Kevin Beal

Haha. I'm honored. Of all the things to be recognized for...

I've heard that solution as well and have tried it. I, personally, don't find it as good as using a stool, but it's better than sitting upright, I bet. I think the reason for that is that with leaning forward the "anorectal angle" is straight, but it's not straight downward like crouching in woods, but rather at an angle, since the seat is off the ground. With a stool, you have the angle and the orientation together. I'm just guessing though. I am not an expert by any means.

Haha! Freedom for our poop. See? It's all on topic with FDR

I discovered recently a superior method of pooping that I wanted to share with y'all. Sitting on a toilet with our legs out at a somewhat 90 degree angle, the way western people do, is actually not good for you. Your "anorectal angle" in this position is such that rectum (the cavity above the sphincter) is at an angle with the sphincter. This means that instead of pushing poop straight out, you're pushing against yourself. This is supposed to increase the likelihood of constipation, hemorrhoids, colon disease and urinary difficulty / infections for women. The solution is to use a stool under your feet when you are sitting on the toilet so that the angle of your thighs to your torso is much closer, like when you're squatting in the woods. I find that this makes things go a lot more smoothly and quickly, and also that I'm doing less cleanup afterward. Here's a video advertising a product made specifically for this:

I decided to dedicate some type to have a mecosystem chat just now, because it had been a while, and because I want to be less theoretical and more empirical. Also, I recorded it in audio and listened back to it (I highly recommend it). You know how Stef says stuff like "I'm not telling you anything you don't already know" and challenges callers who quickly respond to deeper questions with "I don't know"? I bet that's got a lot to do with his own mecosystem work, because I often have this experience doing mecosystem work asking myself "how did I not catch that before?!" and then realizing that it was a part of myself that I was talking to, so technically, I did know it, just not consciously. And sometimes I experience some embarrassment realizing that I had heard the valuable thing they were saying before, probably originating from that part the first time I thought about it. And, a couple times, I think I got an "I told you so". If I had only listened to that part from the beginning I could have avoided something really unpleasant. That sort of thing. I think that's kind of what it means to be more conscious, or to expand consciousness, is to be more connected with different parts of yourself, who can all inform you about what they think from their separate perspectives. I think it makes me more flexible too when things come up. I'm not immediately suppressing some shame or anger or whatever and instead of retreating within myself and feeling anxious, stuck, I kind of trust that I'll have something to do or say about it. Like when I'm walking around town and there are some rough looking fellows who may cause me some grief by harassing me in some way (not violent, just jerks). I'm tempted to become like an emotional turtle retreating within myself in my anxiety, but when I'm more connected with myself, I'm much more curious about what kind of people they are and what I might do if they were to say some bitchy thing to me like "nice shirt idiot", lol. I imagine myself just laughing out loud and asking them if they are harassing me, as if harassing someone was ridiculous (which it kind of is). That is something I'd like to get really good at. Thanks for reminding me!

Unless I'm also wrong, this is definitely very clear mecosystem work. There are varying degrees of distance you can feel from the personalities in your mind and even if it's hard to distinguish your self from the other, it's still mecosystem work as far as I'm concerned. But it sounds like you had a much more vivid picture experience than what is typical (at least for me). Most of the time that feeling of separateness is only half there for me compared to the times I remember it being crystal clear to me. I don't communicate often with my mecosystem – at least through conversation, so there are other people who can speak with more authority, but to me it seems very clear that is your mecosystem. I'm very sorry you're exploited like you were. And I know a bit about the overwhelm, and I'm sorry about that too. Have you had less clear or more ambiguous communication with your mecosystem before yesterday?

Poor woman. She must be under a lot of stress.

