Kevin Beal

I have absolutely no idea what you are saying, what it has to do with determinism or what you hope to gain some clarity on. You are using terms that I'm familiar with, but not in the same way that I use them, and you contradict yourself saying you are a determinist who believes in free will, but wants to be neutral. Your grammar is confusing, too. What is this illness affecting your brain?

not funny

Hi David! Welcome to the boards As a software dork, I must say: software rules, hardware drools! That's very cool that you have that to be passionate about, and it's great too that you've discovered the thirst for knowledge and philosophy. I'm glad to hear you are not drinking to excess anymore and that you're excited and motivated. I'd love to know which podcast you are referring to about the cycle of abuse if you find it again. I think technically the credit should go to yourself for your own commitment to taking your life seriously. Stef helped you see what you should do, I'm sure, but you're the one who did the work. Insight is only potential, without action. I'm always interested to know what people who've recently discovered FDR are listening to. What are some podcasts that had an impact on you? Do you listen to the call-in shows mostly, or do you prefer the solo casts? What topics? Take care, and I look forward to your reply

Hi Casey! I think Drama of the Gifted Child by Alice Miller is an excellent book to read in this regard. It's about the ways in which we will inevitably put our children in unhealthy supportive roles when we haven't processed our own childhoods. An example being that because my mother had a crazy hypochondriac for a mother herself, and she didn't process this, when I was an infant and toddler and I became upset, she became triggered and went emotionally cold (and probably worse at times). She saw her own mother in me. Her mother was a narcissist who made everything about her, and I was a baby not even really aware of other people's needs. We internalize the behavior of our caregivers even that early on, and especially that early on since we barely know that we are separate individuals. I learned that when I'm upset I need to go cold myself and retreat within my own mind, to spare my mother the discomfort of my pain. And this continued until I was in my twenties in ways which were ultimately unhealthy and against my own interests, even. (And it probably does still happen in ways I'm unconscious of). I haven't had kids, but I think that one of the most fundamental ways that we can become good parents is to really process our own childhoods as much as humanly possible. (On Truth and Real-Time Relationships by Stef are also good here). As far as actual practical tips, what to expect, that sort of thing, then I'm largely ignorant. Roslyn Ross seems to have a really insightful and unique peaceful parenting message. I don't know if she has any books, though...

I have no idea what happened, but I doubt there aren't plenty of other people who could benefit from whatever it is that you are going to discover about yourself. I can imagine that there are a lot more people than you and I who've regretted something like that, and I don't know, but it could be that the restitution here is your shared insight. I'd be happy to talk about it with you if you wanted, not that I'm any kind of expert on that sort of thing, just that I feel sorry that it happened and my curiosity is piqued.

I listened to that convo too and I don't remember this, and it would fly in the face of advice he's given before about not to look for a partner who already shares your conclusions, but rather, is a rational person. There are many people who are anarchists who I'm sure Stef would advise people stay far away from. Being an anarchist means very little, obviously. I don't know about reasonable. You shouldn't do it because it's "reasonable". You should do it because it's efficient and you need to be as efficient as you can be with so many rotten apples out there. That's what the argument was. Either it's valid or it's not.

All I did was ask you to help me out with what exactly you don't understand. I don't know how to communicate X better when I don't know what X is. (X is the specific part of my argument that requires clarification). All I could glean from your response was that you don't understand the relevance. I don't know how to respond to that without repeating myself since the point of my argument is the equivocation in the OP's argument. The relevance is the equivocation. I don't know how to help you if you don't ask me for clarifications regarding this since it's the whole point of my argument. And frankly, I'm bothered by the flattery since the last exchange we had was of you telling me how terrible James, Mike and I are and that you are never posting on the boards again. So, I'd really appreciate it if you stopped telling me how smart I am and how I must be right and it's just a failing of your own understanding. Perhaps you can forgive me for not feeling terribly motivated to go out of my way to anticipate your disagreements with my argument and counter them. I don't know why I should care that you don't see the relevance.

What men are impressed by harassing women? I've heard feminists claim this, but I highly doubt it. Most men would become very protective of the woman if there was genuine harassment going on. If the woman in the video told the creepy guy who walked with her for 5 minutes to get away and another man overheard it, you can be pretty sure that there would be some kind of intervention. You can tell that some of the men actually believed that their strategy works because they get visibly disappointed. Maybe some guys are impressed by that, like any sort of dare, but the one time I gave into peer pressure and cat called a woman I didn't already know, she visibly appreciated it, taking it as a compliment. (Possibly because I have a very gentle face and am somewhat handsome). So,... yea. Not so simple.

