cynicist
-
Posts
917 -
Joined
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by cynicist
-
-
I saw some good things in this video:
Hey thanks, that was really interesting. (although I have to admit, the voice was surprising)
-
That's pretty awful. If that kind of violence is possible then I'd say that the situation warrants an escape asap. Your mother being so self-absorbed and unconcerned with the stress that YOU are experiencing must be equally horrible. I'm not in your area but I wish you luck in finding a safe haven. Is your girlfriend unable to assist you?
-
Does he consider physics or logic to also be 'begging the question'? Morality is defined as objective. Whether it is valid or not is debatable (for the layman), but there is no such thing as subjective morality. It's contradictory, if 'morality' were subjective then it would be called opinion instead. I doubt your friend would accept that though, since it doesn't seem like he has thought much about it but is certain about the answers. (certain enough to call your argument fallacious I mean)
-
"The only part of you that that hurts when the truth comes to you is the part of you that lives on lies."
"Vampires really don't like sunlight. Fuck 'em. Burn 'em. Light has to come in."
-
I noticed the same thing as Aaron. You've talked about some of the more intellectual topics like financial policy/the state, but have you mentioned anything about the family yet? Or if he has been introduced to some of the ideas around the family that we talk about here, how did he respond?
Easing him into it by starting with the abstract stuff is a smart move, but he may not be able to go very far in that direction if he has emotional blocks from his history.
(Congrats on joining the forums btw!
I too, lurked for quite some time before posting and, contrary to what matrix posted, think that act in itself can constitute a commitment to the ideas.) -
I would also keep if mind that cats could potentially be very dangerous to a 6 year old girl, if they were to start behaving aggressively (which doesn't seem to be the case, but sometimes you can't predict these things accurately)
Depends on how you treat the cats.
-
I'm not a parent or anything so the grain of salt idea applies here, but my first thought was, "Does it happen often?". It sounds like you suspect it has more to do with being in an unfamiliar (new) house rather than the cats (or their toys), since that is something different. I think being cautious is probably a good instinct, but unless it becomes frequent I think it's probably a good idea to let it happen so that she can feel secure even while she is afraid.
If it becomes common enough (no rule besides your judgment here) then you might want to take a different approach.
-
What I also did not do is accuse James of being manipulative. I told him that what he said struck me as if it were manipulative. I didn't phrase that as an accusation because I accept my own capacity for error. What I did do is express the discomfort I felt. I was also open with how *I* felt as if I was a damned if I do damned if I don't because I could either let him control the narrative, claiming it was a problem, or I could respond as if I was the crazy guy getting bent out of shape over nothing. As far as I understand it, this is an example of RTR.
Accusing someone of being manipulative and saying that their words "struck you" as if they were manipulative (aka you "felt" they were manipulative) is the same thing. Expressing feelings of discomfort would be saying something like "I felt hurt when you said that". You actually never once mentioned your feelings in this entire thread, instead you chose to mention what you thought was occurring to you or what you thought others were doing in the thread. (ex. 'marginalized', 'alienated', 'manipulated', 'shame me', etc)
-
I don't understand why a forum dedicated to Men's Issues in particular is automatically denigrating women, or how it is 'unphilosophical' in any way. Stefan talks about men's rights on his show more because feminism is pretty well explored everywhere else, why wouldn't the same principle apply here? I think the current title/description is great but the fact that this turned into an 'issue' is very strange.
-
Nice song that includes the guitar rift from Diablo 2.
-
The definition of "idea" offered is flawed. To exist in the real world is to have matter and energy. While the brain certainly has that, the mind that it contains does not. Therefore the phrase "exists in the mind" is internally inconsistent. Is this logically sound?
The mind doesn't exist independently of the brain.
-
Here is a pretty awesome development. Google is working on a javascript implementation of OpenPGP encryption. In other words, you'll have easy to use encryption from a browser addon for Chrome that works with any webmail provider. It's not ready for public consumption yet but I can't wait to try it out myself when it is available.
