Lians

Historians who referenced Israel's own archives and stuck to the truth were called anti-Semites, racists, traitors to their own country and so forth. What we're getting in the comments is sad yet entirely predictable. People who are emotionally invested in concepts like country and religion will go through their entire repertoire of verbal aggression and manipulation to get you to self-attack - a rather ugly portrayal of the Jewish mother stereotype. Here's a good example:

Philosophy - process; ideology (set of ideas) - product.

What does your gut say? Also, how many red flags would she have seen in you had you not been exposed to FDR? I don't think I'd be able to count mine - there were that many. This is why I choose to focus on people's strength of character and commitment to principles (once exposed to them). There's a podcast I found particularly helpful when it comes to approaching non-FDR people: https://board.freedomainradio.com/files/file/57-fdr-graduation-the-calm-beyond-the-storm

I decided to indulge this fellow and had a look at his claims. For the most part, his arguments revolve around the following: Stef is a conspiracy theorist, Humberto Fontova is crazy, and Che's most popular biographers are right. I've got to say, some nice argumentation going on. Humberto Fontova was born in Havana, Cuba, and is simply one of many Cuban exiles who are dedicated to fighting Castro's propaganda machine. I suppose his open anti-communist views aren't particularly surprising given what Che Guevara and Castro have done to his ancestors. This website also comes to mind: http://babalublog.com Let's look at some of the arguments: Nice! He goes on to say: Very strong argument that seems to come straight out of the leftist school of sophism. He claims the book burning is a lie and cites a blog post that debunks this claim with the following: He loved books, therefore he didn't burn books. Also, random leftist bloggers are equivalent to the Independent Institute. He goes on and on making unsubstantiated claims. What's particularly funny is this: Let's not even mention The Black Book of Communism, which is a monumental piece of research. Indeed, most leftists pretend this book doesn't even exist. I wonder why... Let's also ignore interviews with the survivors of La Cabaña - some of whose descendants already endorsed the video in their Facebook/YouTube comments. Let's even ignore the journalists who saw what Che did in his prison. You want to see propaganda in action? Have a look at the difference in numbers cited here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Political_executions Perhaps the best example of his "arguments" is in the description of the video: Oh well, at this point he falls in the category of: Life's too short. What's particularly sad is that none of the information presented in Stef's video is surprising to anyone who's remotely objective or has been anywhere near communist regimes. The bloodbaths following communist takeovers, the economic destruction, the censorship, the propaganda... Indeed, Che Guevara's action probably pale in comparison to what people like Lavrentiy Beria did, but I suppose that's revisionist history as well. On a side note, ProfessionalTeabagger, I think it's a good idea to make sure critics have at least some substance before you drive traffic their way using this website as a platform.

Che Guevara makes Karl Marx look like a fluffy bunny.

Hello FDR people! A while back, Carter1984 and I decided to work on a very interesting project involving procedural data visualization for web applications. However, due to a change in my circumstances, I won't be able to commit to the project and develop the code base with him. Feel free to contact him if you have an interest in web development and want to know the details about the project! Not only is this an opportunity to gain experience, but you can also work alongside a talented programmer who's willing to teach!

Sleeping in a coffin is an easy one. We put in coffins the bodies of dead people. When we sleep, we dream; and the dreams are an expression of our unconscious. Sleeping in a coffin is a metaphor for being dead inside.

This is a rather advanced topic but I think it's important for you to consider it. If you as a kid got attacked whenever you expressed your criticisms towards your parents, then you'll almost certainly avoid criticising people as an adult. However, if you're aware of the fact that you avoid criticism because of your history and you still choose avoidance over healthy feedback, then you're treating your friends as if they're your parents. Do you think that's just? With knowledge comes choice... This is a subtle form of passive aggression that certainly doesn't make you a bad person, but over time, it erodes your capacity for genuine connection and feeds your false self. You're an adult now, if your friend attacks or dismisses you, you can move on with your life having learned a valuable lesson. Your survival is not on the line any more; that was a long time ago. I hope this makes sense!

Can you recall the exact feelings? I'd understand if it was guilt and shame, feelings you've probably felt with regards to how you treated your step-brother, but my impression of what you shared is that the experience was a lot more visceral. Like it stabbed you right in the core of who you are and made you blank out. Is this the case? You see, we insult others by reaching in for what hurts us the most. Also, kudos for doing the right thing and apologizing!

Thanks for the clarification! That makes a lot more sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzc2BOsDxiE

Why did I decide to look into this... http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-7356-the-$140-million-foreskin.html So, a single foreskin...

