Jose Perez

Exactly. It would only follow if donating to FDR was the equivalent of helping the poor, or if Stef saw a certain moral duty in donating to FDR (*sigh*) which is at least not an appeal to generosity...

Both Stefan and me are talking about objectively (universally) demonstrating something, or proving; otherwise why would we speak about hypocrisy. Donations demonstrate nothing about the listener's motivation – in fact, in this world a large portion is likely to be motivated by guilt.

Stefan, at min 42:50 on this video you mistake voluntarism for generosity. If the claim is that the free market – and private property – is good then surely ads are less hypocritical than donation requests. Ads – or price – will always demonstrate the free market works, as well as the value of what is offered, which is not the case with donations. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkZqtgpH2EQ]

There have been some translation attempts that I know of, only with 'On Truth' and 'UPB'. Check out this site: fdrspanish.com i have been collaborating with the guys there and unfortunately no book has yet been finished. However, there is plenty of material there for a good introduction, especially a translation of Stef's famous article in lewrockwell.com 'Disproving the State', which I think is all anyone needs to change their minds about government. Feel free to contact me privately

Not really because "judgement is universal" – I did not say that anywhere – but because obviously the intention of the writer, and yours I suppose, is to express your preference that people not be judged a certain way, which is universal. I do not consider this intellectually honest. No, I meant that the same argument the writer uses to question the validity of "you are beautiful" can be used to question the validity of "I really enjoy looking at you", which he imagines to be foolproof when he says "who can disprove that?". Does this clarify what I said before? Yes. First, I don't see the reason for labelling "you are beautiful" as a moral judgement – morality is not about that – but I can see the connection with it being a universal judgement, etc. My opinion of that kind of judgement the writer universally prefers is that it is used to diminish the individual, their integrity and their understanding and connectedness to reality, in order to perpetuate dysfunctional relationships – especially that with oneself – and precisely to obscure individual choice and responsibility, as you say. The function of the mind is to universalize and conceptualize the world, and this is experienced as something universal regardless of the words used to express it. Responsibility and authenticity come from our ability to think and validate or invalidate our concepts and judgement according to reality – as well as from the actions that follow – not from changing the words we say. I don't see how changing the wording of these "value statements" (I would call them aesthetic) implies one is more authentic, objective or responsible, can you explain that? It seems to me the responsibility you are talking about is that of protecting the feelings of others, which is another way to say that the function of one's mind is less important than that of others'.

Hi Marc. The article is itself a judgement about behaviour, not people, and yet the writer starts saying what's "wrong" with judging in quotes. This is relativism, and doesn't say a lot of the thesis put forward. "I really enjoy looking at you", well, the same parts/child-training analysis goes for the person who says that. We are also trained to be manipulative, dissociated or to lack self knowledge. Judgement is a basic function of the mind, same as thinking and empirically validating judgement. If people - flexible as they may be - are part of reality then surely people can and should be judged for your own benefit (not that they are not being already judged anyway). I would encourage those who think this is "wrong" to look in the same way at the (childhood) reasons why it is hard for some to process external judgement, or to act upon the fact that certain judgement accurately describes and predicts the behaviour of ourselves or certain people in our lives - which is what judgement was ever for. You might even find that this causes the judgement to have to be changed!

Leave the country? Maybe you'll make news!

Morality and moralistic thinking is in the eye of the UPB breacher.

I really appreciate your decision and understand how difficult this is. My advice would be that you look at this idea of doing it "for her". If you are not doing it for yourself then I don't think it will be easy or productive. How much time has her mother spent with her since she was born? Could you write more about their relationship? What are the reasons you have decided that swapping roles will maximize Lily's benefit?

That would be: if you are hurting them by getting away from them then surely they should forgive you and be "good" people too, which does not seem to be the case. It is not apology alone that is needed, but restitution. Our feelings or unconsious knows more than what is expressed at the level of words – it knows actions. Good people don't feel they "should" apologise or even provide restitution, but feel that they cannot live with the knowledge that they have hurt someone so deeply and fundamentally, and so act to compensate in the best way possible. This is something that you will undoubtedly feel – not just process intellectually – if it is done from the right place. I think you realise that, given how you have managed to stick to honesty and just report on your feelings. I am really sorry it has to be like this for you. How do you feel otherwise? Any relief?

People have been trying to break conventions for a long time, but when that become the purpose and intention the results are, well... Self esteem and independence from social norms is certainly not easy. This compulsive simbology and extravaganza are to me a clear sign that no fundamental change has been achieved in terms of philosophy...

I am not surprised you and many have trouble reconciling beauty and virtue if you consider Dayna Martin an example. Virtue produces a completely different kind of beauty, found most often in children.

