Kevin Beal

Okay, that's good to know. Were the "um..."'s and other verbal ticks okay? I don't have to worry about that with a script

It's going to take a while to fully upload and process the video, but it's also really late, so people will most likely wake up to it. It's a pretty personal video I made right after some events that happened today. I took the opposite approach with this video as my previous videos, in that I went completely off script and made it personal rather than abstract. Any feedback at all is welcome:

Welcome to the boards! What's your novel about?

Hi Myosotis! Welcome to the boards I'm sorry about the incapacity to cry or feel anger. It'll probably sound weird of me to say so, but I am angry that this is so. If it's true that your mother is a narcissist, it's not uncommon for narcissistic parents to work to deny their children free expression, and those children can feel like the only option is to comply. The result is that the child has to deny any thoughts or feelings which would be inconvenient for the narcissistic parent. If your anger and sadness were unwelcome to your mother, and if your mother is a very difficult person to be around when you do feel those things, then my guess is that the two things are related. Maybe that's an awkward thing to hear from someone you don't know over the internet when you've just introduced yourself, but I don't want to pretend that's not going on for you, if it is. It's important. But anyway, what crisis is your friend in?

I don't understand it, and I'm skeptical, by default, of things I don't understand. Maybe that's like some light form of bigotry or something, but something doesn't seem right about it. I have no logical argument, they aren't hurting anyone, I want people to come together and have fun over shared interests and values, but my mind automatically churns away to come up with reasons to reject it, with no effort from me. The current hypothesis is that this is arrested development, where people are stuck in a period in which they played with stuffed animals. I have no interest in stuffed animals or furry things, and I casually notice a general lack of interest in those things in most adults, so my assumption is that this is normal and people that deviate from that might possibly have an unhealthy fascination. Obviously, this is very shallow thinking. I just heard about furries recently, so it could turn out that I eat my words.

Hi Jackson! Welcome to the boards. What specifically is the skill you're referring to? Do you mean that you are a good researcher? People 'round these parts tend to be swayed by reason and evidence. At least, it's hard for me to understand the appeal of the show if you weren't swayed by reason and evidence... If you presented a solid case, I'm sure you'd get some receptive responses. Although, if you refer to yourself in terms like "whacky" and "lunatic", you might scare people off

Why would any board or founder give a CEO so much money if they did not believe they were making more than that amount in that position? Are they just super charitable? Have these authors ever worked with a CEO before? Also, I'm always suspicious of a moral theory that's basis is that something is "fair". What does that mean? "Distributing wealth" is a euphemism for theft, and I can't understand how theft could ever be called "fair". If they are going to use euphemisms and vague language, it makes it hard to know exactly what their argument is, which is probably exactly the reason for them being there. I think that whenever the arguments are explicit, it is much easier to point out how wrong they are, which is why so many people are so vague with their philosophical theories. And I'm not sure what you could say to the neo-nazi. I mean, he's practicing the NAP in his conversation with you. Obviously, he's a proponent of NAP just based on his actions, just that he's not very consistent about it. You could point out the stupidity of utilitarianism... FDR225 Utilitarianism: The Swiss Army Knife at your Throat (Part 1) http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_225_Utilitarianism.mp3 FDR226 Utilitarianism: The Pseudoscience of Subjectivity (Part 2) http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_226_Utilitarianism_Part_2.mp3 FDR2807 Brad Pitt: Overpaid? Underpaid? http://cdn.freedomainradio.com/FDR_2807_Overpaid_Underpaid.mp3

Well, it's certainly true that you can't get a "should" without an "if", philosophically speaking. And I'll stop claiming to represent Stef's position (I may be mistaken). I'm just saying, that there are a ton of "should"s implied in everything we do, there is a logic to it, and it's of philosophical concern. In other words, we can, and often do, logically come to "shoulds". UPB is one methodology that I think describes a good chunk of it, and praxeology is another, game theory, etc. I don't think I've heard Stef ever tell anyone that they need to do X, like a particular thing, but rather he consistently gives principles and insight into what the logic or the evidence says. I don't mean "should" like how I think people should stop using the word "literally" to mean "figuratively", but with the "if" that you mentioned. An example from a recent video: ~"If you want to get hired in this tough economy, you should demonstrate that you understand what the company's goals are". This isn't ethics, and yet there's a "should" there, but there is also the "if". I think, really, we're talking about the same thing.

