Kevin Beal

What you sensed was irritation, not personal hostility. Personal hostility is what you've suggested downvoters do: act out their rages at other people, especially unjustly. And it was not your choice of words that I take issue with. I told you what I take issue with. Do you remember a time where you could not win? Where you protest, but are not listened to? Where it drags on and on and on? Where the reasoning is specious and it doesn't matter how logical your objections are? With someone you can't get away from? I am not even irritated anymore. I'm sad. Tired. Tired of arguing with you. I've stopped caring about what's the logical and virtuous position. And that makes me sad. What a strange thing this is: arguing with you about buttons. This is not how I want to be spending my time...

Oops. You are totally right, I mistakenly lumped the two things together. I didn't say it was courageous. And I don't understand what you mean by "accountability" here. My purpose in my challenge was to question the accusation of cowardice. It certainly is possible that cowardice could be happening, but the implication was that anyone who downvotes must be doing so cowardly because their name is not attached. And that's crazy. Almost nobody on the boards uses their real names, and some are critical of other people, sometimes without argument or the truth on their side. Are they then cowards? You've charged people with cowardice and censorship and I have no idea at all who you are. Does that make you a coward? Not necessarily. There may be good reasons for you not to use your real name, I have no idea. Maybe there are good reasons not to show who's voting. Again, I don't know. I never actually said that we shouldn't show people's names next to votes. The reason I brought up other examples was to show that there is a precedent, and being myself in the business of designing online experiences like this, I tend to see what's currently being done. And it strikes me as significant that even services which show who made positive votes do not show negative ones. I wonder why that is. I don't actually know what the right solution is, but I do know that you've brought multiple serious charges down now that you haven't really made much of a case for, if at all. I don't think you are in a position to challenge me when you haven't really made your case yet. It's kinda like arguing about what you could have meant, and I don't want to do that.

Wait a minute. Did you just move the goalpost? You said that it was a non-argument, I pointed out that it really was an argument, and then you did not comment on the fact that it was an argument, and instead focused on a point that I do not understand the relevance of. Is there an argument there or is there not? If there is, can you please concede the point?

That's not the argument that was provided, but rather the conclusion of the argument. And it's "physics", not "physical science". (Biology is a physical science, obviously). The reason this analogy is made is given throughout the book as the framework is being demonstrated. It's made to help people understand what standard of proof can and should be expected from a theory on ethics. Below are some examples: Page 77 has a table of how to compare physics, biology and morality in terms of Instance, Sample Rule, Sample Theory, Sample Classification, Hypothesis, Proof and Negative Proof Example. (I would copy and paste if I could). The whole book UPB carries this metaphor of biology vs physics from beginning to end of the book. It's hard to imagine that you could have read the book and dismissed the claim that UPB is more akin to biology than physics as a non-argument. Maybe you should re-read it.

Is it cowardly or does it just "seem" that way? You keep dropping some serious charges, but always qualify it with "seems". I don't know that's necessarily cowardly, but it sure isn't courageous. If you have concluded that things are some way, then stand behind it! If you believe that hiding people's posts who have a threshold of downvotes is censorship, then make that case. If you believe that not wanting your name on your downvote is cowardly, then make that case. I don't see how either one is true, but since you have made no arguments to back up your claims(?) then I have nothing really to respond to. I'm not aware of any service showing downvotes where they say who made that vote. Even services that show who made the upvote hide the downvote like Google+ and Disqus. Most do not show any of that information. Maybe that's for a reason. I can imagine that it could provoke flame wars, even. People downvoting each other because that person downvoted them.

It's not mathematically impossible to spend $90 to make $10 and have it be sustainable for all people. At least not because you say so. Grocery stores make a couple of cents off of most of the goods they sell, because they spend far more than 90% to make that work. But you're not asking yourself where that money goes. A portion goes to pay employees, and all the different indirect things that go toward bringing more value to their customers, like a clean store, working carts, equipment to make ready to eat food, etc. A much larger portion goes to food wholesalers. The vast majority (as I understand it) of business expenses happen between businesses. What this affords us the consumers is infinitely more accessible and higher quality goods because there are profit incentives for businesses to specialize, that is, to find ways of doing things in far more sustainable ways requiring fewer resources. The only way that what you're saying could make any sense is if 90% of the money were just thrown in the trash. The reason that bitcoin is even possible is because of profit incentives, which are much smaller margins than when they spend (hence "profit margin"). Profit enables things which are economically impossible otherwise. The temptation of many people is to conflate the word "profit" with the word "spoils" (as in "spoils of war"). This equivocation between these two vastly different meanings of the word leads to specious reasoning, false conclusions and in some cases millions of innocent people murdered. So, please take the time to understand the meanings of the words that you use.

