MysterionMuffles

Yeah wtf...I hate having to thrust to the left

You're a true hero man. I wonder how these kids lives and thinking are to this day after what you've done for them. Most especially the ones you've actually addressed and expressed sympathy for directly rather than just dealing with their parents.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=669064303207847 Oh man...this is freaky to watch.

I'm loving this season so far for its continuity among episodes, but let's not transform this thread despite my deep desire to geek out about it.

OMG The Truth About Nikolai Tesla would be awesome! When I watched a documentary on him a few years ago, I was like Edison who?!

It's so abstract up the ass that it doesn't benefit the world in any way to solve it, let alone try to... It's another lifeboat scenario that is unlikely to happen and has no real bearing on reality or ethics in any empirical realm. Kill five people or one? Then to complicate it further, you can also add characteristics to the potential train track splatter...it's just the ultimate leading question. Who would you rather kill? Well there's your problem: youre killing no matter what, therefore evil no matter what you do. These kinds of questions are easy to construct just to distract people from more tangible moral questions. For instance, here's my own trolley problem. You are Spiderman and Dr. Octopus, with his tentacles, is holding two train carts: in one pair of tentacles, a car contains 10 people, while the other pair of tentacles holds a car containing Mary Jane. Dr. Octopus, from the top of the Brooklyn Bridge, drops these two train cars into the river below, and after a long epic battle with him, you only have strength enough to sweep in and catch one of the carts from falling into the freezing river. Hell, let's put it this way: you're the Spiderman who requires web cartridges instead of the one who has infinite web that actually comes from his wrist. Since you're out of web cartridges, you can't easily physically catch one car and then create a web to catch the other free falling car. All you have left is enough strength to go underneath one and catch with your super human strength before plumetting to a freezing death. Who do you save? Mary Jane, the love of your life OR do you save the cart of 10 civilians? Let's say these 10 civilians are just your average Joe, who would contribute nothing to the world. Easy choice, go for someone who actually matters to you. However, what if those 10 civilians are potential inventors of incredible technology or medical advances? Now you have a dilemma don't you? You don't want to let these future doctors/inventors or the 2nd coming of Christ to die because you were too selfish as to save one person who's insignificant to the world, but very much so significant in your immediate world, now do you? If you were Spiderman, who would you guys save?! scn: why is this question so important to you?

Forgive me if what I'm about to say is condescending, but I have always viewed Adam as a rebellious teenager. The protests he holds, the intentional imprisonment--it reminds me of my own youth wherein I would argue with teachers to the point of getting suspended, thinking that it made a difference beyond momentarily let them know that their power was injust. The Jefferson Hall Memoiral Dance Party was a great way to show people the ridiculousness of the law, but anything after that seemed kind of reckless. Adam and his crew intentionally breaking laws like selling lemonade, smoking weed in public in front of cops, it's just too reflective of the typical portrayal of achieving "Anarchy," the likes of which causes people to believe in the stigma that Anarchy means either violent revolution (like his cancelled loaded gun march), or some other kind of abrasive rallying and protesting. I would love to get an insight on Adam Kokesh's childhood to see what would cause him to become a soldier in the first place, and then turn tail--which I applaud him for, it must have been huge to flip the switch on his ideals like that--and now working towards exposing the idiocy of the State, while enacting some idiocy of his own.

Hm I've changed my stance a little bit since this thread was created. First of all I wanna say I forgot how amusing the reponses were to my initial comment XD more importantly I think it's immoral to watch pornography. If porn star agents and agencies are profiting from the trauma of adults with sexually dysfunctional histories, by extention, clicking on a website or buying the stuff is providing the profit for those exploiters. Contributing to an immoral industry is immoral in itself. The less people view or purchase porn, the less the monolithic industry thrives. The less it thrives, the less people could be interested in it. The more peacefully children are parented, the less likely will they resort to exposing their bodies in lewd or even minimalistic sexual acts for profit, and actually provide more value to the world than a simple hard on. Maybe I'm being Victorian, but that's not argument These are just my thoughts from a strictly puritan standpoint

It cannot be UPB for people to believe in falsehood, most especially for children.

They don't view it as traumatic because they get groomed into thinking it's an act of genuine affection, but that doesn't mean it causes trauma to the brain having experienced sexual activity before their minds and bodies have matured enough to understand what's really going on.

I was going to link this video to a certain time, but I would highly suggest you listen to the whole thing. This is one of my favourites because it has undone the illusion for me that these 8 questions really have anything to do with bettering the world.

Oh, okay! Thanks for letting me know. I guess I just haven't listened to enough podcasts off the site that would have had timestamps.

