MysterionMuffles

I'm sorry to hear that. What is it about the show that alarms you when you think and consider that grown men are giant fans of it? But I hear ya, I wonder about alternate communities like when I watch Dora the Explorer with my niece. I wonder if there's an adult fandom for it somewhere, but it would be reasonably less plausibility.

for the over stimulated people out there, there needs to be more Stef messages with music and visuals backing them up. I think it increases its power.

I found it exciting that Peter had a revenge fantasy to carry out because his own mother died of cancer, due to being part of a cult that rejected modern medicine. Then found it even more interesting that not only did he want to take Maggie down, there were moments where he wanted her to replace his lack of a mother. The entire premise of course was great that they were almost getting brainwashed into something they wanted to remain objective on.

lol woooow that was quite obssessive and impressive.

I thouroughly enjoyed this movie, I thought it was a better take on any romantic dramedy out there right now. Like a more realistic approach to relationships, especially with people who have mentally clinical dysfunctions. The cinematography was great like the scene where Pat was freaking out near a theatre that had a traumatizing song playing, and Tiffany was assuring him to ignore the song. You can hear the soundtrack of it lower in volume gradually as he calmed down. I thought they did a pretty good job tying up the subplots together and showing the wit of Tiffany when she proposed a certain compromise with Pat's father (dont wanna give away too much). I dunno, I don't think I found too much of a problem with this movie. It was well written, the characters were believable, and the ending seemed a little...I dunno. I just didn't like how uninvolved Pat's ex-wife was in the whole thing. She played a huge part in his depression, but we never got any glimpse to who she really was other than a cheater. And at the end where he whispers something in her ear before going off to chase after Tiffany, I kinda wish there was a brief but concisely defining conversation of letting go between them instead of being silenced through the music. The book (iirc it's based off one) might provide a deeper exploration of those things I felt missing, but again, other than that, all round good movie.

yup, the covering such a broad amount of topics is what I think makes this community so awesome.

hmm...now I understand why this topic became off limits. Determinists only prove determinism by their own determinism to remain determinists, while whoever argues free will proves both to be nearly true.

Interesting concept, to its credit. But if crime is only legal for one night, then that means this movie puts the argument that we are all inherently vicious beings. Crime cannot possibly be at an all time low just because it's made legal for one night a year. There would be no such thing as sociopaths waiting for that one year only because many of them would crack and want to act out during the year. Why put up with competition of who can commit the most outrageous crime when it's all happening in one night?

As a kid, I took that message whole heartedly. I used to believe that because of my DNA connection with these people, I HAD to love them, but I didn't have to like them. Which in itself was a strange dichotomy. Basically I didn't like anything about certain family members, but I convinced myself that I still love them. In hindsight, that was quite brainwashing as it makes no sense. It's a squared circle argument. Liking someone is a prerequisite to loving them. Whether the writers intended on that concept of loving which you do not like was supposed to be social commentary, or they really meant it as a genuine sentiment, I think it should be taken with the grainiest grains of salt. And yes, Family Guy was hilarious when it first came out, and oh boy did I wish for it to return. It was STILL pretty good when it got renewed many years later, but it eventually became a self refrencing onslaught of obscure TV references (that you wouldnt understand unless you've watched endless of hours of TV for the past century) and just a bunch of cut away gags that had nothing to do with anything. I am disappoint.

Perfectly astounding!

Typical political persuasion. There is something alluring to his way of his words that makes you feel safe and secure, but too bad it's all just a crock. I mean I commend him for sort of appealing to people's scepticism by saying we shouldn't want to put all our faith in the government to solve our problems...but come on. He knows too many people are onto him and the rest of the system, hence he has to make such a finely made point that just doesn't excuse the evil at the core of his rule. What an arousing way to lure people in by giving them the illusion that "we are all in this together" mentality. It's far too obvious that democracy is a lie, the Electorial College pretty much exposes the uselessness of voting and...*KABOOM!!!* My head asplode. I am just impressed by this, yet also sickened.