Or maybe not. The chat sometimes kicks people, seemingly at random. I think it happens when you are browsing the boards while chatting. But you said that you got kicked for doing something passive aggressive. You don't mention what it is, but passive aggression is reason enough for a kick. You said you take full responsibility, but I don't know what that means. I don't think that coming onto the boards and blaming everyone else for the situation is taking responsibility for anything. If anarchism is a philosophy, it would surely include something about avoiding ascribing characteristics to collectives, but you said: What a few people do is not representative of FDR.

Oh! Thank you for the clarification I think in the example you gave, it's the conclusion that was irrational, rather than the emotion, but maybe that's not an important distinction. (I would have understood your meaning either way.) Have you expressed preferences with your therapist?

Thanks for the reply! What do you mean by "worked at them until they disappear"? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that raises all kinds of red flags for me. Are you saying that your emotions are problems to be overcome?

Wow! I'm really sorry. Your mother forced you through threat of abandonment to never assert your will and preferences. That is horribly cruel I think that one thing that could be helpful is becoming intimately familiar with that existentially insecure feeling, like if you are assertive about your preferences that you will be abandoned. To know exactly what that feels like and be able to anticipate when it comes up. Getting to know it like it's another person that you care about and want to help grow. And also, ideally to have someone else know you that well too. That way, when it does come up, it's not as ambiguous as to whether it's a healthy assessment of the current situation, or triggering of past trauma. And with that knowledge you can more confidently choose whatever you want to do, even if it's not to assert your preferences. An exercise that I've done, which I think can be helpful, is to go to the worst case scenario and see if that would still warrant the feelings that come up. If I'm freaking out about paying rent this month and the worst case scenario that pops into my head is going temporarily into debt, then I'm probably not going to feel as freaked out. That's okay. It's not positive, but it's doable. I've noticed that I am much more assertive now in my life as compared to where I used to be. I was never explicitly threatened with abandonment like you were, but what helped for me was becoming more secure in my relationships. I had people in my life for the first time who I could actually connect with, and have productive disagreements with. The security I felt there made the stakes not feel so big. I cared less about what people might say or do as a result of me asserting myself and so I did it more often. I think also, being vulnerable in asserting your preferences is important. Vulnerability is a kind of strength, ironically enough. You may be missing something and learn something important, or you may be right and practice asserting yourself with someone who can witness empathetically what that really means for you. I'm not some super assertive guy or anything. I'm still working at it, but hopefully this is of at least some use

I read things out loud sometimes so that I'm more engaged. I give myself permission to skip past boring parts too so that I don't feel like it's some chore I've gotta get done. And I only read books that I genuinely believe are going to be enjoyable. (I only read non-fiction.) I also never enjoyed reading growing up. We had the Accelerated Reading Program in my school which made reading as painful as possible. We had to read at a particular time, books marked as being around our grade level, and tested with unimportant details about the book that only served the purpose of making sure that we read it, not that we took anything from it. I literally stared blankly into space during reading time for years resenting it the entire time. I think it's important to break those constricting walls and read on your own terms, rather than according to what other people told you was the right way to read. Try reading Stef's books and see how you like it. It could be that the books you were told to read were not books you would find enjoyable.

