PatrickC

Yes, it definately is quite odd. Jeffrey suggests it was a rather savvy political move to get the conversation moving in the direction of decriminalisation. That remains to be seen of course, since the media didn't really pick up on this interview much, now a month old. Maybe he is genuinely troubled by the drugs war, but hindered by the machinations of govt saw this as a covert opportunity to broach the topic perhaps. Maybe he just loved the show.

What this says about the future of the drugs war is anyones guess, but I think it's a bit of a landmark all the same. Jeffrey Tucker wrote his opinion of it here: http://tucker.liberty.me/2015/04/27/obama-interviews-david-simon-the-drug-war-gets-weird/

Well done!

We had a meet up over the weekend down in Brighton. Not sure when the next one is, but I'll keep this thread informed.

This could be way too much psycologising, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt. It seemed to me that the offended party among them was her. He was there in an attempt to defend her disagreement with Stefan. If it's the case that he is defending her from bad decisions she has made, then it's entirely plausible that he might then dissociate from his true self when discussing his mother. Hence the emotional disconnect you mentioned above. In many ways he has a lot to be concerned with regarding the number of sexual partners she has had in her past. In regards to the long term future of their relationship. But like us guys are so prone to do when faced with losing access to some pussy. We can obfuscate, minimise and dismiss those concerns. Alternatively women are prone to the claim of being different from all the other women out there. MGTOW's sardonically refer to these women as 'unicorns'. Is she a unicorn? Perhaps, but I think if I were her boyfriend I'd want to see more introspection from her and less defensivness around this topic.

This is her flawed plan for evading any culpability for being a dead beat Mom that chose her career over family.

As I recall (2010 podcast I think) an ex once contacted him and they engaged in a short conversation together. He didn't suggest that he was on 'hangout' terms with her, which would be the relationship terms Stefan would object too if you were otherwise suitored with a different partner.

Well lying per se isn't considered as violating UPB either. As we have notable exceptions, such as the classic axe murderer asking you where your wife is hiding. They would still be considered as a lacking in virtue and integrity, with all the consequential sanctions that might come with that, if they were ever to be found out or considered suspicious enough. Fraud would be considered a violation of UPB because you are lying to acquire something from a person directly as a result of your lie. To get a better idea of these parts of UPB I would check out the section on Aesthetically Preferrable Actions (APA). Hope that helps.

The only problem I have with this thesis. Is that consequently it would appear that the 'freedom' feminists have won. Females are more promiscuous than they have largely ever been in history. I certainly agree that there is a socialist agenda underpining many feminist theories and I also agree that there are feminists that want the market value for their sexuality to increase. Hence their opposition to pornography or their lobbying for increased penalties on the Johns that frequent prostitutes.

Unfortunately that moral theory doesn't work under the UPB framework, because you cannot universalise morally the act of picking something up or leaving it behind. This highlights the issue rather well with the difficulty that people often have with UPB. I have some sympathy because it took me a while too. So I don't speak from some lofty hill on the topic. Most of us have been taught morality from a subjective perspective. Often by our parents, teachers or religion. So we can tend to have these personal ethics that we pick up over the years that we can feel very strongly about. Unfortunately when it comes to UPB we often have to discard these preferred moral theories and look for the universal element in them. Having said that, this doesn't mean that our subjective preferences aren't viable or relevant. They can still have a negative outcome for those that break them. But the act of returning a wallet would be considered a 'virtuous' act as opposed to a 'moral' one. I had the misfortune of having this experience recently when I accidently left my Kindle on a shop counter when I was fumbling for change. I remember distinctly leaving it there as I recall making a mental note not to forget to pick it up. It was only when I returned home that I realised that I had indeed left it behind. When I returned the same guy at the counter claimed he hadn't seen my Kindle. I'm fairly certain he was lying partly because of his manner, but also because it had been left in such a place as it would have been unavoidable for him to have noticed it. I no longer shop there as a result of this incident and informed my local friends too who now no longer shop there either. It could be that I am wrong. But even if I was wrong, if I had been the shop keeper I would have at least taken my name and address and said that I will look out for it on their behalf. After all I had been a regular customer there. So I don't feel particularly bothered if my assertion was ever proved to be wrong. However, I cannot claim he violated UPB, because it was my act of leaving the Kindle on his counter that precipitated the events. Even insurance companies wont consider lost items as stolen items, because of the obvious problems of people deliberately leaving items in a public place as a means to making a claim for a new item.

