Mike Fleming

I don't know if you remember, but a couple of years ago there was a guy who videotaped himself shooting his daughter's laptop that went viral on the internet. I remember hearing about it, I couldn't bring myself to watch it at first and thinking how disgusted I was at the guy. What a complete dickhead. And basically thinking everyone would be saying the same thing. So, I got the shock of my life when I went to a forum that I frequented at the time, with people who at least to some extent thought outside the box, and saw everyone cheering him on and saying how it was great and would "teach her a lesson". There was one dissenting voice, but she was getting abused for her view. It was pretty disgusting. This was even before I personally accepted that spanking was abuse (caveat: I've never spanked anyone in my life, I just never thought much about the concept until I came here). I'm not a parent but I think that the general parenting culture, seems to be, still, quite sick to me. Which I guess kind of makes my own childhood situation seem not so unusual. But many people looking for a scientific excuse for hitting their kids as opposed to someone who says not to? My experiences of the last few years basically gel with the stats you quote above. I'm not surprised any more that pro-spanking gets exponentially more hits.

The propaganda that a lot of us men have faced in regard to the "men are useless" etc has been quite damaging to us and so I do appreciate the MRA to some extent. However, I don't fully sympathise with them and feel a lot more comfortable in the anarchist community. When you look at people like GirlWritesWhat, these are the sensible, intelligent voices of reason in the movement, who I enjoy very much listening to. But there also seems to be a lot of anger that wants to get back at feminists in many people. Kind of like the pendulum swinging one way and now it's trying to swing back too far in the opposite direction. Mens Rights doesn't seem like a philosophically based movement to me. It's basically just saying feminists took control of government but we think it should be an equal situation. But they don't, for the most part, seem to understand or care about the true nature of government. Extreme feminism would never have been a problem without government. As long as government is around, there will always be distortions in society, some more severe than others, as various groups try to take control. Saying that one group in society (in this case feminists) is the problem seems to be missing the point to me.

I agree with Ted talks having a severe drop in quality. It's been a few years now since I bothered watching them much at all, and I unsubscribed from their YouTube channel probably 2 years ago now. They still have good talks but sorting the wheat from the chaff is not worth the effort any more.

Bravo Stef. She deserved that. I think we need to be far more critical of state academics because these are the ones, for the most part, out there defending and propping up the state morally. And taking their 30 pieces of silver for it.

There are many thousands of gods described in texts from around the world, from the Hindu Gods, Viking Gods, Roman Gods, etc, etc. Please provide proof, for each of these Gods individually, showing that they don't exist. Why God almost certainly doesn't exist. Let's pretend for a moment that a highly advanced race of aliens created the universe. Let's say they wanted to play a trick on their creations and make them think that it was a "god" that created the universe. How would people know whether God was true or not? How could they see through the charade? Let's say the devil exists and he was the powerful one and he was tricking people. How would people see through that? There would be no way for us humans to know what was true or not, even if we did experience supernatural phenomena. The most simple explanation is that none of it is true. There's no way any rational person could possibly look at this situation and decide to worship God. In fact, if you look at it from a politico-economic standpoint it's clear that it is all for the benefit of the priest class. An easy way to extract resources from superstitious people. And that's why you have religions everywhere but of course they are all different. It's an easy way, in a world of scarcity, to get resources and that's why the phenomenon of religion is in all societies..

Bob's government job is paid for with tax money which is taken by force. Simple. It doesn't matter that Bob isn't doing it himself. Money is being stolen by someone and ends up in Bob's pocket. Clear violation of the NAP. If you are redefining Government then tell me what you are redefining it to. It can't be control over a geographical area because people may consent or they may not. If they don't we are back to violating the NAP. An example of a voluntary type of government that I can think of would be for a group of people to buy a few hectares and then have their own little community where they all agreed to follow a leader or council. Which is fine. I can imagine a certain percentage of people wanting this. Saying that you are in control of an area that encompasses millions of people and their property whether they want it or not? Not OK. Violation of the NAP. You can't have governments as they currently exist. It seems that you want to get to a situation where the current governments can still exist, maybe reduced or something like that, but you can't. They violate human rights. It's really simple.

Maybe because it was the Democratic Party. It's the 2 headed bird after all. As long as you don't interfere with the "democratic process" and give both parties an equal chance to share power, it's all good. Spy on anyone else? Sure. Whatever you can get away with. Just like take as much money as you can get away with. The Republicans probably look at the spying the NSA has set up as a benefit for them when they get back in the White House. It's something that benefits the government as a whole whereas the Nixon thing, afaik was purely to benefit Nixon at the expense of the Democrats hence the impeachment. Also, an easy way to get him I guess, kind of like with Clinton. I think DSA, that you are thinking too much like government is legitimate and for the people. Look at it in the context of being a criminal protection racket and it's a bit easier to understand.