As I understand it, in terms of traffic, the brand is "Stefan Molyneux". "Freedomain Radio" has remained about the same in terms of hits, but his name is how people come across the show and his name is a very quickly growing keyword. I think the name of the show isn't really that important. It's pretty amazing that an FDR video is featured in a Time Magazine Online article. But oh my god is this one huge example of poisoning the well, but that's exactly what everyone there was expecting, so... This is a very interesting piece, though. She really doesn't like Stef. She apparently found a mental health professional that says that very little is set in the personality within the first 5 - 10 years: I'm actually shocked about that one. The ACE study is the largest of it's kind and it shows this very clearly. Has the good doctor heard about this or any of the many studies that show the effects of spanking on children? Am I missing something, or is what the doctor is saying obviously false? And two great quotes that are perfect for taking out of context: But any press is good press, right?

I started on a player, but if you can't get there on mobile by navigating the site, I don't see much point in getting 'er done...

For what it's worth, I totally agree with you. Having to learn to negotiate and be assertive around my values later in my life was very difficult. Personally, I resent that very much. In my opinion, the safest bet in dealing with people who might be slippery around these kinds of topics and where you might not have a bunch of facts and statistics memorized to use in debate, is to do a socratic dialog with them (which you've probably heard of or done before). So, if she says "Oh, a little spanking from time to time is not going to hurt them" or something like that, you can say something like "how do you know that?", which might become something like: her: I was spanked and I turned out alright you: but how do you know that you wouldn't have turned out a little or a lot better without the spanking? I don't understand how you can be so confident about that. Have you done any research into the effects of spanking? The point being that you keep the focus where it belongs: on her rationalizations. And you're asking honest questions. The burden of proof is on her to justify hitting her kids. In philosophy, positive claims, especially ones that involve logical contradictions (e.x. "me hitting you is good, you hitting me is bad") logically require the onus be put on that person to justify their claim. Otherwise, you don't know what you are arguing against or if you do, they can just claim later that you are arguing against something they weren't saying, when they actually were saying that. Making them put their position out there explicitly means you know what the debate is in clear(er) terms and you'll be in a much better position to argue honestly and with confidence. Because most times in debate, people who are otherwise nice get,... well manipulative. And they can't get away with that as easily if you take the socratic dialog approach. I don't know if that's helpful at all, but that's what I like to do.

Hi Kahvi! Welcome to the boards I share your frustration. My own parents said that line – that they wanted to be better parents than their own. Unfortunately, they used that to excuse their own behavior. When I tried to talk about the neglect and indifference that had a terrible effect on me, they would talk about their own parents and how they were worse, and their own childhoods more traumatic. So, in a way, I'm glad they did better than their parents, but I deeply resent my own trauma being minimized. I don't have any friends (or acquaintances) who hit their children, or if they do, they won't mention it to me. I've asked a few and they've all said they do not hit, so far. My only experience with confronting a spanking parent was with a woman who I had no interest in being friends with and had no real desire to use kid gloves with her. I decided to take the UPB (Universally Preferable Behavior) approach and it went something like: Me: do your kids get to hit you when you do something wrong? Her: I'm the parent! Me: so what? Why does that matter? And she got very upset with me, repeated that she was the parent without offering any justification at all beyond that, called me names, and huffed and puffed and ran out slamming the door. She is a very physically attractive woman and is probably not used to guys standing up for people and themselves like that. I didn't take any of her character assassinations and was very persistent, which she seemed to have no idea how to handle. I never called her any names or said that she was evil or anything like that, but neither did I budge. I haven't heard from her since, but I hope that only had a positive effect on the kids. Unfortunately, she's immature and hostile enough that it's possible she would cement in her bigotry. If it were someone that I actually liked (learning about the hitting might put that into question for me, tho), then I would probably immediately respond to the threat of spanking by looking her in the eyes and saying "there's got to be a better way". I think most people will be shocked by such a simple statement, see that it is so obviously true and start to back pedal. That simple disapproval is important, I think, to get people to start to filter these kinds of thoughts, instead of acting so impulsively to threaten their own children. It's disapproving of a pattern of behavior, and not necessarily the person themselves, so you can look at it that way to feel your healthy resentment about that while feeling the compassion you might want to feel toward the woman herself. I don't really bother with the compassion part, but multiple people have told me that it's important, so, I thought I'd throw it in there. I especially like those simple statements that let people know that's not okay. I've done that in other contexts multiple times and I've noticed a pattern: 1. Immediately switching topics because they suddenly feel uncomfortable 2. not bringing it up for a while 3. bringing it up in a way that shows they've given it some real thought, maybe in the form of a moral dilemma, or a way where they've done it differently 4. talking candidly about it Sometimes 3 and 4 never happen. Usually with people who are too invested in bad behavior. And I don't know if this is the best way to go about it or not, it's just what I've done. I think it's awesome that you are so committed to peaceful parenting. My experience there is mostly theoretical, but you're actually doing it. That's way more important that writing articles or board posts. As the brits say: good on you!

