Kevin Beal

Welcome to the boards, Daniel! What are you studying? I wouldn't ask you to. Just be yourself

Haha. They must not want anyone to have that job. It looks like the URL contains all the information necessary to automatically generate an application form (in Coldfusion), which is clever on the developer's part, but it's unbelievable that someone would expect someone to type it out. The percentages are URL encoded data. Mostly single quotes and angle brackets, ' <>

Welcome to the boards! This is a friggin' ambitious project, to be sure. I think there is some real value in what you're proposing. I feel a bit skeptical that it could be pulled off, but if it could, I would be very interested to see how it turns out. I wonder also about how effective it would be. Maybe I've become too cynical or bitter, but I've noticed that when I'm arguing with theists, they tend to move the goalpost for the discussion around a lot, which I think is because they don't really have a rational methodology for determining truth from falsehood. That is, if they agree with the conclusions of these UPB principles, they could always hear a contradicting bible passage and "decide" that this new thing is the truth, to suit whatever agenda they have in the moment. All other things being equal, I'm sure we'd agree that teaching people critical thinking is best, regardless of the conclusions, but I wonder if this is actually a necessary prerequisite for adopting UPB. Of course, do let me know what you think

I mean to say that's got to be quite the triggering event to overcome such a powerful psychological standing order. Either by being totally and royally fucked over as a child, or by being around such an enormously toxic woman that could humiliate or enrage enough to make a man snap that hard. Erin Pizzey was quoted saying something like "I'm amazed there aren't many many more men abusing women [and snapping like mentioned above]". If there is gender symmetry in perpetration of domestic violence, and women do not receive this same programming (the opposite is true), then what does that say about the way men are treated? I think it says that men are treated far worse, if that makes sense. And maybe that's the reason this "boys can never hit girls" stuff is so ubiquitous and entrenched: to deny all the rage (until one day they snap). Just a theory, of course.

So programmed that it's inconceivable. Our whole identities would be at risk, like we would dissolve. At least, that's how I experienced it. The fact that some men do beat up women seems to speak to an overwhelming amount of rage, enough to overcome this programming.

Hi BD91! Welcome to the boards First of all, I'm very sorry about the complete disregard for your feelings as a child. That's really sad, imagining you just wanting connection and having to navigate a bunch of selfishness on their part. That you couldn't just simply be yourself and have that be enough. So, I just wanted to say that I'm not always taking my own advice and still succumb to this temptation to be me+, but I think that I know what can help. I think the opposite state is to be fully self expressed, expressing disagreement, irritation, sadness, etc, as well as the thoughts and feelings which are emotionally safe. For a lot of people it feels so dangerous that they become numb to the reality that they feel sad or irritated, and then they become depressed when they pain of not expressing themselves becomes too much and all of a sudden they are swinging between numbness to irritation to numbness to sadness to numb again, usually until they can get some short term self esteem hit, probably from something that is not being self expressed: being me+. I think the first step in that case is to develop a rich emotional vocabulary checking in with yourself and describing exactly what you're thinking and feeling. First, you get sadness, but then that becomes more sophisticated and you can tell the difference between disappointment, sorrow, hurt, longing, etc. Similarly anger becomes irritation, exasperation, annoyance, rage, loathing, etc. The better you can articulate your inner experience, I think the more you can be aware of it in order to best express it later. The more you are aware and understand your inner experience, the better you can express yourself to people when you want to connect with them, or test the waters. Also, I think that it's easier to tell, that way, what it is that you need in any given moment. You can turn insecurity into an opportunity to connect, rather than the me+ strategies you've developed. Or if you don't trust the person and you can make a conscious decision to play that role, just not for the purposes of getting a short term self esteem boost for playing a role for somebody else you don't even trust. Therapy helped a lot for me. I was unemployed when I started therapy, so I don't buy this excuse that people have that they don't go because they don't have a job. That's a very passive thing to tell yourself, I think. Not that you said that, but you did say a couple things which are like that. For example you said that you can't form intimate relationships, can't build a decent relationship with yourself, can't figure out how to improve in this area. And to that, I say bullshit. It's unsafe to do those things, they aren't impossible. I think I understand the fear, but the first step is to acknowledge it. It's fucking scary to be vulnerable! Maybe that's a good place to start? Please let me know if it was at all helpful.