-
I gave a presentation on Finnish black metal as a task for my course and listened the first quarter of the year quite intensively extreme metal. Sargeist finally made a perfect album:
Oh man no joke, that is pretty intense. I used to be into melodic death metal when I was younger, stuff like In Flames / Disarmonia Mundi, and though a part of me still enjoys them the music comes across a lot harsher to my ears than it used to.
Last month I've been discovering electronic music since I wanted something hugely new. Digitally Imported has been a great guide to different genres.
My favorite part about electronic music is how varied everything is, and it's only becoming more and more distinct. It's funny to me that I can love certain subgenres like dubstep but not like things like the majority of trance for example. Since this has been my addiction as far as music goes, I'd be particularly interested if you came back with some ideas of what you like in the genre, and share some of the music here
Lana Del Rey remix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZEelDbdzOs
I usually hate "trap" style dubstep but this one is pretty catchy.
-
I said, "If your only objective is to have an obedient, well mannered and easily controlled child, physical discipline is a viable option."
All other considerations aside, do you disagree?
Yeah I think it comes down to how you define work/success. If your goal is immediate compliance it will work but outside of that I'd have to disagree with you. Just look at the stereotypical example of a rebellious teenager. Even as a child, recurrence is common as James pointed out above. If what you said were true, (that it caused you to be well mannered and obedient) then you would never be spanked more than once for each rule you broke, since the spanking should have 'corrected' the behavior. You could even argue that you should never have been spanked more than once, since if breaking one of your parent's rules caused the spanking then you should have learned quickly afterwards what the consequences would be if you did it again.
So given that parents spank their children on average somewhere around 18 times a week, they can't use the justification that they are teaching their children obedience since the evidence demonstrates the contrary.
-
I would say statists, because they are convinced that they're rational, whereas the religious will tell you up-front that their whole belief system defies reason.
That's funny, I had the same reasoning but the opposite choice.
-
The reason why I insist on hearing an answer to my questions pertaining to Genesis 1 was specifically to demonstrate, that, in Christianity, present human condition, including the possibility of eternal damnation, is not God's creation, but a consequence of free human choice, made without duress, without coercion. Basically, God didn't "create hell", humans did - it's entirely a consequence of their free choice and free action.
You say that going to hell is simply the consequence of free choices, but who created hell and the rules that govern who goes there? The equivalent in human terms would be if I gave birth to a child and raised them in my house, and then said that any time I spanked my child it was entirely their choice to be spanked since they were aware of the rules and their consequences. If I'm the parent, then I'm deciding what the rules are and the consequences for breaking them. Without my involvement there would be no spanking at all.
If there is a god and he is all powerful, then as the creator of the world and the conditions that we live under, he would be completely responsible for what happens in it. All of the positive and all of the negative. It would be well within his power to stop death, disease, decay, child abuse, rape, murder, etc. What is the point of creating free choice for humans and this tree with 'forbidden fruit', as well as a serpent to tempt them, besides as a sick sort of game?
If I left a frying pan on a heated stove where my child could access it, and told them not to touch it, do we consider it the fault of the child or the parent if the child is burned? The parent obviously, since not only did they create the conditions for that situation to occur, but they also had greater knowledge and power than the child could ever have. (this isn't even comparable to god, since he would have the ultimate in both knowledge and power relative to human beings, and limitless responsibility as a result)
This is the knowledge that all christians must hide or ignore, if they want to continue to believe that the god they worship is benevolent.
-
"Capitalist competition is a win-lose principle." - This follows logically from the definition of capitalism I gave unless the basis of exchange is infinite. So let's say we all play a game where we start out with 10 beans and try to maximize our capital (the beans we can use to grow plants) by swapping beans for other stuff. We have a finite number of beans, and we all want to get the most beans possible, so unless we decide beforehand to share the beans equally (in which case we are no longer capitalists because we are no longer trying to maximize our capital), we will end up with an unequal bean share. If there are infinite beans, the situation changes, and this is exactly why fiat currency is bad. Fiat currency (money with no tangible basis of value) can be produced ad infinitum, and when there is infinite money (or infinite beans), everyone could theoretically have as many as they wanted, but then there is no way to make truffles cost more than peanuts. On an infinite scale, 1 is approximately the same as 1 million. This is how hyperinflation works.