I am sorry to put it this bluntly, but I think I have made my case sufficiently and this is very good evidence you provide: - Stop thinking that discussing the effects of spanking will change anything. Abuse will get done anyway - as you can see - and not necessarily in the form of spanking. This is not just unique to your situation, and FDR does not do follow up studies on any of these cases - that I know of - buy merely publishes people's words about how good they are to their children. - Start thinking from first principles about this - not just about god and the state - and having logical conversations with the people around you about the ways in which they justify their behaviour towards yourself and the children. - Stop debating trolls. I am available and willing to chat privately if you would like to. Good luck.

I am, but I am also happy to include my own parents in there. They would certainly agree with Moncaloono that I am in debt to them for biologically producing me and not having left me to die; such is these people's degree of moral dignity.

Everyone here considers parents intelligent enough to process that spanking has bad effects, so obviously spaghetti monsters and other deities make no sense to them or produce fear in them either. Parents don't spank because of a mere utilitarian "trying to get what they want" either. Parents spank because they fear THE CHILD and his ability to reveal them as the ASSHOLES that they are.

LOL what the? who are these guys? The Mothers

Which is exactly the same as discussing the dividing line between initiation of force and self defense with statists, or the effects of government regulations... don't you just wanna do it sooo bad! []

This is definitely not a good comparison, given the child's cognitive development and overal experience of the world. Children are not "little persons" (like they are seen in old paintings) who process hand slaps and abuse in the way you seem to believe. Children will internalize abuse as self attack, and their dependency to the adults in their lives is an actual psychological experience of unity with them, not some sort of political or social landscape where they must be given "respect". All forms of abuse, conscious and unconscious result from this fundamental lack of empathy, which is very sad and unfortunate.

Well, my opinion would be that you do not make it clear enough – let alone "abundantly" – since you are not acting consistently with the immorality of the situation. They get it that you are still with them. No amount of moralizing them from a perspective of superior knowledge of whatever effects spanking has will change their minds, just like no amount of talking about the negative effects of statism does anything to convince a statist, but the complete opposite. Slapping the hand of a toddler is an action (and there is no "reasoning" behind it, but anti-reason); telling people about the science of spanking, respect for children, etc. is words. Seeing my mother slap the hand of a toddler – and rationalize it with all this effects crap – would be the end of our relationship, which would be an action on my part. You do not fight immorality with words. Stef knows that very well and advocates it with respect to sky ghosts like god and state, so why not with real life things like toddlers being slapped? Think about it.

As I have been saying, this is exactly what happens when philosophers abandon principles and go lose themselves in the Garden of Effect. I wish you guys a nice chat.

Hi xelent, this caught my attention, I hope you can clarify. What cognitive dysfunction? Are you aware of the meaning of these words? But if food is being pushed into their mouths, why is it their cognitive disfunction that causes them to throw away food they dislike?

This is like saying that leaving abusive relationships is "aggressive" and therefore hypocritical – an argument I have heard from statists and bad people countless times. I am sorry, I don't think you can evaluate the moral legitimacy of anger responses from within the family situation you describe. Granted, it's very difficult, but it is perfectly legitimate to use force to stop a child from being hit; child abuse is the greatest immorality. I really wish people would stop using arguments from effect – like what children would become when they become old – when talking to parents. It changes nothing. I understand what you say and you have all my sympathies, but the only response this father deserves at this point is your rejection and condemnation, which is the only morally consistent response within the practical constraints you have. Anything else changes nothing, as you can see.

AdamC, you make a very interesting and clever analysis (thanks for all the sources too!). However, I do not see the connection you make between avoidance of relationships and shame. You say failed relationships cause shame (universally?) can you please explain? My perception of this analysis is that it ignores much of the reality of childhood trauma and how it manifests in what you and others consider a simple biological need. I do not deny there is a mechanism of attachment, but it would not function in the ways discussed here in the case of a healthy, well-raised individual. Everyone comes out of (parent-child) relationships in which the measure for love is power - not virtue - and is fundamentally broken in their experience of attachment, so it is hard for me to see how any discussion around power in relationships has anything to do with philosophical truth - more like the same thing. I hope to be corrected if this perception is wrong. As a result of this, all women's "bitch" mechanisms are nothing but the appropriate response to the man's not virtuous or biological, but dysfunctional intentions, which are of course equally offensive - and they simply use the resources they have: shaming, passive aggression... This is not just my own musings, but something I have had to admit to myself as I process my past failed relationships and assume my share of responsibility. Maybe I completely misunderstood the point you guys are making, but it seems to me I have been one of those men most of my life, and I draw my conclusions from my own experience. It was precisely my own process of overcoming shame that revealed I had no good intentions towards my previous partners, but mainly childhood needs - which is perhaps what makes that shame legitimate.

There is more species differentiation in a strawman argument than in genes, in my opinion.