Of course a government violates the NAP. How does the government fund itself? What does it do to people who don't do what it says? If you are referring to a group of people that decide, voluntarily, that they are going to follow the instructions of someone or group that is fine. But that is nothing to do with governments as we know them. I'm not a parent so I can't speak to parenting. I do know that as an adult no-one has the right to control me in any way whatsoever. Regardless of constitutions or majority rules or other bullshit excuses. The only reason I do what they want is because they will point a gun at me if I don't and lock me in a cage or shoot me if I resist enough. They are thugs, but they have the guns. Basically, if you as an adult, want a mommy or daddy substitute to look after you, that's fine, go right ahead. Just don't impose it on the rest of us and make an analogy to parenting to make it seem OK.

Whatever, same thing to me. VP and ZM are as irrational as each other. Both go on about RBE nonsense. Your "all" statement has been debunked, now you are shifting the goalposts. I can't be bothered any more. I'm sick of having to press the "view it anyway" button because of your poor reputation just to see that my argument isn't addressed. Not well received in a community of rationally, skeptic thinkers? I think it says more about you than it does about us.

No, I am saying that government, as it is defined in our world, DOES violate the NAP. It MUST violate the NAP or it couldn't exist. If someone can show a form of government that wouldn't violate the NAP, then put forth their theory of how that would work. But government as it currently exists, in all places around earth, is a violation of human rights. No human has rights above any other. No human has the right to aggress toward any other human. There is no such necessity for parents to violate the NAP. Some do, some don't.

I saw a debate between him and Sam Harris where they were debating morals, and in particular, Harris's view of morality and he walked all over Sam Harris and deservedly so. But when it comes to religion, he is a hack and nothing more. He tries to tie people up in words so they don't have a clue what he is talking about and just think "wow, this guy is smart". He does have some intelligence but his religious views are contradictory and without evidence. So like I said, he's just a hack and not worth the time imo. He should know better to not make the arguments that he does. Either he truly doesn't know that his arguments don't make sense or he is deceitful. Either way he's not worth it.

That's funny coming from a zeigeister. OK, great, you pick some arbitrary moment in time and then say all technology was based on what was created then. What about all the science from past decades and centuries that that science was built on top of? We stand on the shoulders of giants. It wasn't the case that suddenly the government jumped in and started funding things where before there was nothing.

That's the same for me. It was a gateway only. He had the public persona to lure people in, but he doesn't go far enough and I don't find him satisfying ultimately. It would be curious to find out what percentage of FDRer's are here because of him initially. It must be reasonably high. He has his place in the overall movement. Thanks for posting that. He sounds like he's where I was a few years ago. He says he just doesn't know how it could work but he's also said that he is much closer to it than he was decades ago. I don't think he's stubborn on the idea of government by any means, in fact, he sounds reluctant when he says that he thinks government is probably necessary and that he would like to endorse An-Cap but doesn't feel like he responsibly can. That's my take.

Show them this page of podcasts. http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadio and just say "take a look through them and see if there are any subjects that interest you". I can't imagine there is anyone in the world who could look through that list and not find at least one thing that they would find intriguing and if they are it is a simple matter to download to their player of choice and have a listen.

I'm speculating, but it's a way to make yourself feel good (or not so bad), to hide the feelings of hurt inside. The narc makes others feel worse than them so that they don't feel so bad about themselves. They are constantly looking for faults in others and making themselves seem perfect in comparison. Amongst other adults it's not that bad, but for a child of a narc parent, constantly having your errors and faults pointed out, and being made to feel bad over any mistake that you make can be devastating. The cycle then often begins anew when that child becomes a parent.

I'm getting Zeitgeist flashbacks from this thread. Ah ha! The free market can't fund science, therefore central planning! Venus Project FTW! You are going to have to prove the "all" part of this statement. But regardless, I admit that many technologies have come from the military. Not surprising when you see the colossal amount of money poured into the military. If we compare it to what the market can develop with generally much less money, I think we were majorly ripped off. Just imagine how much could have been developed were that money in the free market instead. Not to mention all the lives that wouldn't be killed. Plus, all the resources wasted on aircraft carriers, advanced planes, subs, nukes, bombs, etc that could be used to make actual useful things.

They lie. It's as simple as that. Continually, consistently. And the BBC wonders why we don't trust them????? People in the mass media don't seem to like using their brains much. Democracy is destroying itself. It was a fraud from the start. That it works was just a mass delusion.