It's so weird, I've never personally met you, but watching this made my jaw drop to the floor and my heart feel heavy with sorrow. Maybe because you've become such a familiar voice in my head who has taught me the most thus far and how much more enlightened I've become since I've started listening to your podcasts. The possibility of never hearing anything new from you again is an inevitable one since many years will pass, and obviously I'm not going to say that that day might come sooner, but it is what I felt at first. Of course, you still seem relatively healthy and happy and I think it's unfair to be this sad for someone I've never met in person, let alone someone who has taken it all in stride much more than any other person could. So for that, I am thankful that you've decided to push onward and continue the spread of philosophy despite (or in spite) of this. So if you're this happy still, I will be too since the cancer hasn't affected you too drastically. I know you'll research the hell out of this like you would with the topics discussed here at FDR, and hope that you find a cure. I look forward to the day you update us with the remission of the cancer and that we can find comfort in the reaffirmed certainty that you will keep up the good work!!!

Thanks. Question to anyone: do you think it'd be a fair and wise to make this proposition to my mom? Instead of arguing with each other about what I should be or not, let's just let our Sunday rituals speak for themselves. Obviously she goes to church, and I stay home to listen to the call in show. I want to start quizzing her on what the Bible passage the sermon was based on, and how the priest interpreted it. Basically see what she learned in church that Sunday, something she should've done with me if she wanted me to really care about it. Then on the flipside, I will tell her about one or all of the conversations had on the Sunday call in show, and what I have learned.

The people I've been arguing with on Facebook, as well the article, say that the guy is basically a 19 year old baby with a 2 year old brain. Now, don't tell me if this is an insult to the education system, but is he not wearing a graduation gown? Does that not account to some degree of intelligence to comprehend concepts taught in school? Because from what I recall, the special needs kids in my high school were there looong before me and some of them are still there long after I've graduated. Only the select few who have demonstrated a competent level of indoctrinated education become free to find simple jobs to undertake.

Hey thanks, that was a very good article. I can see how it is entirely centered around practicing presence and self awareness. It may not be enough, but it helps tremendously to stay in the moment and become aware of your feelings when troublesome situations occur with a child. I liked the idea presented in the article that some reactions may be based on our own inner children, and thus should be tended as well in order for our children to even become empathic with ourselves. Because if we don't have empathy for ourselves, we cannot generate it from other people and from kids.

Hey everybody, George Stromboloupoulos posted on Facebook this article about parents who have abandoned their autistic son. To sum it up, these parents have tried for years to get government support and they failed to properly jump through beuracratic hoops (surprise surprise!) in order to receive any extra money and services that could help them out. They got fed up with him, as I would imagine taking care of a child with autism to present extra challenges than that of a "normal" child, and were becoming unhealthy mentally, physically and emotionally in the process. Under the Facebook comments, I stated that it was inherently immoral for the parents to do what they did, and any dysfunction this man would have at the age of 19 would be due to their failure to teach him otherwise in all the time that they had him in their care. As you could predict, I got attacked (though not too agressively which I am thankful for) for being on the moral high ground out of arrogance and that I wouldn't know what it's like until I was in that situation. My rebuttal? I accepted that there would be challenges, but I wouldn't find it in my heart to abandon someone who is that dependant on me and I would have spent most of his childhood on instructing him to become self sufficient to the degree he can handle. I also argued that it would take a lot of self knowledge and self care as a parent to not lose their head, and live their own lives once in a while so that the care of this child would not be so tedious as they make it out to be. They are right to some degree, since I do lack some patience in my self, but since I'm a caregiver all week long for an elder, and a babysitter on the weekends, I think any situation that calls for patience would inevitably TEACH patience if one is open to the idea. I will post a screenshot of my debate with people on Facebook later since I don't want to overwhelm you guys with too much reading material (as you can see in the two other board topics I linked to []), and in the meantime would love to read your thoughts first.