So why is it bad that some people have more beans than others? It's not automatically bad. It's only bad if two things are true:
1. Getting beans is required for survival.
2. You believe, due to your upbringing and culture, that you are inferior to people who have more beans than you.
The depth of your responses is refreshing. I just want to challenge this one point since I know you are getting swarmed by us hehe. I read your definition of capitalism and maybe I just missed it but I'm not seeing how it logically follows that it is win-lose. There are indeed a finite amount of beans at any given moment, but remember that the way people earn more beans is by providing value to others. So the people who provide the most value get the most beans. The inequality is actually a good thing, since it reflects the fact that people contribute different amounts relative to others. (not everyone wants to devote their life to building a company vs something like raising a family)
This obviously gets distorted through government intervention through patents and various other forms of coercive monopoly as well as tax law that the rich can use lawyers to find loopholes for, while everyone else carries the burden. (you already mentioned fiat currency, which disproportionately harms the poor) Without government intervention you could actually have a level playing field, a meritocracy.
-
But capitalist competition is a win-lose principle.
How is that the case? Is that what you meant with your factory example?
-
That aspect of the plot is similar to the one in Land Before Time, which Rodger wrote about as being his favourite movie as a child, when the Dinosaur loses his mother. That seems to be a common theme, the loss of the mother, perhaps the divorce and the sudden introduction of the fathers girlfriend contributed to that? It really struck me in his manifesto how neglected he was, how he was left to try to figure out issues he was having without any parental guidance or adult experience to learn from.
I agree and I remember that movie from my own childhood. I think it's also him pining for the caring mother that he never had, since he still had access to his biological mother after the divorce.
-
While watching the video I had the impression that I was watching a scene from a Hollywood movie. It wouldn't surprise me if, in a way, the guy was so high on SSRI's and stuff, that he thought he was playing a part.
In any case, there's one part I recognized from an actual movie. When he says "they're animals, and I'll slaughter them like animals" it's almost word-for-word from a line that Anakin makes in Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, which came out in 2002 when this guy was 10.
And that "evil" fake laughter he kept making was ridiculous. It seemed like something copied out of a kids cartoon villain.
Wow fantastic point. I had the same sense of him faking (that laughter really was ridiculous) but I couldn't figure this part out at the time. I knew his quote about slaughtering them like animals sounded familiar... In the movie, Anakin is distraught about his mother dying at the hands of the sand people, and at that time he is both in tears and full of rage. The similarity is eerie.
-
Thank you for your input. I actually had a longer response typed out talking about how this isn't accurate or constructive, and how that contrasts with prescribing giving somebody a break, which shouldn't apply differently based on tenure on one forum. However, I'm well aware of how easily I get goaded by appeals to insecurity and need to work on this. Suffice it to say that calling something X doesn't make it so and there is a difference between initiating and responding. I've reviewed the thread a couple times now and I responded to attacks with assertiveness and curiosity, not passive-aggressiveness. Even here, where you make an accusation with no substantiation and no effort to actually help, I'm thankful for the opportunity.
I quoted two examples, and there were certainly more than that. You repeatedly implied things about the OP and his ability to be a competent parent, which isn't exactly encouraging or empathetic. I'm not giving you a break because you should know better, being so familiar with philosophy and participating on the boards for so much longer than him. Personally I think it's kind of insulting to have to point out where you are being passive-aggressive, since you're an intelligent fellow, but since you are claiming to only be assertive/curious in this thread I'm going to show you one below.
Where I was coming from is that the State is immoral is a fairly easy one. To not have views not fully formed or be willing to dispense with the moral consideration for utility's sake is poor methodology. I'm urging you to sort that one out before your child is old enough to understand that daddy missed an easy one.
