eat meat these days as I have embarked on a vegan diet myself of recent months. I have drifted towards this diet more out of good health than for ethical reasons. Although the mistreatment of animals is something I personally do not like. However, humans can negotiate with each other in complex ways we can never do with animals. Animals may well experience pain and whilst different species may vary, it's difficult to know whether animals understand the causes of pain. Humans are unique in their ability to understand that they will eventually die one day. This is not the case for animals. Trying to attach morality to animals who are unable to share or even understand that morality back is the most obvious conundrum facing any philosopher trying to assert universal ethics towards animals. We have a very unique relationship with each other, insofar as we have the ability to communicate and have empathy for each other and that empathy is reciprocal and well understood. Therefore choosing a diet is not a moral choice, it is a subjective one. Agreed that someone’s choice to eat meat may make for unpleasant company for some vegans who find the idea abhorrent. This may appear to be a moral conclusion they are making of the meat eater and indeed they may even suggest it is one. But it really isn't in the 'objective' sense of the word. They are free of course to disassociate from meat eaters if they so desire. Anecdotally mind, I have noticed that as I've developed my empathy for myself and others that I began to experience empathy for animals. Whereas in the past I never gave animals much interest or any harm either. I now consider (in part) my relationship with animals as emblematic of my relationships with other people. However, that is an entirely subjective and personal conclusion I have come to, which may have no bearing on how others experience it.

Mind you, where the hell would you put it outside the eurozone? A good reason to throw all of ones capital into gold and commodities I suspect. Not that I particularly would like to throw 100% of my investment capital into one product. But with vultures like this we may not have any choice I guess.

I'm from west London myself. Other than the established relationships I've made on the boards over the years, I imagine there are other Londoners, as I'm sure there are other Scots on the boards too. But I've yet to meet them. Not sure I'll be able to go to Scotland, but I'd be happy to host a meet up in London if people are game. From my experience the best meet ups have been book or activity related meet ups or even a bit of both. It seems to break the ice rather well with people that have never met before.

Well that is great news, so you seem to be having more of an effect than you imagined. [] It's surprsing sometimes that despite the reticence, hostile or negative to peaceful parenting in particular to spanking. That many parents will actually change their habits based on just one person calling them out on it. Of course it's difficult to know the long term effects on those parental choices, but it's clear that many people only need to hear a cogent argument against spanking once for them to stop.

Quite astonishing decision by the European Commission and a possible view of the future. "Under the currently agreed terms, depositors with less than 100,000 euros in Cyprus accounts would have to pay a one-time tax of 6.75%. Those with sums over that threshold would pay 9.9%. Under the bailout's current terms, depositors will be compensated with the equivalent amount in shares in their banks, and Mr Anastasiades promised that those who kept deposits in Cypriot banks for the next two years would be given bonds linked to revenues from natural gas" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21825981

Yes I agree with this. I cant recall the philosopher now who said that once I close the door on a room, nothing can possibly exist within it. Or something along those lines. This is quite absurd because we clearly know that what we left inside that room (unless someone removes it), will be there when we return. Reality can always be beyond our senses (within reason). I know the sun still exists even at night when I cannot see it.

Yes, I wasn't particularly clear on that. I would guess there will be an initial set up cost for an organisation that might work with doctors to resolve these particularly types of disputes and blacklisting of troublesome patients. They may even bear the brunt or some of the costs of getting third parties to tend to their medical needs under the guidelines I outlined earlier. They may of course work in tandem with a charity that might be prepared to work with these individuals as well. I imagine this working in some similar way to that of a Mutual association or friendly society perhaps. It would be a way of offsetting the cost without being seen as leaving a patient entirely without the possibility of care. After which, the costs of resettling into the normal health services will fall entirely within the hands of the patient of course. Included in that resettlement could be all the associated costs incurred from above if they so desire.

Wow, that was like a flashback to the past for me, which is why I choose my conversations as wisely as possible these days. Those exchanges can feel like the proverbial fish slaps I think they're meant to be. I agree with TheRobin's suggestion, if you're gonna have any hope in getting your friend to look at things differently then you need to try and step him away from consequentialism. You have to understand, in that place the average statist believes he has all the rebuttals they require to take your arguments down.

Of course most people will consider lesbianism as not a preference and something a woman is born with.

I'm not particularly familiar with this type of disorder. But I imagine there are a number of ways doctors can control the poor behaviour of some of their patients, without necessarily refusing to treat them. Primarily upping the cost of patient care based on how long they have been using their services and by how much services they require. They could offer discounted premiums like they do for car insurance (no claims bonus), for those that rarely use their services. However, I can imagine their will be some comprehensive dispute resolution available that will allow doctors to blacklist certain patients who become untenable because of their behaviour. This may well be tempered by strict enforcement of a behaviour code under supervision for when any emergency treatment is required. There should also always be 'A way back' into using health care services in future for those patients that wish to resettle guided by the patients DRO no doubt. I imagine this will be a costly aspect for health care professionals, but considering the potential for loss of reputation I think most doctors will pay for this kind of service, thus bringing the costs down to a minimum.

I would say doctors will thrive or dive from their reputations. If a doctor refuses to treat a certain individual then he/she will probably need to have a good enough reason why not. Good enough, as in good enough for the majority (if not all) of their patients to accept as reasonable. If it's not considered as reasonable then this doctor will clearly lose patients. The only reason I can think that the state involves itself in forcing doctors to treat currently is because the medical associations that doctors belong to have effectively created a monopoly for themselves. With this comes an obvious problem with potential shortages, hence the need to force doctors to perform on demand.

Well I'm sorry that all happened to you and appears to still be happening even now. Personally I think you are in quite a difficult enviroment to ratiionalise what is going on. On the surface it seems that you have taken on the role of shaming yourself. Insofar as now you call yourself a hypocrite for confronting them on hitting your neice. Given your history as you described it, that would make some sense that you might now internalise your own shaming. Therapy would be my best advice from here on, since my thoughts on this would be vague at best, given the constraints in forum posting. A therapist has the best ways of uncovering these parts to ourselves On an aside this isn't to dismiss the hitting of your neice right now, which is clearly wrong. The fact that you have to ask on a forum what to do, tells me you have a great deal of ambivilence (perhaps anxiety too) around your family. Which is why I would suggest therapy. Best wishes.

Yes I can sympathise with how you feel about this. The trouble with not paying taxes is twofold, well threefold actually, as you guys have already mentioned about prison. Firstly withholding taxes never reduces govt spending, since they can get any revenue deficit from their central bank. Taxes are just a way of keeping govt spending well-oiled and keeping inflation down to a minimum. Secondly most people consider tax evaders as criminals. Whilst you and I might consider Larken to be a martyr, most people will consider him as a petty criminal or at the very least a fool for getting caught. Any way you try and cut it, paying taxes as the world stands now is really our only rational choice. I have heard of some innovative agora economies in the US which sound very interesting. But I have to say that any success they have now is because nobody really cares about it. However, if those economies flourished at all within the current climate, then you can guarantee the jackboot of the state would pounce down on them eventually. It would all be justified and the innocents will be described like all felons are described (WACO style).