UPB also describes aesthetics which do not necessarily have anything to do with property rights. Property rights is the conclusion of UPB, not the basis for UPB. You could argue that being late to a meeting violates somebody's property to their time, and you could argue that property rights and the NAP are really two sides of the same coin. The lines blur somewhat categorically here, but you can't deny that all of them have universality and logical consistency as the basis of evaluating moral claims and theories. What do you mean by "correct"? Give me the standard by which you would accept correctness and we'll see if it fits. My standard for accepting the veracity of UPB is that it confirms what we already know instinctively to be true about murder, rape, theft etc, that it's application is necessarily logically consistent and universal (by definition) which are standards I apply to any rule in logic, and that arguing against UPB is an implicit acceptance of UPB. If you have no standard by which you accept UPB as the valid theory of meta ethics, then I don't really understand what you are asking. If it turns out that your standard for correctness is just synonym for moral relativism, then please let me know now so that I don't waste my time.

Not having people to talk to about it, I think. Bouncing ideas off of people, expressing my doubts and working through challenges in conversation with people who are going through the same struggles as me makes it feel more real, visceral and is motivating. I don't think that most of the listeners to the show are particularly philosophical, and as long as they have real virtue, then I don't have any problem with that. But being a philosopher is to understand the world and it's ills the way a nutritionist understands preventative health. It's not easy, especially when the first commandment is "know thyself", and what's hidden in one's shadow fills them with overwhelming dread. Having other people who are sensitive to that to talk to can make a person who's committed, inspired and motivated. My therapist I was seeing had a great quote that I think is especially true here: "people learn through relationship" I don't think that it's all just a thinking problem to be ponder and think through. Some of it is surely the relationships themselves.

This topic is against the guidelines.

Well, I gave you other references. Did you even check them out? Wait. I don't understand now. You say you don't understand what I'm saying, but then say that you don't see the relevance. Which one is it? You could ask me questions about how the theory works instead of asking me questions I've already answered. Yes, "murder is immoral" is an objective claim, and UPB is an accurate overview of morality. If you don't ask good questions, you aren't going to get good answers. I'm sorry you don't understand it, I wish that you did. Help me help you. You gotta try just a little harder.

Call me Kevin. Mr Beal is my father's name. Exists as thoughts, beliefs, perceptions. It's probably not accurate to say that morality exists subjectively. It would be more accurate to say that they exist as thoughts within the mind. Exist subjectively within the mind vs exist objectively in the real world. Ontologically speaking, that's the distinction between subjective and objective. "Exist" describes a causal relationship with the world. The beliefs I have about doors cause me to try the knob when I want to open it. The causal relationship is either observer relative or observer independent. It's causal because I'm conscious and experience it, or it's causal through objective causal relations in the world, like what happens at the temperature paper catches fire. The reason the distinction is important is to avoid the equivocation between different senses of subjective which lead to things like moral nihilism, idealism, functionalism and epiphenomenalism. Things which do not make clear enough distinctions between conscious states and the world outside the mind. Opting to get rid of things like consciousness, objective reality and ethics altogether for the sake of consistency with false premises.

I'm sure I understand what it is that you don't understand. Are you asking what ontological subjectivity is? The error your argument makes is asking two different questions as if they were the same question: 1) In what manner does it exist? (ontology) 2) In what ways can we have knowledge about it? (epistemology) Subjective knowledge is arbitrary. The knowledge that I have about my own preferences does not reveal anything that would be binding on other people. An epistemically subjective morality is an oxymoron, since the entire purpose of morality is that it's binding on other people. I cannot logically saying that my subjective preferences are binding on you precisely because there is no objective, independent verification, measured against some standard to establish the truth of the claims. i.e. the moral nihilist position. When you say that morality exists as an observer relative feature of consciousness the way that feelings do, this is as compared to rocks and trees which we can both see and touch. You can't touch feelings. Feelings in the manner in which they exist are subjective. But feelings, pains, thoughts, etc are not arbitrary. We can come to objective and independently verifiable conclusions about these conscious states. What this means is that subjective existence is not the same thing as subjective knowledge. When you make an argument which assumes that they are, you run into erroneous conclusions. The argument is: morality exists subjectively, and therefore the basis on which we know the truth of moral claims must also be subjective. No, this is false. If this were true, we could not have cognitive science, austrian economics or psychology. It's also known as "equivocation" or a "pun" to mix up both meanings of "subjective". Does this clarify what I'm saying? Yes, morality and ethics are synonymous, and yes, that is the way we establish universality using UPB. I would recommend reading the actual book. Your exasperation may well turn into curiosity and clarity.