In this video I present a theory about why gender ideologues behave the way they do and how it stems from a fatalistic worldview. What are the logical consequences of portraying something as male or female nature? Who is culpable? Special thanks to Joel Patterson for his help with the script for this video, and for being the awesome guy that he is. You can check out his material here on YouTube, here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq60FZi48OeHw_TfZP1aGww

Great video! Thanks for the share

That is freakin' badass. Thanks for the share!

I'm confused about what exactly the dilemma is. That could be because I have the same problem and am not conscious of it, but I don't see what is narcissistic or manipulative about plowing over people who are opposed to your interests. Using other people as pawns in a game of some kind, yea, but simply working towards your own goals without prioritizing other people's opposing interests ahead of your own seems to me to actually be a kind of empathy, namely empathy toward yourself. You are not responsible for their success, obviously. I think you can determine to some degree the level of narcissism, by how much you have to deny about reality and about other people. If something is manipulative, it has to be something along the lines of: "Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics." - Wikipedia I've noticed that a ton of very nice and empathetic people are quick to being self critical, and I'm always looking out for it. There is nothing that I could see in what you wrote that made me think that you are being manipulative. I don't know you, but if you were raised by people who were inclined to making you bad for mistakes (real or perceived) that you made honestly, then I can imagine that you would internalize those kinds of voices in your own head, and make yourself out to be bad before someone else came around to condemn you. Or maybe I've missed something obvious, in which case, sorry!

I think also, it's a matter of pride. I feel irritation, disappointment and confusion when I hang around people who purport to care for me, but who support the use of violence against me. The idea of acting as if it's trivial / irrelevant and doesn't bother me makes me feel depressed and even ashamed. I care too much about me to subject myself to the pretense of people who care more about the state than me. Their caring, which I desire, feels cheapened, and I don't like myself when I ignore it. The less morality and virtue means to me, the less seriously I take my own life, and the lower my self appraisal. The idea of that causes me to feel repulsion. Obviously not any kind of logical proof, but sometimes responses like that land for people. Pride is important to me, and I assume for most everyone else.

Mind, Language and Society by John Searle is a most excellent introductory work. He also does a good job of teaching you about the history of philosophy, as well in his lecture series. He's an academic, but the kind other philosophers hate, because he's not shy about telling other people that their theories are terrible, and he's a funny, likeable guy. But before recommending anything else, there is so much crucial, vitally important material in the podcast stream for this show. There is a lot more current events, commentary type shows in recent years, and sunday shows with gems that aren't always easy to find, but if you go further back, there are a lot of fucking home runs (small taste here). And of course, the triple philosophical punch of On Truth, UPB and RTR are must reads. I tend to assume that people have listened to a comparable number of podcasts as I have, but that's not usually the case and other people are relatively new. Some people only know the shows from the shows from the last two years, but FDR classic has some freakin' awesome stuff in there.

If you edit your post, it has to go back through moderation. That's why your post is invisible. (In case you were wondering).

Actually he does. He talks about "shoulds" all the time. As he should, being the ethicist that he is. He basically said that the purpose of philosophy is UPB. It's the most important part of the metaphysics that runs throughout the show from the very beginning. Even in this situation, he is talking about a "should", which is that, "this is not an ethical issue, so you should not treat it as if there is an objective "should" to be deduced. However, here are some considerations from aesthetics, and some empirical anecdotes". It's one of the things that makes him different from most other philosophers is that he puts such a strong emphasis on Ethics/UPB. He almost entirely ignores ontology, talks a good amount about epistemology, but it's UPB that is really the meat and potatoes, here. And I agree with him about that importance, which is why I only donate to him. I go to other philosophers for ontology and epistemology, but it's just a curiosity. UPB is where the rubber meets the road.