I know a guy who simply never responds to jury duty summons. He's had several of them come up, ignored them all and is apparently not in any trouble with the state. He can just say "I never got it". What are they going to do? Say "yes you did"? And that takes a huge amount of courage to stand up for your principles like that. Massive props, Hannah! I have no idea if that could get you in trouble in the future, but I don't think it's hypocritical in the slightest to call the police or bring charges against someone. What other system can you use? They violently prevent any other organizations from helping you with that. (Assuming it's not a charge for a "crime" you think is totally moral). You can be against taxes and still drive on the roads without being a hypocrite. What, are you going to walk everywhere? You're only culpable to the degree to which you have choice. I don't know, right? But I imagine it's gotta be pretty scary for a judge to hear that someone morally opposed the institution he represents, vocally and in front of other potential jurors. I also imagine that he would feel some doubt, hearing that from someone not covered in tattoos, bald and with nose piercings. Something no one has probably ever told him before, and yet must intuitively get is true enough to warrant the moral opposition (how many crooked judges and cops are there?!). Maybe it's not your fear or your doubt that you felt. Especially considering that he lectured you in a condescending manner in what is obvious defensiveness. And with people who are that messed up psychologically when it comes to power, they regress and do what children do when they feel distress: they provoke those feelings in the people around them.

*Update* The torrents Rob linked in this thread have been added to the footer of the fdrpodcasts page.

Heya rayamato1! I have a few questions for you. First some more introductory ones and then a personal one: - How'd you come across the show? - What attracted you to the show? - Did you have a lightbulb moment that made you realize there was some real value in philosophy? If so, tell me about it. - Why has your friend count dwindled down to zero?

My therapist was very keen on artistic expression and doubled as an art therapist. I believe, if I remember rightly, her position was that it can help bring up unconscious material similar to the way dreams do, since it's more or less unfiltered and creative content that has to have come from somewhere. You chose to play a melancholy tune rather than an upbeat or high energy tune. Why is that? People aren't random after all. I think it depends on what you mean by "therapeutic". Being able to self soothe in healthy ways could be considered therapeutic. If you have been through something highly stressful, music can help you relax (I would suggest trying white noise or rain simulations). Something I did that was helpful for bringing up old memories that suddenly take on new meanings, was I recorded myself talking as if I were telling someone the story of my mother, and then my brother and myself, trying not to skip over any details. A lot of interesting things came up that I hadn't thought about in years, or even since the events themselves. Being able to focus is important too, I think, so having an area where there are no sounds (or can be easily masked by white noise), dark, comfortable temperature, and basically serve as sensory deprivation, is a good idea. You can also set aside time where there are definitely no other things that you might need to worry about. Somebody suggested an idea to me recently that I found helpful too, which is if you want to remember a particular time in your life, look up all the major events from that year, the fads, the commercials, the toys and that will help a lot.

I think that it's pretty safe to say that you need to feel what you feel and not suppress the feeling. I don't think the same thing can be said about the thoughts that accompany those feelings. For example, you want to feel rage, but you don't want to find that person and beat them to a pulp. The point being honesty. It's honest to say that you feel a certain way, and it's even honest to say that a thought occurred to you, but it's not honest in the same way to conclude that the thought is true or that you should act on it. "Processing things correctly" might as well be a synonym for honesty. I can't imagine going wrong with that kind of honesty. I think it's more when it comes to conclusions that we need help. Even people who've done lots of therapy still need their friends / lovers to be able to have their back with those conclusions. But a good therapist should help with that, and with encouraging the kind of honesty mentioned above. I would highly recommend a good therapist (I went 4 years), but you can try getting feedback on the conclusions you have on the boards. People 'round these parts are generally pretty insightful, curious and empathetic. So, toward that end, if you don't mind me asking: what did you think and feel when you imagined abusing past abusers?

Why do you think you're as isolated as you are? What does it mean to be in relationship? What is it to be in relationship with a community? I think that being in a real relationship is seeing people for who they really are, being as honest as you can muster and connecting with other people on the basis of shared values and mutual benefit. To offer and receive support in our goals. A community is just an extended version of that, isn't it? We (presumably) share the values of opposing immorality and committing to rational and moral lives. You may have a different way of phrasing that, but any way you cut it, we want to be as rational and honest as we can with ourselves. What can you do toward that? Maybe there are people who are struggling working through a philosophical issue that you can provide real insight into. Maybe your own intellectual or emotional questions can open up interesting conversations where everyone stands to gain and learn something about themselves or the world. And it wouldn't be an FDR thread without the question: have you looked into therapy? I've done years of therapy and found it incredibly valuable in this respect.