I heard Stef talking about this and was curious as to what the calculations are for YouTube videos. Is it a certain amount per 1000 views? Or is it more complex than that? I saw someone mention you get $4 per 1000 views but I have no idea if it is correct or not.

It's why price fixing is such a bad thing. In most nations with big governments, price fixing is rife throughout the economy. In a price fixing situation you are removing important information from the price which leads to people making bad decisions, just as anyone with bad information, that they think is good, will end up making bad decisions. It's particularly true with interest rates. Fixing interest rates at politically convenient levels has led to property bubbles in many nations which lead to bloated bank balance sheets (and correspondingly rich bankers) and then credit crunch and then full-blown financial crises as eventually societies debts overwhelm them and they can't pay their debts to the banks. The huge debts to the banks should not have occurred in the first place.

You can have a parental situation that does not violate the non-aggression principle. The children can be free to leave at any age if they want. In practice very few do until they reach the age of 18 or so. But it is a possibility. Some children have such bad homes that they run away. If you can describe a government that also does not violate the non-aggression principle, then I would be willing to listen. As children make the transition to adults they don't need parental care for the most part, and most choose not to have it. There is no such choice with the government as it currently stands. But like I said, I would be happy to listen to a concept of the government which does not violate the NAP. None of the current ones fit that mould.

I'm same, I can get argumentative and slightly abusive as well. It's just so easy a mode to slip into. I really have to practice not doing it. And at the moment, whenever a debate even begins to approach that stage I just have to walk away from the thread (figuratively speaking) and just not look at it any more. Because I know my hackles will raise and I'll get too worked up about it and feel I need to "win" the argument.

For me, an attack on what I believed is often felt by myself as an attack on me. My fight-or-flight kicks in at that point and I'm not thinking rationally anymore, just ready to defend my beliefs (and thereby myself). I'm one of those people who has a heightened fof mechanism due to all the psychological attacks suffered through my childhood. Even now it is hard to control, and I do have the urge sometimes to attack others beliefs, basically as a way of pre-emptively defending myself. This is one of the reasons I don't do youtube much. It becomes too stressful for me and knocks me back into old patterns. I'm still practising but it is the people who can talk calmly and rationally who were able to steer me away from my bad beliefs and the knee-jerk reaction I had to defend them. Those who derided or directly attacked my beliefs were largely just ignored by me.

As for the military commanders and other leaders etc, haven't we determined that following orders is not an excuse? When I was young and at the bottom rung of the ladder at an IT company I remember very specifically a day I was told to do something immoral and probably illegal by both a manager and a director and I said no to both. Everybody owns their own actions. If a leader says to do something that is wrong and the follower does it, then both are culpable. As Stef likes to say we are all told as children what is moral. We all know it. Then we grow up and find out that the adults who told us these things are usually immoral.

I don't want to put women all in one basket. I hate collectivising anyone. I think though, that one of the problems women face in this regard is that they are just as propagandised as we men. They are subject to the bad traditions being rammed down their throats also. Many of them will never have even thought about these issues because they simply haven't come across them. I think there is more incentive, in general, for men to seek out the truth because they have been mostly the ones on the receiving end of the bad effects. Maybe we need to give women more credit. I think many just need to be helped to understand the truths of society. If a woman feels that it will help them understand their partner, and if understanding their partner is something they are interested in doing, I think they have the potential to come to these truths. It's not true of all women of course, some are just too far gone. Just as some men are. But I think it is all to do with incentives at the end of the day. If a man shows consideration towards his partner's thoughts and feelings, surely that gives her more incentive to do the same? Love is a two-way street. EDIT TO ADD; I also think men need to talk more about these things with their partners and society in general. Women out there need to see these ideas, so that they have a chance to think about them and talk about them. Keeping silent about truths has always aided the propagation of bad ideas.

That was the same in my family. Mother's feelings were all important, but that's just narcissism. My mother is that way because she wasn't loved as a child and basically has never been loved. She is starving for affection, but unable to truly give any in return. A great blog about narcissistic mothers is http://narcissists-suck.blogspot.com.au/2008/06/best-of-posts-on-narcissists-suck.html I believe feminism is just basically the outgrowth and excuse for this widespread narcissistic female behaviour in society. Saying that a female can reverse that role as an adult? Maybe I'm reading it wrong but to me that just says they can then repeat the pattern of their childhood. Now they get to be the mother who's feelings are all that matter. I would suggest that it takes a lot of self-work for that not to happen and for the pattern not to repeat. Especially in a culture which encourages and excuses such bad behaviour.