Well, maybe at some point, you can let me know in what respect it is invalid. You responded, just not in any way that actually addresses the logic or the conclusion of the argument, so I'm left to figure out how I'm wrong without help from you. Which is especially weird, since, as far as I can tell, you are confirming that I'm right, except that you have considered two different logical conclusions, but portrayed them, for some unknown reason, to be mutually exclusive with the logical conclusion I argued for. You've got a bad habit of moving the goalpost. Please stop doing that.

Do you think that if you asked her about the even numbered questions that she would have considered them off-topic or bad questions in any way? You've got a very detailed picture of what Hanna's psychology is, but I don't think you can logically say that without asking her first. If you did, I didn't see it (sorry). I never got the impression that she wouldn't be interested in talking about the even numbered questions. She has talked about things related to the even numbered questions in other threads, if not directly answering those questions. If you have a theory, and you don't test it, that's not exactly philosophical. Esther Villar's work seems very intriguing, and I'll definitely be reading the Manipulated Man, but it's not the sort of thing you simply accept without verification, especially when treating a person as if it were true already could go a long ways in getting the result you want (as in: self fulfilling prophecy). If I think that all men are assholes, and I talk to men as if they are assholes, then obviously I'm going to get offended men being, understandably, hostile in-kind. It's this kind of shit that feminists pull all the time when they demonize male sexuality and lifestyle and then get people telling them in youtube comments to go fuck themselves. "Oh, you see, right there! Men really are violent brutes". That's a big part of Anita Sarkeesian's campaign is to provoke male gamers and then use their responses as proof of her thesis. I think the quotation you have is very interesting and I'll be checking more up on that, but you completely side stepped my criticism with your use of the word "narcissism". Either you are using it incorrectly (my argument) or you are not. I think narcissism is one of the most awful problems in society, I've had to face some of it in myself, and I try and treat it as the very serious problem that it is: as accurately as I can. If it were true that Hanna were displaying narcissism, then it would add support to your theory, clearly, since you are criticizing (and rightly so) the gynocentric focus that society has maybe always had. But you have consistently said that the pathological female personality typified in contemporary feminist thought is a representation of female nature overall, only differing in degree from woman to woman. This may very well be true, I don't know. I don't think so, but maybe. But the logical conclusion of putting this forward is letting women off the hook, since they can't really control it, beyond suppressing strong natural inner impulses, the way an alcoholic can stop drinking alcohol, but they are always at risk of relapsing when the wind blows too hard. If this is just female nature to exploit men and think only of themselves in the classical narcissistic way, then that's fundamentally a sympathetic philosophical position to female evil. This is something you don't want to just assert, make some references to where other people agree with your statements and consider the case proven. If a women does an evil act, I'm treating her to be as culpable as any man. Your position doesn't allow for this, since morally speaking, women are a different species with a different degree of culpability. Maybe you don't think anything like what I suspect you do: that I'm white knighting, but if so, it's ironic, since it's exactly the opposite. You are the white knight in this case (if my argument is valid).

I could not find their definition, but TheLastPsychiatrist's article on schools breeding narcissism uses little-N narcissism in a very different way than you do. You aren't even using it in the colloquial sense, as being synonymous with self centeredness, but as focusing on how things affect you personally. That is not how the person you are promoting as the authority uses it in their articles (from what I can tell), and it's not a definition of narcissism that I've ever heard. And I've heard a bunch. The whole point of narcissism is that it's a reality distortion that must be maintained through exhaustive effort, and when anyone doesn't enable you in that false version of reality, they are immediately seen as being malicious, trying to fuck with you, etc. It is tied up in how people identify with things, but it's not the same thing as saying that they focus on how things affect them. One way in which it resembles that is when the narcissist's bubble reality prevents them from empathizing with other people, and you get Hillary Clinton claiming things like "women have always been the primary victims of war". But obviously, examples like: "what do you guys think about Linux? I'm thinking of buying a new computer" are focused on how things affect them, but does not treat other people as if they don't exist or matter, as in the narcissistic example above. If you simply focus on the one effect of focusing on yourself before others, you've kinda missed the point of what narcissism is, as most people do. Narcissists are the type of people who derail threads because it threatens their bubble reality, and accuse other people of things on flimsy or non-existent evidence, because their ego perceives reality as it is, as a threat.

