Lians

I'm not sure about 1772 but Lloyd deMause talks extensively about "growth panic" and "freedom anxiety" in The Origin of War in Child Abuse. He also touches upon "growth anxiety" in The Emotional Life of Nations. http://feeds.feedburner.com/OriginsOfWar http://www.psychohistory.com

No wonder they couldn't perform the whole song live...

Well, has anyone done the same for you? Sat you down and grilled you about important decisions in your life? I'm not sure how much time you have to process this block but I'd approach the conversation with something along the lines of: "Hey Jane, I know it might be a little late but marriage is one of the most important decisions in one's life, and as my friend, I want to make sure you've thought everything through." Proceed by asking questions and listen carefully to what she has to say. This could both deepen and/or strain the relationship, but either way, you'll have clarity. You might find the following podcasts useful when it comes to preparing for the conversation (questions, attitude and so forth): (2:09:00) http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2711/shame-based-dna-death-wednesday-call-in-show-may-28th-2014 (1:38:15) http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2693/feminist-straw-woman-attacks-sunday-call-in-show-may-11th-2014 A recommended read (marriage and motherhood chapters): http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Our-Mothers-Didnt-Tell/dp/0684859599

Why do you not know the man your friend is about to marry? I find this baffling... This is probably the most important decision in her life and she's not consulted you? Have you pressed her on it?

Was about to point out the same but you beat me to it! Indeed, I found the title quite amusing!

Religious people. The delusions of statists are closer to reality.

http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2014/05/parenting-rewires-male-brain Not exactly shocking news but it's nice to have some empirical evidence. Pushing back against media attacks on dads is a lot easier when you have science on your side.

Moral condemnation is a matter of ethics, and as far as mitigating circumstances are concerned, ethics only cares about choice. Elliot was an adult who had the choice to not murder and he chose otherwise; his actions are worthy of bottomless moral condemnation. Whether you feel sympathy for him is not an ethical issue, so I don't see why you can't both condemn and sympathise with him. The man was not a singularity of experiences, and as you noted, Elliot the child deserves sympathy.

Sympathy and moral responsibility don't belong in the same category so it's not a question of either/or.

It's up to you how you choose to approach a particular interaction. An RTR conversation can provide a lot of clarity where you feel ambivalence. Stef often advises people to RTR with their parents because the familial bond is a great source of ambivalence for most of us. If people respond with aggression and lack of empathy, then they value their defences more than they value you, and RTR will give you both the intellectual and emotional clarity to leave them behind and move on with your life. An empathetic and curious response, on the other hand, can be a foundation for a stronger connection and deeper understanding of both yourself and the other person. Personally, I view RTR as a methodology for deriving truth about relationships--the scientific method applied to human relationships if you will. This includes your relationship with yourself--self-RTR. Let's say your girlfriend does something that triggers pain in you. You immediately come up with a theory that explains what you felt. Question is, how do you know this theory is accurate? As I said in my previous post, this is where self-knowledge, empiricism and reason come into play. Is your explanation an emotionally defensive reaction? Did you factor in the actions and experiences of both sides, stripped from the justifications? Is your theory logical? You can access a wealth of knowledge using this methodology, but the actual application, as with most things in life, is more of an art form. To analogise, there's nothing in the scientific method that says, "This is how you come up with the theory of quantum mechanics!" Be curious and creative, stay vulnerable, trust your instincts, and commit to the methodology; the rest is experience. That's the best advice I can give you. Here's a podcast where Stef goes into the history of what later became RTR: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/192/curiosity-and-personal-relationships

Why not respond with the truth? Reason and evidence is what you rely on if you don't know the truth. Start by gathering the available evidence: "I don't know. I felt X when you did Y. What were you feeling when you did Y? Here's a list of instances when I've felt X in my life..." You can put forward a tentative theory when you gather enough evidence, and until you reach an acceptable answer, you continuously revise this theory using reason and evidence . For an RTR conversation to be productive, both sides need to be experienced in philosophy and self-knowledge. You need philosophy to make sure you're sticking to the evidence and putting a theory together using reason. Self-knowledge is required for an authentic expression of your feelings and an understanding of your defences.