Pretty excited because I thought, "oh that makes it a lot easier." And she did compare to herself to a friend of hers (who I've had the hots for for a while) and how much more hardcore she was with Christianity. I won't provide the details, but my friend told me some horrible things that has happened with her, and her friend that I'm attracted to told her to just summon God's forgiveness, when she knows for a fact that it doesn't work that easy. At that point my attraction level for her friend went way down lol. I sent her two videos after our hang out: Story of Our Unenslavement and God is the Fear of Others, and a week later she strongly agreed with how fear based religion is. I asked her what she thought about them, that was her answer, as to how she felt about it, she said that she has a lot of questions she wants to ask without being judged. She feels that if she brought them up, she would be branded as a rebel. So I can see the social ramifications clearly if she were to be open about her sceptisicm. I suppose her agreements were genuine, and there's just a part of me that may have been looking for a reasonable challenge in a debate. If there was a disingenious agreement, then...I dunno what to make of it since she already is on the same page as me for the most part.

Yeah you're right, there's only so much meditation and mere presence can do. While at the time, a lot of my problems were self created within my own mind, and The Power of Now helped me break from that cycle. It allowed me to be present during mundane tasks, but I think that's all it really is geared to. Dysfunction IS caused from over thinking, but even if you are quite present, there's always an amount of past trauma you may not even fixate on so much, yet certain instances can bring those responses up. Eckhart does say that thinking can be more productive if you left in the space for total awareness to enter first and I suppose there's merit to that. But at the same time, I think it's too simplistic to just meditate feelings away. I can't remember if he ever said anything about owning your feelings. He does say to detach from negative ones because they are just built from self storytelling, but I would argue that you need to allow yourself to feel those feelings to understand them, rather than just un-think it away. I may be taking his message the wrong way, or maybe there are some fundamental flaws to it. Either way, when receiving any sort of "help" from an outer source, I do retain some scepticism. Like I said earlier in the post, I feel like I have outgrown Eckhart and Deepak. And oh, I did get to watch their dialogue tonight. It didn't take me back to any nostalgic time in my life where I needed their message the most, and I was present watching the first hour and 15 minutes of it, for the most part. Though one thing made me lost absolute interest because the format of the dialogue was just Deepak reading off Facebook questions (so far) and for Eckhart to answer with his insight, and then to add his own two cents. Lol I am fulfilling Eckhart's point on expectations causing dysfunction, but I did expect an ACTUAL dialogue between the two to discuss spirituality, instead of just rehashing each other's answers to people's questions. And another thing that bothered me a lot was this: there was a Facebook question from a woman whose paintings were inspired by the love she had with her husband, but then her husband betrayed her and she has lost all motivation to paint again--and that she feels all that previous artwork is a waste. Eckhart's response was a little...non-answery, and it didn't help that he made a joke about something sensitive by saying "well your husband after all is a human...I would assuuume," blah blah blah, "he is prone to error. He is just that: a human...and a being..." and ah I can't remember. He was trying to formulate an answer, but at its core it was just about the woman finding it in her heart to forgive her husband. That the betrayal is just a story that she tells her self...he didn't even touch base again about the painting aspect of her question. I would've said something along the lines of, "just because your first muse has ceased to inspire you, it doesn't mean you can find a new one and paint again. At the same time you can't rely on an external source to instill presence within you that would possess you to paint to your heart's content." Or something to that effect. I dunno, it was interesting to watch (and maybe the dialogue becomes an actual dialogue instead of a riff raff off eachother), but so far it's either nothing new to me or something that conflicts with my current set of knowledge. EDIT: Also, I think your first paragraph kind of resonated with me. I do feel like there's this array of "children" within me, aspects of myself that I need to start tending to more often. Give them the space to be what they are, understand them, and be present when they want to be expressed. There's the child in me who just wants to write and write (as you can clearly see with 95% of my posts here), there's the child in me who just wants to play video games all day, and there's even a child hurt as hell whose confusion about religion has only recently been lifted. Recently, I've been having the discussion with my mom about being an Atheist now, and I can't just sweep that aspect of my life under the rug by not thinking about it or engaging in it. If I can take away anything else from Eckhart's message the days is that maybe I need at least the time and space to live as if it is all just a self perpetuating story (because concepts of Atheism or Christian attached to my identity ARE jsut concepts...), allow awareness to overcome me in the place of all the angst, and then retry for a calmer discussion. Anyways, hate to ramble so much, I just needed that out!