If there is no null hypothesis, it is not a methodology. That's the whole point. Ok, I'm fine with an answer to either one, actually. You can phrase it however you want. Do you have an answer? If not, then I think I've proven my case.

That's not what a null hypothesis is. How do we determine logically whether or not a given woman is not exploitative? If a lack of principle is a determining factor in whether or not a woman is exploitative, and the opposite: living a principled life, is also a determining factor in exactly the same respect, then neither can logically be used as justification of the conclusion. If you throw out living a philosophical life as the exception, then you cannot use any lack of philosophy as justification for your conclusions. That means, you cannot say that exploitation has anything to do with a lack of virtue or a lack of rationality. That is, you have to say that exploitation is not exploitation, but something else. It's the very definition of a contradiction. This is why, if there are no null hypotheses, then the theory is worse than useless. If it's true that you are offering a false methodology to protect the hearts of men, then you are not only not helping men protect their hearts, but getting in the way of them protecting their hearts. As a note to anyone, be very wary of people who put forward radically new theories, but have no substantive understanding of philosophy. What they do is start from the conclusion and then find things to confirm that bias. Be especially wary if the the virtues they propose serve potentially to avoid necessary but difficult goals. Not that this is necessarily what's going on here. I just add that note because it's relevant to the discussion.

But then you're defining "philosophy" as being whatever women want it to be. That is, philosophy is the very opposite of philosophy. You suggested that women on these forums are using philosophy to get what they want, in the same manner that unphilosophical women do: in an exploitative fashion. There's no null hypothesis here. They are exploitative, even when they aren't exploitative.

Part of me hopes that through sharing philosophy I find love. But, like you suggested, it has made me infinitely more selective, challenging the ideas I had around what sexual relationships should be. It is because of philosophy that this is the case. The idea that philosophy would have that effect on me, but not women makes no sense to me... I don't know how you use a commitment to principled living to manipulate people. That, to me, seems like a fatal contradiction.

There are two parts to this that are important. The first is that these laws of logic only make sense because matter and energy behave in a consistent manner. If the physical laws that govern the universe were random, or didn't allow for consistency in behavior, for whatever reason, the 3 laws of logic wouldn't really describe anything real. The second thing is that it depends on what you mean by "verification" and "testing". In terms of the scientific method, no, because it's prior to that. The scientific method requires that the 3 laws of logic be true. To require this kind of verification as a standard would be circular reasoning. But if you mean that we can evaluate them logically for consistency in logic and that they be free from contradiction, then hell yea, they can! In one important way, the 3 laws of logic are really just different ways of saying the same thing: you can't say that a thing is both true and not true simultaneously and in the same respect. If something is a contradiction, you yourself are the one who's saying it is not true, because you are simultaneously asserting and rejecting that claim, whatever it is. That's what a contradiction is. (More on that below) Whether or not it's the same apple depends on what exactly you are "identifying". If by "apple" you mean to describe an exact configuration of atomic, molecular or chemical structure, then, yea, it's a different apple. If the object you are identifying is that piece of fruit that came from an apple tree and wasn't switched out with a replica apple, out there on the table, then yes, it is the same apple. But more importantly, you agree with the second, in direct opposition to your claim. You are assuming the truth value of the law of identity in order to reject it, because what is different, or changed, or not the same? The very fact that there is an answer to this question is proof that you accept the laws of logic in identifying the apple, and not even in the first description I gave, but of the second, common sense description. What logic is is reasoning about things by avoiding contradiction. By avoiding asserting and rejecting a claim simultaneously and in the same respect. By not claiming that you yourself are wrong about what you are right about. The representation of this simple truth are those three laws of logic. If you cannot argue against them without accepting them, then it is you who is saying that you are wrong, not me.

Welcome to the forums What prompted you to ask this question? People here tend not to care what other people's sacred cows are. Everything is up for debate. If you bring up your belief in your god, people almost certainly will challenge it. And that's the way it should be. That's sort of the whole point of philosophy is to question everything. I'm sure you're a very nice person, but people I and others don't subscribe to this social arrangement that a lot of people have called "tolerance" of other people's spiritual beliefs. I'm not trying to scare you away, just trying to let you know what to expect. Again, welcome to the boards