Yes, you are conflating the use of force to mean completely accidental occurences. For instance let's say you are taking a long walk through the wilderness and you found a $20 bill. You really wouldn't have much idea of who it belonged too, so as to return it to it's owner would be nigh on impossible. You can't then equate a non action (finding something) to an action as in robbing someone (taking something by force).

Simplified in order to violate UPB you would need to use force to gain access to the wallet, penny or $20 dollar bill. If someone simply mislaid these things and a stranger was to find them and keep them they would not be violating UPB. However, the most virtuous act would be to attempt to find the owner. This may or may not be possible depending on the circumstances of course. Hope that helps.

Great conversation. Particularly around the drug enforcement and low income employment. I broadly agree with Anthony regarding the thinking of many Green party supporters. They are certainly more inclined to re-think the status quo than the average person and collectrively probably share a higher IQ than many other political party supporters. In that way they share a lot in common with UKIP supporters. Seemingly strange bedfellows at first glance. Certainly the Greens recieve a lot more public sympathy compared to UKIP, which says a lot about the prevailing political culture in Britain. However, I'm slightly skeptical of the Green leadership, as opposed to their supporters. They appear to be (marxist) wolves in sheeps clothing. However, it does seem they may have ditched their universal income policy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11383801/Greens-ditch-citizens-income-from-election-manifesto.html

Thanks. Yes, we may do an after series show as well perhaps. Anyway here is the Facebook group if you or anyone else is interested in participating or just a place to discuss the films we bring up. https://www.facebook.com/groups/philosophyfilmclub/

Yes be interesting to see how this trio could collaborate again in future perhaps.

Only Daniel could discover such a thing, when all I ever did it for was to avoid paying bus or train fares. That said, he is so right about it teaching you to listen and connect with people.

Patrick, Ady and guest Pim discuss the philosophical content of a Game of Thrones. No spoliers for the upcoming 5th Season, just a look back at the story as already told by this awesome HBO production. Many thanks to Pim for his contribution and participation.

I think you may have misunderstood me. It was me (not her) that decided to not have sex with her. It was a deep source of frustration for her as I recall. I just distinctly remember my coldness coming after making this decision when I discussed and processed the event with my therapist. Without going into much detail, I was acting out some rather unpleasent family history with her. I was reminded of (well known to this board) ex therapist Daniel Mackler. He made a very distinct choice to no longer engage in a sexual relationship with anyone and doesn't wish to raise a family. I've since heard that he has changed his mind on the sexual relationship part. He is definately someone quite easy to connect with and I'm sure he would be willing enough to explain his past and present reasons for this, which you might find helpful. http://wildtruth.net/ I'm very sorry to hear about the lonliness. In my experience these seemingly intractable situations we become accustomed too are often much easier to overcome than we first think. We are pattern making machines which can sometimes get us stuck in a rut. Partly because we are looking in the wrong direction for the solution. Stefan recently had a great analogy for this, 'when looking left or right for the solution to a problem and you can't find one, it's time to look up or down'. This caught my attention because it was something I recently discussed with a good friend of mine. Neither of us have family or wives in our lives and have decided to take on the issue of dealing with each others death, incapacitation and last will and testament. Next of kin essentially. It really brought home to us both the need for connecting with a strong partner bond. Because whilst we do have a great friendship together, some issues around becoming senile or incapacitated are probably too much to expect from either of us in the future to deal with. Also our lives, commitments and priorities are likely to change throughout our lives. So we may have to revist these commitments with each other in future. I found it a very painful experience, but a useful one to galvanise me.

Interesting Matt. Why did you think it was divisive?