Hi Brian!

Two inches away from a microwave and the waves are diffuse enough that they cannot harm you at all. As far as affecting your food goes, that depends on a lot of different factors. This cliche about microwaves killing all the good things in your food and keeping all the bad things alive is a vast oversimplification. Microwaving is actually healthier in some instances than baking or boiling or whatever. ^^ Above is what you find when you google "microwave myths"

The Reason According to Google's Chrome for Android FAQ (and the android browser itself too, I'm sure), they've decided against supporting flash, so the usual route will not work out of the box. This is because Adobe gave up on trying to market Flash for mobile. The reason for that is because Flash is actually a big overhead and completely unnecessary in mobile and modern browsers when it comes to playing audio and video. The browser itself directly supports that now, but in order to support older browsers you see a lot of flash players out there. ~10% of Americans don't use browsers that are any good and developers are afraid to turn them away. Increasingly, Flash is being phased out of the web. Javascript native to your browser can do pretty much everything Flash can do and a lot more (including 3D gaming) without having to download any plugins. Flash is the most popular browser plugin of all time, but it's going away, and it should. The Solution(s) The best (least hacky) solution is a direct audio file download. And newer phones can pause and play from the lock screen, so that's pretty cool. That link is currently this one: http://209.105.250.73:8417/fdr-stream. But I don't know exactly how that works or if it changes (not wise linking directly to IP addresses). You can also get a special browser for your phone called Photon Flash Player and Browser to make Flash work on your phone. You can also get the Real Player for Android and using this link to hook into the streamer: http://cast5.serverhostingcenter.com/tunein.php/freedomainradio/playlist.ram.

You know me, I'm always feelin' frisky Yea, I'll throw something together.

I don't believe there is any other way. The links to the mp3's seem to be dynamically generated on the fly to ensure security, so that you can't just link someone else to that podcast regardless of their donation level. They are definitely worth a listen. And you can listen to them in your browser. You don't need to listen to them in iTunes or anything like that. And if it's on a smartphone, you can use any browser that supports flash and it should be swell.

It is about behavior. There's no such thing as a moral proposition that doesn't involve any acting. Thought crimes are not immoral under UPB. It is concerned with "oughts", even if that "ought" is not specifically moral. You ought not murder people, and you ought use the scientific method when evaluating empirical facts about the world. You're wrong about the requirement for empiricism for establishing theories. It's definitely a plus, but not required. Praxeology and catallactics are other examples of a priori based theories. Empirical evidence supports these sciences, but it does not provide it's basis. One way that you test UPB empirically is in the same way you test macro-economics empirically: by looking at broader historical trends, see how logically consistent they were in these different senses and see how well these societies do. If ethics were simply a matter of what "works", that would be utilitarianism, and that is irrational for many reasons we can go into. Suffice it to say that it's principles we're concerned with, and in this case, principles that are derived a priori starting from first principles.

I saw you post something similar on Facebook. It's workshops on things like RTR, self knowledge and relationships, is that right? Sounds great

I think @Darius Cikanavičius and @RachelAnn offer services like that. I hear Steven does it over Skype. And I think Rachel might focus more on physical health, but I'm not sure. I only know about them through the forums and haven't used any of their services.