The Guardian leapt at this opportunity to peddle its vagenda: Elliot Rodger's California shooting spree: further proof that misogyny kills Adding to the typical feminist nonsense, Ms Valenti conveniently quoted Elliot out of context (he also hated men) and lied about his connection to the MRM (PUAHate isn't an MRM site).

I only watched the video and his manner of speaking, choice of words and facial expressions seem rather feminine to me. Did he record it while being in a maternal alter ego state? He talks about getting hurt by women all his life and projects that experience on the entire species--a normalization, no doubt. I wonder what his relationship with his mum was like... Elliot Rodger - Balcony Vlog, reminiscing about childhood: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=df4_1400928983 Elliot Rodger - Why do girls hate me so much? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dae_1400928489 All right, I had a closer look at the articles and other videos this psycho posted online. It seems he followed in the footsteps of his father and turned his life into a film in which he's the scriptwriter, actor and director--none of these roles having anything to do with reality. Now his parents and extended family are washing their hands of him, and the media is having a field day trying to pin the responsibility on groups of people they don't like. Opportunity for this deranged society to wake up--missed, yet again.

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2704/how-to-become-an-asshole-wednesday-call-in-show-may-21st-2014 (second caller, 34:20) http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/192/curiosity-and-personal-relationships I think you might find these podcasts relevant.

Define "win." Conquer Europe? Unlikely. Conquer the world? Not a chance. Bear in mind that the Nazis couldn't cross the English channel even at the height of their might. The larger and more experienced Royal Navy--one of the most formidable fighting forces in the world at the time--would've stood in their way regardless of whether the Dunkirk evacuation succeeded, and let's not forget about the Royal Air Force. Germany managed to capture one of Russia's three oil fields/refineries in the Caucasus mountains but the retreating Russian forces destroyed its infrastructure. Furthermore, the oil reserves in that region were insignificant compared to those in Siberia--a territory far beyond the reach of the Axis powers. The Nazi war machine was never oil-starved due to the increased output of the Balkan regions and Romania in particular. By the end of the war the Third Reich was practically cannibalizing itself due to the woeful economic inefficiency of National Socialism and the wasteful German militarism. Conflicts of interest within the Axis alliance, military losses and economic self-destruction would've put an end to the war eventually. The myth of Nazi power was kept alive by Allied propaganda (justifying war funding) and the work of popular writers (profiting from the widespread propaganda). On a side note, Wikipedia has an entry related to this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_victory_in_World_War_II

Some interesting information related to how your body influences your mind:

In addition to what ribuck suggested, if you're interested in Rand's non-fiction writing, Philosophy: Who Needs It may be a good start. The book is a collection of her essays, and--for the careful reader--it can serve as an introduction to Objectivism (interesting, the spell checker highlighted this word and proposed I replace it with "Subjectivism").

I'm up for it! Kayaking would be a great experience for a landlubber such as myself, but a walk in nature would also be quite lovely if you know of a beautiful place that's worth visiting.

Speaking of disgusting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYOAWXeH6QI

Beautiful! I'm now waiting for the inevitable complaints about translation errors.

What the hell did I just watch...

Thanks for the heads up. To quote the board guidelines:

You reminded me of another beautiful song from her newest album:

The implication here is very clear: An idea or a system of ideas is subjective if it's derived solely from the human experience. All ideas are derived solely from the human experience. Therefore all ideas are subjective. Knowledge is a subset of all ideas (ideas that are true). Therefore all knowledge is subjective. Unless you believe in platonic forms or some kind of spiritual realm, you might want to revise your statements.

This is an objective statement made by a human being who claims that all knowledge derived from the human experience is subjective.