Well if there is one thing I've realised living as a white guy in amongst an Indian comnmunity here in Britain for the past decade. Is that Indian guys very often get the shitty end of the stick. Insofar as being accused of the most unreasonable of traits generically, particularly by the females of their own race too.

Technically speaking having a dick wasn't our choice either. But then again I feel like a dick for pointing that out. Great to hear our Indian brothers making a stand against the ensuing feminasty apocalypse attempting to envelop us all.

Yes, I'd say so. Traumatic childhoods are much more likely within single parent or divorced households. So it seems to predispose either sex from those kinds of histories for a spray and pray reproduction strategy. Rough sex might be the preferred type of sex for the females of this strategy because it's a quick way males can signal alpha status to them perhaps. Of course this doesn't mean that all women that like a bit of rough sex all come from a traumatic history. There is propensity it seems for all women to enjoy being submissive generally when it comes to sex.

Stefan touches on this topic in this YT comment revolving around some women and their response to Fifty Shades of Grey. It's at the 7.52 region.

I think some of the reasons you may have been downvoted was because of the title of this thread and when you said: "I do not think you/Stefan knows what a MGTOW is." This would be flat out wrong of course. Stefan has listened to Sandman and others. I believe he may have even met Sandman once (but I'm not sure). I know that he has taken the time to listen to the MGTOW community quite a bit and has been quite sympathetic towards them. I personally enjoy Spetsnaz a lot. Probably the only MGTOW tuber I listen to regularly. It's true that he comes from a PTSD background which makes him the most interesting of all the exponents. Which is all the more reason for men to take the therapeutic option and try and figure out what they were doing engaging with the wrong women in the first place. I get this sense from some MGTOW. Mostly from under 40's that they feel a certain helplessness. That they are completely unable to discern between a good woman and a bad one. This reminds me of the women that complain their husband became a brutal thug once they got married. That they simply had no idea he was capable of being so and were helpless in his supposed sudden change in behaviour. That said, I get that men need to be more cautious these days. But throwing out the baby with the bath water when you haven't attempted to at least explore the possible psychological reasons for your poor choices in women would be a presumption too far. If you want to take that route then no problem. Just be honest about your reasons for not wanting to explore those areas (as Stefan suggests). I'd be much more willing to accept the choices of those kinds of MGTOW and mostly because they won't be inflicting their own issues or that of the mothers onto a future generation of children either.

First up I'm very sorry to hear how your childhood went. Heaping all that responsibility on a 6 year old is quite a shitty thing to do to your own child. I'm curious have you told your therapist about this. If so, what have they said. It does seem to be the most important question, rather than trying to find a guy who wont engage in sex with you. I know from previous relationships in which the sex became non existent from my end, a certain coldness creeped over me towards my partner after a while. To what effect this has generally I'm no expert of course. There is also a biological factor to bare in my mind when women don't engage in sex. That since they don't get the necessary testosterone they normally recieve during sex, that their sexual appetite can start to flag significantly. So you might just be experiencing some of that, if it's been a long time since you last had sex. For your sake, I think it would be worthwhile to explore the possibilities from a therapeutic and biological perspective. I myself have taken the MGTOW route for little over a year now and the lack of sex hasn't inhibited my life one bit. But my purpose is mostly an attempt to try and process my previous relationships and concentrate more on my own life without feeling this enormous pressure to quickly find a wife and girlfriend and to make sure I pick the right one eventually. One last thing 8 years in therapy sounds like a lot. Of course I'm no expert on this. I had a little under 2 years myself. Anecdotally my therapist said she rarely went over 3 years with a patient. Mostly because she recognised that if she hadn't helped them by then, that she was unlikely to help them much further after that. At least that was the feedback she was getting from her colleagues in the field. Have you been with the same therapist continuously or changed them from time to time? That said, you do seem to have your life in order in many ways already (as you mentioned). However I would try and avoid referring to yourself as 'damaged goods'. It may seem appropriate to you (given your history). But my experience tells me that you will attract all the wrong people into your life and repel all the good ones.