I believe these are still good? https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39836-fdrpodcastscom-official-launch/?p=365010

What are you going to be satisfied with? Are you going to be satisfied with your current line of work in 5 years? Are you going to be satisfied with your current relationships in 5 years? Would you be satisfied with your parents lives? How about the lives of the most successful people in your neighborhood? The answer is no, isn't it? That's why you want to explore it despite a lack of motivation, right? It's almost as if your future self is coming back through time to tell you to get on it, to work harder toward your goals. That fear is good. That fear can motivate you. I find envy is a good motivator for me. I hate that this one dork I know is more skilled and accomplished a web developer than I am. I want to be so good at web development that I crush him under the weight of my awesomeness. Is there someone who you don't like who is better than you at what you want to be good at? Good! Crush him! Also, these are some good videos on this subject:

Haha. I love the last line I do think that a lot of guys don't really ask themselves "is she good enough for me"? I know I didn't, and I get the sense that I wasn't alone in that. I'm inclined to think that guys generally are more desperate until I look at all of the crazy advice online targeted at women who are desperate for a man. None of the advice seems to be to say "hey, I think you are attractive, what do you think about grabbing a coffee sometime"? It's about tricking him in some way, or it's all about game. I'm saddened by the fact that all I need to say is "game" and people know what I mean I'd love to hear a woman's take on this study!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Who do you think is the high priest of our time?" "Nelson Mandela [...] He's got the key of forgiveness, which I think saved his country" Yuck! Everything about this is yuck.

I don't know, right? But I think it's an issue of internet courage, in line with some of the other guidelines. If someone is swearing at someone else on the boards, there's no reason to continue engaging them. It's safe to assume they are acting out their own aggression in a way that benefits no one. With that in place, a person can't reasonably complain about being asked to leave when things escalate that much. (They had to agree to the guidelines in order to post.)

"[P]hilosophy, I would argue, is the pursuit of an 'ought' without and 'is'" - Stef (FDR2713 What The Hell Is Philosophy For? ~15m 30s) In medicine, the doctor says "if you want to be healthy, you should do X". The nutritionist says "if you want to lose weight, you should do X". A philosopher is like a doctor, but instead of trying to achieve physical health, he seeks to achieve morality. So, in a way, your manager analogy is pretty close to Stef's definition. A broader view of philosophy (not necessarily better) is to consider the following: every discipline which is now considered a science, was once called "philosophy" (see "natural philosophy"). In that sense you could say that a philosopher is a truth seeker, especially in those domains which are not yet established. There is no theory of evolution, or atomic theory of matter regarding things like ethics (until now, UPB FTW!).

So, libertarianism is bad because it's not socialism? What sloppy, intellectually lazy nonsense. There are some straight up lies in here too. Like: "It presumes a priori that property holdings are deserved, rather than making merit a precondition. Imposing a test of merit would put strict limits on property rights." If anything, there is way too much debate about what constitutes valid property rights among libertarians. The author may be referring to something very specific that bears mentioning explicitly, but as stated, it's completely false. This is also a lie: "Indeed, libertarians generally have no model of society as an interdependent group with a common purpose and common interests" That's entirely the point of a free market is to best facilitate trade among individuals. I mean, that's so obvious that I can't imagine how the author can say this with a straight face. And as mentioned already, there are no real arguments here. The author completely skips over what is supposedly deficient about Hayek's and Rand's statements with the blanket statement "The benign free market model of society is equally deficient", and goes on to support this with examples of rent seeking behavior and corporate subsidies. Every libertarian has heard this tired clichéd argument over and over again that to pull it out so casually is to suggest that they have never actually talked to a libertarian about this topic or they have and they are knowingly misleading the reader. Everything "seems to be the case" and we are argued by adjective to death: "myopic", "fixation with individual freedom", "canonized conservative economist Friedrich Hayek", "deficient", "oblivious", "unfair", etc etc. And all of the vague implications of libertarians as anti-social, uncaring, unwise, selfish (in the bad sense) and all of this. The author is projecting. He has given us the permission to dismiss his entire approach with adjectives, and so that's what I'm going to do. He is being unfair in his writing here, and is oblivious, myopic and deficient in his characterization of libertarians.

There are URLs all over that page, but I'm talking specifically about the buttons underneath the heading "Subscribe to the Freedomain Radio Podcast Feeds". That's whole feeds, the one Samuel posted being one example of them.