Sorry for the downvote. I was getting the impression that this was defending people's desire to molest children. Thanks for the article as I now see what The Trauma Myth is. Molestation isn't always physical force, and sometimes children are groomed for it in a way that makes them believe they are consenting to the twisted affections of pedophiles. I always understood that and I guess that's what this woman's work is really trying to convey. I'll restore your rep through your latest post which made for a quicker and more concise understanding.

I'm so happy to read this, Violet. I was really hurting listening to you talk about your experience. I hope you're finding a way through your current struggles.

Hello Kevin and James, I have a couple suggestions for FDRPodcasts.com Timestamps on Youtube, specifically for call-in shows and mailbag questions, are incredibly useful to click on when someone only wants to listen to specific topics. Is it possible for the FDR Podcasts site to have clickable timestamps that can skip through the time bar in the same fashion? Whether or not that's possible, I think it would also be worthwhile to have the timestamps listed in the description boxes. The work other members, including myself, have put into creating timestamps for old podcasts should be honoured on the official FDR podcast site. With that in mind, I was also wondering if there is a need for timestamping the recent call in shows. Thanks for your time and consideration!

I hate feeling this way, but I agreee. You only get what you give.

I was talking about criticizing such people to others, not being criticized itself as a form of connection. Yeah, exactly! I think a clear indicator on whether or not your criticisms are just is if you've either confronted that person in question about your thoughts and feelings, and whether or not your relationship has improved or ended with them afterward. Otherwise, constantly hanging around someone JUST so you can criticize them to others will fall into the category of hyper critical, and out of implicitly stating and improving standards, by showing you may not have standards if you're willing to put up with bad behaviour beyond neccessity.

I've been thinking about this idea lately; that criticizing immoral, or unempathetic people, to virtuous people is a form of cathartic connection. I've noticed this from having conversations with the community that many of us are, or have been, dissatisfied with the peer groups in our proximity--and opening up about it to each other is a way of expressing our needs and expectations of each other. Let me put forth the caveat that there are people out there who criticize, or I guess slander others, to other people for the sake of character assassination. They have no intention of fixing those relationships or improving their standards for relationships, and they just slander others because they're insecure about themselves.There's this caution you should take with hyper critical people and consider that if this is the way they talk about other people behind their backs, then you should be wary of how you may be talked about behind your back. I get totally get that. But what about when it comes to criticizing truly shitty people when you're in the pursuit of self-knowledge? I think in that case, criticizing the unempathetic, or downright evil people in our lives, to others on the same path is an implicit way of stating your standards, needs, and prefrences when it comes to relationships. You're saying, "I trust you with this information because it means a lot to me. Here are my vulnerabilities that I felt were taken for granted, or simply attacked, by people who couldn't respect me. I don't like being treated this way by them because of x, y, or z, and this is basically what it takes for me to break contact with someone. I trust you with these certain buttons I have that other people have pressed, and although I'm working on strengthening those weaknesses, I would appreciate if you would do well in not pushing those buttons." Likewise, when we talk well of other people to other virtuous people we're saying, "I like how this person is. You don't have to be anything like them, but I feel safe and secure with you that I can share my admiration of them. If you engender the qualities I speak of about them, then those are some of the reasons why I like having you around. If you don't, you have your own qualities which is why I feel I can trust you with my joy anyway." Tell me what you guys think, I'm curious!

wow so showing his wife liking it...is probably meant to throw people off into thinking it's not so bad. Spanking is enjoyable especially sexually. Now what would it look like if his son enjoyed it? What then?

yes only therapy can be therapy. Creative expression is catharsis.

thank you for not corrupting your son! he must be lucky to have a philosophical mother. What made you take on the path of peaceful parenting 16 years ago? was it from your own conscience or was there resources you came across that inspired you?

that's the best part. The family reveals a lot about why he's so shallow.

I don't know if I've mentioned this already, but love also means I prefer you over others. If you love everybody, then you love nobody, just like how if we're all special, then none of us are special. Love has to be conditional, otherwise you have no standards for virtue or treatment and will tolerate just about any bullshit maltreatment from others. This person yells at me, belittles my character, and overall doesn't help invoke positive feelings in me when I'm around them--but I love them because I have to. I've had two friends say that if love is conditional, then it isn't real love. Anybody got arguments against how unconditional love is the unreal kind? Well other than what I've already said just now? lol

Alright, I see. Even someone with a ton of self knowledge might have a sensitive reaction to big questions for whatever reason, so I can see the value in dressing them up Do You Want to be a Millionaire style. So diaz, how are things with your friend? Have you relayed this info to them?