This is just obviously condescending. The state is immoral is easy to grasp. You haven't grasped it. Better get on that before your kid realizes you failed to do something that is easy and looks down on you for it.
You live a life where you meet all of your goals without initiating the use of force against others, but are uncertain if an absence of coercion is possible in the real world? So just in case, we should have institutionalized, pseudo-legitimate coercion?
Did you really accept it immediately? If so that's seriously impressive. It took me a while just to understand the ideas and get passed some of the emotional hurdles I had, so when this guy doesn't just accept anarchy straight away (and given it's popular connotation, that's not unreasonable) it would be more empathetic to realize that it's a very strange idea to the majority of people and goes counter to what they've been told for most of their lives. Keep in mind he never said it was a ridiculous or crazy idea, just that he doesn't quite see how it could work. Rather than imply that he prefers the coercion of others to placate his fears, why not suggest Stefan's book Practical Anarchy? (which goes into detail on some of the more common concerns)
Even here, where you make an accusation with no substantiation and no effort to actually help, I'm thankful for the opportunity.
You're still doing it.
-
Welcome to the forums Wiltin.
I got the sense that you've come a long way from your first post. I mean being baptized at 19 and dropping out at 20? I can't imagine what you were going through during that period of time. I stopped doing any serious catholicking when I was around 12 or so and only went to church after being reluctantly guilted by my mother for a few more years before I stopped anything to do with religion. (although it was a long while before I became atheist) You are lucky to have found a person that is positive and committed to raising children without using violence. I also think that you mentioning Alfie Kohn is a good sign that you are on the right path when it comes to parenting. (not that I'm an expert :s)
It's unfortunate that this thread took a turn onto a passive-aggressive route but one thing to keep in mind is that we all make mistakes, and even on a forum dedicated to introspection you can have all the same behaviors you see elsewhere on the internet, even if the caliber of person here is higher than the average. The fact that you didn't leave immediately after one unpleasant interaction says a lot to me.
Some people aren't aware of the amount of effort they put into escaping the truth. Resistance was provided to make it more evident since to be aware is to be accountable. For me, this has been about your child. I'd like for you to benefit as well, but that is secondary. To not even be curious as to the potentiality of harming your child is truly frightening. I thank you for supporting the show and hope your are able to get more out of it, for your child's sake.
Take your lack of political views for example. Any imprecision you do not make an effort to correct is one you will pass onto your child. This is a strike against their chance at success if they're not taught rational thought and moral importance.
Oh come on, give him a break. You don't know how long he has been listening for, he has admitted he's not very political and therefore doesn't have a lot of interest in it, and he and his wife have committed to not spanking their child. I mean he even agrees that the public sector is parasitical! That amount of change and improvement is beyond what most people are capable of. Perfection is the enemy of the good, and I think as long as he keeps listening and is open to the arguments he may eventually come to the same conclusions as you, but chastising him for not conforming immediately is not the right way to introduce people to the conversation.
Both of you were passive-aggressive here, but you aren't new to the forums. Your responses make it sound like you are debating an evasive troll...
-
If you haven't read RTR I'd recommend doing that before continuing the conversation with her. If you talk about this stuff in the abstract or using logical arguments you aren't going to get anywhere. Naturally, she feels like you are attacking her when you talk about god not existing, so an important thing to do is get her talking about her feelings. When she begins to throw counterarguments or attacks at you, ask her how what you said made her feel. Ideally, that will take her out of the tunnel-vision attack mode and have her start thinking about what is going on for her emotionally, and just as importantly, where those emotions originated.
As long as she is consumed with defending herself and her beliefs, there is no way you are going to get through and reach her. You have to slow the conversation down and create a more curious environment in order for her to think about these things rationally rather than emotionally react based on her history with her family. I'd also recommend following jnyl42's advice and calling into the show, maybe even as a couple depending on how open your wife is to the idea.
-
Apparently the last attack in that community was 13 years ago by a guy named David Attias, whose father also happens to work as a movie director...
What are you listening to right now?
in Miscellaneous
Posted
Here's something fun and energetic, with drums/bass/sax.