Nope. I'm saying feelings exist subjectively. They do not exist the way that rocks and trees do. Feelings are observer relative phenomena. Trees and rocks are not. The key word here is "exist"

Great question! The argument you are making actually suffers from a very tricky error worth exploring Fallacy of ambiguity You are confusing two different senses of the word "subjective". The first is in an ontological sense (claims about reality) and the second is in an epistemic sense (claims about knowledge). Feelings, dreams, pains, thoughts, etc are all subjective in an ontological sense because they only exist as experienced by conscious agents. They exist subjectively. I have sympathy for my friends poor situation, but I do not literally feel his pain. This is very different from "subjective" in an epistemic sense. I know that I prefer Van Gogh over Monet, chocolate over vanilla, etc. Van Gogh is not objectively better than Monet. The way in which this claim is true is subjective. It is not independently verifiable the way that claims of knowledge in math are. You can know that the square root of 64 is 8 and demonstrate this knowledge claim. When you say that morality is subjective the way that our feelings are subjective, that is to say that morality exists subjectively. And this is true. Morality is subjective in that sense. But when you say that it's "based on our feelings" this is to say that the way we establish the truth of moral claims is subjective. This is false. As Mises proved a long time ago, the value of goods is subjective (as experienced by conscious agents), and yet we have an epistemically objective science of this ontologically subjective phenomena of the value we as human place on objects. We subjectively experience pains in our body, and doctors often can't find a physiological basis for the pain and yet they still have methodologies in place to treat the pain. People with phantom limb syndrome feel pain in limbs that don't even exist anymore. The epistemically objective basis for morality is the dual standards of logical consistency and universality as described in Universally Preferable Behavior by Stef-dawg. Here are some resources on UPB UPB the online version: HTML, PDF and audio FDR260 Moral Objectivity http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_260_Moral_Objectivity.mp3 FDR886 Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics (introduction) http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_886_UPB_Book_The_Introduction.mp3

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42290-freedomainwomen-meet-time/#entry387125

I catcall all my friends. The associations I have with it are very positive. So here's a catcall for you

I wouldn't call it positive to be yelled at to "smile" or the creepy walking next to her silently for a while, but as with everything, the question is compared to what? As if men never get harassed or creepy things their way. That's why I like the Funny or Die parody so much. And if I may say so, she was looking very nice in the video with those ultra tight pants. I noticed before I even knew what the video was about. If I were in New York City at the time, I may have been on the video as one of the "creeps" saying something like "beautiful day, isn't it?" People have yelled out "fag" at me before. I got a slushy drink thrown at me once. I've had people follow me, and even random girls telling me that they are in love with me. And there are no bad streets in those small towns. If it were a video saying "harassment is bad regardless of sex" then I'd be a little less exasperated or tired by it, but it's supposed to say that women are uniquely disadvantaged. Which is ironic since there is probably no man here who is particularly surprised by what happened, but the people promoting it don't even seem to know that men get harassed too, and as Patrick has pointed out that men are 4 times more likely to be assaulted. Who exactly is uniquely disadvantaged?

I can't find the source right now, but I remember hearing about a study which showed that while some young boys reported enjoying it in the very short term, in the long term they ended up looking at it as a serious negative in their lives later on. Early sexual involvement is positively correlated with relationship dissatisfaction later in life. This was regardless of religious or cultural affiliation, suggesting it's probably got little to nothing to do with shaming from other people. Think about it. Is it still molestation if the abuser convinces the child they want it? Well, yes, of course it is. It doesn't change anything about the psychological effect this has on people who are not psychologically developed enough to meaningfully consent. And how fucking creepy! Two teachers double teaming a student creeps me out. I don't know what age that changes, or if it's necessarily the case that this teen was too young, I don't know. I just know that willingness mean nothing.

I had a lot of anxiety at the beginning, but that went away in a short amount of time, similar to learning to ride a bike. Something that is motivating to me is wanting to prove people wrong. So if the instructor is anxious that I'm going to mess something up, I want to drive so goddam well to spite him.

Hi Nick! Welcome to the boards How did you come across the show? What drew you in?

Okay, well what about this one? You didn't even read much of the thread before concluding this. And what if I said that I had applied philosophy in my own life more consistently than you have and then claim to see through you? Well, you wouldn't believe it, would you? I'd hesitate to whip this one out. If you're wrong, it's pretty messy.

How is telling him that he's doing atrocious things, is boring, doesn't know anything about anything, etc helping other people see evil? You talk about it like it's totally obvious, but if your purpose is to alert others, then you're saying that people can't see things that are totally obvious to you, which is obviously offensive. I was suggesting that you point out the errors and save the insults for another time. Because if it's insults, it's not really philosophy, right? And philosophy is what you're doing?

You keep making comments to this effect and yet you keep engaging him. If you think he's a doofus or dishonest or whatever, then it would be irrational for you engage him to try and change his mind. If it's for other people's benefit, to demonstrate some weakness in his arguments, then you really ought to let other people come to these conclusions themselves rather than suggest all sorts of nasty things about his character. If it's neither of these things, but rather to just cut him down because you don't like him, then let's just be honest about that.