Ironically, this is used as further evidence that violence against women is in fact normalized, since if these young boys have absolutely no desire to hit a girl, but some grown men (actual numbers vary) do hit women, therefore "men" are taught this behavior by the culture. This is, of course, a claim that has no null hypothesis. Whether or not the boys hit the girl, both would lead to the same conclusion for feminists.

I don't understand. Are you asking Kaki to tell Karen this? Do you expect your opinion to be taken into serious consideration by the Karen? Karen is probably not reading our posts. If you want to tell her how she should produce her videos, you might have better luck going to her directly.

I don't think you understand what a generalization is.

I know a tall chinese man, so please stop saying that chinese men are shorter and the dutch!

This is a distinction without a difference. If men run patriarchy, they are logically to blame. It doesn't make sense to divorce a rapist from his rape, as in "I don't blame rapists, I blame rape". The word "blame" implies moral agents who made decisions. I can't blame my tree that fell on my lawn this morning. Either patriarchy is not run by men, or it is. If it's not, then it makes no sense to call it a "patriarchy". If it is, then this is just pedantic nonsense. So, they're just saying that they care more about women's issues, which is not really different from the general criticism. I mean, the phrase "you don't think men's issues matter" is meant in comparison to women. Not a stand alone statement without context. And I don't know what this is supposed to prove. Do I get to point out examples of uniquely male oppression around the world and get to say that men's issues matter more? Again, just sort of agreeing with you while pretending there is a misunderstanding, and that you are making it. Did you say that the male only draft was put there and supported by feminists? No. I believe you were saying (and rightly so) that this is an example of uniquely male disadvantage and disregard. And it's not like feminists actually do support women being drafted. Typically they talk about this issue with contempt for men, as in "boo hoo, you get drafted, so what?! I have to sit next to a guy with his legs spread slightly apart on the bus! Friggin' cry babies, ugh" This is a great response and this person should be applauded. They are in a microscopic minority, but good on 'em!

No, it's not. Google says this about the NAP: The “Non Aggression Principle” (or NAP) is an ethical doctrine that states that aggression is wrong, aggression being defined as the initiation of physical force or fraud against persons or property, or the threat of the same. Google says this about arguments: An argument is a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong. Providing reasoned argument is clearly not an example of physical force or fraud against persons or property, or threat of the same. Some people talk about Non-Violent Communication (NVC) and refer to certain types of communication as "violent", but NVC does not actually say that words can be violent, just that not thinking about your own needs and others' can lead to violence. And certainly there are certain types of interaction that don't involve physically hurting or threatening to hurt physically, that are unreservedly types of "abuse", but abuse is not necessarily aggression in the sense described above, even if it can ultimately be more traumatizing. It doesn't make it good, but no, words are not violations of the NAP. Arguments (in the sense described above) are actually incredibly beneficial. Another way of describing an argument is "if you accept these premises, then you should accept this conclusion", which is an appeal to reasoned logical principles or empirical evidence. This means that you can accept the conclusion of a person's argument independently, through your own analysis, rather than depending on an authority to tell you what is true and false. In science and philosophy, arguments are how truth is determined from falsehood. Like your math teacher told you they want to see your work, making reasoned arguments is showing your work in how you arrived at your conclusions. And like in math, the answer to the math problem is not nearly as important as the methodology you employ. Most arguments are implicit and are not stated as a list of premises and conclusion, but can be deduced. Consider the following argument: Violence against people is not immoral. Bugs have hearts and brains and lives and produce offspring. How are humans so special? If you are fine with killing a bug with a heart and offspring of it’s own, then why are you so against harming humans? It seems to me that either you’ve got to start treating bugs with care and respect, or not care so much about human violence. And I don’t really care about the life of a bug, that’s not the point. I’m just suggesting that maybe, just maybe it’s not that bad if some people die. The actual logical form of the argument is something like: P1: All complex life lives and breathes and eats and reproduces P2: We humans are not any different, fundamentally C1: Killing people is not any different from killing bugs P3: You step on bugs without knowing it every single day and it doesn’t break your heart C2: You have no compunction around killing bugs (you jerk) P4: Making irrational distinctions to base the worth of another living being is bigotry C3: Being outraged at murdering human beings and not a bug is irrational human bigotry C4: You ought not feel any moral outrage at murdering another person ...where the P's are the premises, and the C's are your conclusions. By being able to look at the argument in this way, we can discover errors in the argument, or gaps in the reasoning which make the argument insufficient in demonstrating the conclusion logically. For example, it does not follow logically that because we are the same in many respects as higher life forms that killing humans versus ants is logically and morally the same. Errors in arguments are called "logical fallacies" and the most common errors have names that are worth remembering. Many times, the presence of logical fallacies is not a simple misunderstanding or honest mistake, but actually evidence of emotional defenses, and the reason that the word "argument" leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths is because of how emotionally volatile people can be when making arguments or responding to them. The "might makes right" mentality where, because I'm bigger, I am right about when I'm saying and you need to listen to me is one such example. People who have poor impulse control and lack the self knowledge to know that it's really their own shit that they are making everybody else's problem. If you'd like to learn more, I would highly recommend these podcasts: FDR531 Logical Fallacies Part 1 FDR532 Logical Fallacies Part 2 FDR2857 An Introduction to Sophistry FDR2864 An Introduction to First Principles And certainly check out the great Introduction to Philosophy series by Stefan, here:

You realize this is a two way street, right? If it's a rule that people will bump into "limits" (whatever that means), then that applies to you as well. If I can be frank, the rest is a lot of frustrated confirmation bias rather than a case built on solid evidence, conveniently mistaking the entire purpose of the video so as to paint Stef as the "abuse apologetic" guy you already attempted previously. Nowhere does Stef support the state. He says in the show and in a follow up with a listener about the show that he as to care about these details because the state is there, and not because he thinks cops are so great. That is, if we accept the reality of the police and state laws, these are the logical conclusions. The purpose being not a defense of the state, but as a clear demonstration that no racial hate crime took place. He's very clear about this.

You said that I should not reject your statements (about parasitism) based on my offense, but rather I should look at it objectively (you and Nietzsche presumably being objective about parasitism). So, I presented an argument for the rejection of your statement based on reasoned logic. You asked me to be objective about my rejection of your claim, and that was my attempt to do so. Your claim was that children are "undoubtedly parasites". I argued that not only is there doubt, but that you are entirely wrong, and then provided a more consistent definition. You asked me to be more empathetic, and so that's what I did. You asked me to be more objective, and so that's what I did. Unfortunately, it has had no effect. You won't even put the energy required in to understand my arguments. I'm left wondering if your definition of "empathy" and "objectivity" are really just synonyms for agreeing with you.

Again, this distinction is beside the point of my criticism. I don't care where irrationality is directed, I care that it's irrational. (Of course, assuming my arguments are valid). And those actions in which violence is justified to prevent, are those actions in which I would call "evil". Child abuse describes many things, some of which justify violence in order to prevent.

I didn't. I provided a logical argument that follows roughly this form: P1) You described children as undeniably parasitical upon their parents, presumably on the basis that children depend entirely upon the resources of the parents and do not "reciprocate" in the manner a grown adult would be expected to C1) The definition implied, and one which is often expressed is, "one who consumes the resources of another without providing reciprocal value" P2) A pet consumes your resources and does not reciprocate, neither does a pregnant woman who is taking off work to care for a newborn P3) I take it that you would not describe a pet or a new mother as a "parasite", even though they fit the definition provided C2) You are using the word in a sense which is not consistent I simply expressed that I found the statement in bad taste one time and not in connection, or as the basis of any other conclusions. I appreciate irreverence and do not shy away from offending other people's pretentious sensibilities when the mood strikes me. It is for statements that are worthy of ridicule that I gleefully offend. I also quite like Nietzsche, especially regarding master-slave morality, and the classic "god is dead". If I'm trying to demonstrate something logically for the benefit of others, I have found that purposefully offending people tends to make them less receptive, perhaps because you come off as unreceptive, making light of a situation in which I find myself feeling somber. In part I feel somber because I do not believe (as you do) that this is an "abstract" discussion. I experience it viscerally, in fact. This is ironic since you said I should be more empathetic, and your tone has since shifted from a serious one ("hate the sin but love the sinner") to a mocking, exaggerated one ("THAT is teh face of evil"). "It's ironic" is not an argument, I just wanted to point that out. But at any rate, this thread has become about your comments and has been derailed from the original topic. This is generally discouraged and it is advised that either the conversation continue through private message or a new thread is started.