I agree the article was poorly written and the examples were kind of stupid, but the concepts at their core really are good examples of crappy argument tactics.

But I'm not actually going to do it. As I said, my goal is to try and invite more honesty into my relationship with them before I become financially independant enough to move out and choose to never see them again.

But again, that WAS the point...it was meant to be incorrect. But to any common person, it would sound like a logical theory. Then if you dig deeper and really study the facets of music, the evidence is as I said, that silence is an important component to music. Why can't logical theories be revised? Empirical evidence is founded in predictable and grounded reality, so there's no way to physically change its properties. However, logical theories are just thought patterns. Hypotheses. They should be subject to change when new evidence is gathered, such as the Earth being flat. It was logically consistent back then to think that the Earth was flat because we walk upon flat planes, but then new evidence came to suggest that the Earth was round, and thus the new accepted logic was that the Earth was round.

Yes it's definite self defense. And of course I am projecting past trauma, it's the trauma I mentioned in the opening comment. If all Hell broke loose it would obviously be dangerous to my happiness, because that charade is dishonesty trying to dispell honesty. I want to stick to honesty, and next time this happens try better at RTR. I had the argument again tonight and I'm not proud of it, but I resorted to yelling at her because she wouldn't maintain eye contact or respond to me relevantly as she distracted herself with her phone and laundry. Next time, I really need to cool my jets and try RTR. Where do I see my self in five years...I really don't know. My goal is to invite honesty into my relationship with my parents while I become financially independant. If I cannot patch the damage between us, I will have to defoo once I'm able to live on my own. I don't want to do that, because I know we can connect on many levels when religion is not involved. In five years from now, I want to have published a couple of novels, found a steady and enjoyable sales job, start dating again. But until most of that can happen, I feel they are impossible because there's just so much hidden distress in my home life due to unresolved issues that get constantly swept under the rug.

Well she does say that I need someone else to interpret the Bible FOR me, as if I don't have the capacity to think for myself, and when the debate gets too rough on her, she backs out saying she's not the best person to argue this. Instead she insists that she invite one of her religious friends over one day to have the debate with me...whom I will obviously tear to the shreds no matter what he says. And something I didn't mention was that she shut down the argument that way after I said, "I've become a better person since I've become Atheist. And our relationship is so much better now too. I accept you as you are for being Christian, so why can't you accept me for being an Atheist? What difference should it make? I don't tell you that you're going to suffer for being a Christian. It's just too bad that you don't follow logic and that's okay. I understand, you just grew up with these beliefs so it's hard to let them go." She knew how right was, hence her reactive nature afterwards, and tendancy to shut the argument down... So to answer your question, YES. I am seriously considering this charade if it ever comes down to actually inviting her friend over to debate me FOR her, and I find their pompousity to be a bit too much. Here's to hoping that I'll never have to put up with that guy, but if it ever comes to pass, all Hell will break loose!!!

I get what you guys are saying, so I guess...if logic does not conform to the empirical evidence that trumps it, can't it just be easily revised to fit the reality?

That deception can go in two different ways that are also split into two different ways: either she'll be happy that I've restored my faith and will whole heartedly believe that I DO talk to God--or she will think that I'm insane. She would either have to be really stupid to believe that God talks to me all of a sudden, or will try her hardest to fool herself into thinking that it is true. But if she conforms to logic and sanity, she will either declare me insane and get even more worried, or she will see through my disguise...in which case I would have to amplify the extremenity of acting.