Your specific criticism was brought up in a separate sub-forum a couple weeks ago. If the reputation system itself promoted "platitudes and overtly positive things" you would see a lot of that, but instead you see disagreement everywhere. And that is not the way that most people with scores low enough to hide their posts react. They nearly for certain double down. It gives me little pause because this same thing happened before on the last forums without a reputation system (as JamesP points out). And nobody ever says that they feel hurt because of it. To that I say bullshit. Of course that would hurt. And if someone is not connecting with their own pain, have that kind of personality, they are bound to project or act out. I'm actually really surprised his score isn't lower being that he's repeatedly suggested that FDR folk are generally sheeple. He may have got some downvotes here because of his previous remarks, I don't know. I doubt it. The explanation that it's because of the reputation system that they don't post is one theory. Maybe it's worth exploring other explanations. I have before and I did again. Other people have, as well. Also, if you google "spanking doesn't work" you get lots of prominent articles with reference to case studies demonstrating that it doesn't work. You kept saying that it obviously does work, but you didn't seem to do any looking into it.

I don't understand why a person would be willing to fight to have people who don't want to read their posts, read them. And I certainly wouldn't immediately assume that the problem was with the reputation system. If I had a couple dozen negative points, I would feel self doubt, and maybe a little hurt. I might not just assume it were all me that was the problem, but I don't think I would have much confidence saying it was any one thing in particular. Why don't people with that low of a reputation score ask someone in a PM or something to review what they had written to get a second opinion? Why does it seem to consistently end up in "this system is unjust" kinds of posts? The mere certainty of these people gives me pause, like, don't you know how that comes off? The first thing I think when I read that is: "so, this person, in all likelihood, said things to warrant that score". And maybe not, but so far, whenever I've looked into it, that has been the case. I haven't checked every time, but still. Also, I'm surprised the OP didn't find any threads on this topic. There's gotta be like a new one every couple weeks, it seems like.

UPB doesn't really describe behavior so much as propositions which inform behavior: explicit or implicit "should's". This can be particular moral arguments or entire moral theories. If I ought to act in a certain way, the logic that I use to justify that is evaluated using the standards of universality and logical consistency. UPB the book tells us why these standards are used (to establish objectivity) and gives a lot of examples of how it can be applied in ways that aren't immediately obvious (coma test, two guys in a room, etc), and how it can be used to confirm what we already know intuitively about murder, theft, rape, etc. It need not be a written / verbal moral argument. Since thought always precedes purposeful action, UPB looks at that thought (conscious or otherwise). If someone were possessed by a demon and they weren't purposefully acting, we couldn't reasonably hold them morally responsible for acting in the ways they do. And the act of cutting someone's throat might be to murder them or to perform an emergency tracheotomy. Behavior itself cannot be evaluated using UPB. UPB includes within it a way of evaluating propositions which aren't specifically moral. Moral evil describes propositions which if carried out would justify the use of violence to prevent: murder, rape, theft, etc. Other propositions can be logically inconsistent or violate universality, but do not justify the use of violence to prevent (e.x. being late to a meeting). These fall under the umbrella of vice / virtue. Other propositions do not imply any "ought to"'s and are considered morally neutral (e.x. reading a book). The "preferable" refers to how we determine these things: what is objectively required to meet the dual standard of logical consistency and universality. Is it objectively moral, immoral, vice or virtue?

Hi Henry! It seems like very few with a degree in political science make it to anarchism. Was it a difficult process? How long have you been tuning in? I'm really sorry about the abuse and neglect, and I'm very happy to hear you are committed to breaking the cycle. See you around the boards and the chat.

I don't know which podcast it is, but here's the original article: http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/childhoodHolocaust.html

Right. I'm thinking free markets, specifically. When you have access to a gun, economic arguments become a lot less relevant.