People who conflate concepts often do so because of strong emotional undercurrents: "The brain is a computer!" "Really? Like your laptop?" "No, more complex, different structure, self-programming... [mechanical clicking noises] The brain is a laptop!" Why do you think you had such a strong emotional reaction?

Words have meaning... To call a child a parasite is to miss some pretty important characteristics of both parasites and children. In what context did this question come up?

This is a really important presentation! Watch it!

She states that ascribing qualifiers to non-existent entities (nothing) is meaningless and then puts forward half of the law of identity as if she's achieved something. All of this without any useful philosophical context. And while she's playing Captain Obvious, the guy is dying. I'd say she's better than academic philosophers because at least the guy is not dying because of her. Or is he? I'm not following the show.

I'll be home the whole day so I'm fine with both!

Excellent! I think we can consolidate these theories into safety through knowledge. Abused children carry into adulthood a profound sense of insecurity. We all tried to master our dangerous familial environments but we could only respond to immediate threats because the parent's actions are beyond the child's control. Sadly, the chaotic nature of such upbringing becomes the lens through which we see the world--it may even become our physics. Up is down, black is white, truth is an illusion and morality is exploitation. Eventually, the constant vigilance that is required to survive in such a world wears you down and poisons your capacity for happiness. Moral philosophy blows away the fog of dysfunction much like science displaced the whims of deities. In a sick society, the secondary benefits that you listed can be very dangerous because they provide an illusion of safety. People who lack foresight or indulge in immoral and corrupt behaviour are easily tempted into embracing this false sense of security. They abandon their quest for knowledge in favour of short term comfort, gradually eroding their true self until there's nothing left to repair. Absent philosophy, physical beauty, money and social status will let you pass on your genes at the cost of virtue. The average person considers this a bargain...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/09/breaking-wall-secrecy-sexual-abuse-men-women This article came out yesterday and is well worth a read.

Yep!

My ACE score is 7. There are a lot of factors that contributed to my involvement with FDR. A lot of it was luck, and some of it was an innate strength of character. I didn't fit in and I spent a lot of time in solitude. Fortunately, I had a sense of pride that kept me from assuming that the isolation was all my fault. The solitude protected me from the tentacles of culture that tried to weave themselves into my identity, and philosophy, in this regard, didn't threaten to destroy my whole inner world--it was the Japanese chef that turned those tentacles into sushi.

Here's a no-slowmo version: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=57e_1402206030 It's scary to think that without this video he would've been arrested. If he defended himself he might have end up in jail even with the video evidence. When the whole thing was over she called other men to finish her dirty work... Remember, fellas, always carry your patriarchy membership cards.

You saved me from watching this vile film and for that I thank you! Let's see if I got this right... A pretty and insane woman has sex with an alpha male and gets pregnant. This, from her perspective, is the man taking away her freedom and independence--her wings--and sacrificing them on the altar of patriarchy--the monarchy. She vows to kill (eternal sleep being a euphemism for death) the fruit of her bad choices, projecting culpability on the helpless child. Aurora is supposed to fall asleep (die) when her sexuality fully awakens at the age of sixteen, and this is only fitting given that Maleficent was supposed to die at the hands of Stefan. Through the refusal of responsibility, the bad choices of the mother are passed to her daughter, leading to the chaotic events that will inevitably unfold later in the story. Harmony can only be restored when the mother kills the father--the man who started it all in the eyes of the unrepentant woman. Maleficent's kiss of true love summarises the whole mother-daughter relationship: "Deep down she truly loves me even though she wants to kill me!" Well done, Disney, you managed to surpass Frozen in terms of corruption! The spinning wheel (I believe it was a spindle in the original story) is a very powerful symbol in the narrative and I'll only touch on it briefly. In medieval times, dowry was an important part of the marriage contract. If the woman wasn't born into wealth or didn't posses great beauty, she often had to accumulate fabrics and clothes as both a marital fund and a sign of her ability to take care of a household. The spinning wheel in this context is a symbol for marriage. Maleficent had a child out of wedlock so it's not surprising that the trigger for her curse is a marriage symbol. "What I didn't have, you will not have." Why did Aurora have to prick her finger on it? Born a princess and possessing great beauty, she doesn't have to develop any skills or virtues for men to find her valuable, hence her lack of experience with a labour device. Indeed, women possessing accidental "virtues" and deliberate vices is a Disney hallmark. Maleficent was born a ruler of the forest realm while Stefan had to cheat his way out of poverty through theft and lies. You see, it was the evil man who corrupted the pure fairy! Screw reality, this is a fairy tale!

If an upgrade becomes necessary, nothing prevents developers from extending the precision to 64-bit, 128-bit or even an arbitrary precision (i.e. MPFR library).

Use the BBCode tag: [spoiler]Your spoiler.[/spoiler]