No, you've misunderstood. It is illogical to complain about being misrepresented and then misrepresent those people you are criticizing. It's a performative contradiction, logically inconsistent behavior where the form of an argument contradicts its content. In other words, If you think misrepresenting people it a problem, you can expect to be criticized when you yourself misrepresent people. Your characterization of the people in this thread has not been demonstrated by use of argument or evidence from what I have read. If I'm right that you have not demonstrated your claim about what other people are saying, this is what is meant by poisoning the well: an approach to debate, framing what other people are saying in a manner which is convenient for your unjustified conclusions, at the expense of the truth and rational discourse. Not that it means anything necessarily, but I assumed this would be obvious that this is what I meant. I hope that my explication is not insulting to your intelligence. I would not want to overcompensate for a failure to communicate on my end. Please let me know if I've made an error or am still not writing clearly enough.

Ugh. I hate that definition. But of course, my irritation is not an argument. I guess the part that bothers me is that there is a resentment toward people who have this so-called "privilege", when that really isn't enough information to go on to determine injustice on part of the person with that "privilege". If that person is acting like it's because of their virtue that they earned a job rather than because of some privilege they have, and "if you just work as hard as me" sort of ignorant talk is going on, then that's really irritating. But a lot of it seems to be more along the lines of "they're richer than I am, therefore they are a pillaging capitalist assholes" variety of non-thought. I'm really happy for people who happen to have more opportunities than I do/did and who aren't assholes about it. Just assuming there actually were some patriarchal rape culture, treating every man as a potential rapist (query: "Schrodinger's rapist") and resenting men who've never hurt any woman because they belong to this "class", because they ostensibly don't have to deal with being constantly in fear of being raped is fucked up beyond belief. And oh my god, what a fucking insane world feminists live in. It really strikes me as psychosis.

"Privilege" shouldn't be a dirty word. I'm happy for the people who didn't grow up in the squalid urine-soaked places I was raised in. I just feel a bit exasperated when rich white women tell me that their lives were so much more goddamn difficult than mine without knowing anything about it.

You gave no analysis to demonstrate that children are parasites. If you have a wife who has just given birth and cannot reasonably be expected to work and must depend on you for resources, is she a parasite? If you go buy a pet, is that pet a parasite? You can say yes, but I think you use the word far too broadly. Things which you have no control over taking your resources (or no knowledge of), seems a much more apt definition. And being that, save for the rape victim, we all choose to have children (or partake in activities which can result in pregnancy) and choose to keep the child, we chose to have our children in our lives. Talking about the stress being what caused her behavior and calling the child a parasite frames everything in deterministic terms and does not account for the decisions she made. This woman is responsible for her decisions, that's all anyone is saying. Nobody has called her "evil". I really think it's a lot more simple than you are making it out to be.

Please don't claim that you are being misrepresented and then say things like this.

There is a strong feminist movement in India. It's very matriarchal and scares me even more than feminism from the west. http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/human-rights-day-an-indian-fraud/

I think also because guys tend to get many fewer compliments than women do, so the impact they have is stronger. The logic being something like "oh, I actually got complimented! That almost never happens. They must really mean it" and it can either feel special or else feel really awkward, not knowing what to do with it, whether to trust it, etc. Or maybe you get a lot more compliments than I do. In which case I'm very jealous. It's the accent, I know it! Right, right. That's similar to what I've heard from other women. I think it's a rare guy who will really try romantic advances with a women who's in a relationship. At most it will be light flirting without any expectation of it leading anywhere. Maybe even especially light flirting since flirting is kinda fun, and with a women who's already taken, it's kind of a safe thing to do since you aren't concerned with rejection. But I think most guys, like me, may be attracted to women who are already in a relationship, but won't make any actual moves on her. Wouldn't even think of it. There are some exceptions I've known, but they are pretty transparent (at least to other men) and come off as super annoying doofuses. Or they are friendzoned men who were given mixed signals, and are desperate to be with her. And I didn't mind the rambling at all. I'd love to hear anything more you have to say about this topic. It's of much interest to me to get a female perspective on it

This distinction is unimportant to me. My point remains the same whether you use the word "empathy" or "sympathy".

Because this is not an excuse for abusive behavior. Another direct causal factor was that the child was in her care, was that she was in proximity to the child, that she has piss poor emotional control, that she is generally negligent enough that this would ever even be considered an option. She's accountable for her behavior, whether she be stressed, drunk, sleepy, whatever. I don't get to yell at my girlfriend and then say, "hey no, you need to focus on my difficulties because I'm stressed out". I'm being an asshole, period. And the idea that I would say that makes me an even bigger asshole. Your post is an appeal to sympathy, and maybe she does deserve some sympathy, but not before the child. That's all I'm really trying to say, hence the "priorities" comment.