Kevin Beal

I'm absolutely 100% certain it is in Origins of War in Child Abuse. He might have said it multiple times, but he got it from Lloyd DeMause who got it from reading studies on inmates.

The cost to buy out all of those competitors grows more expensive with each one they try to buy putting them at a significant disadvantage compared to the remaining competitors. Absorbing other companies is a HUGE drain on resources.

I can't remember which one, but that quote is definitely from Origins of War in Child Abuse that Stef does the reading for. Here's a playlist: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/search/deMause

I don't know how true it is, but I've heard that if the blood type is different from the mother's the fetus can literally be rejected by the body the way a parasite would be.

Yes it is. It's to have valid moral theories / propositions. I just explained that. You even quoted it where I said that. It is UPB to abstain from murder, theft, rape, fraud etc. That is to say that it is preferable (objectively required) that you do not murder if you want behavior to be moral (logically consistent and universal).

My favorite is Men Don't Exist by ManWomanMyth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A

It's this one. The reason you are having a problem here is because you are equivocating between different senses of the word "prefer" or "preference". Having a subjective preference for chocolate over vanilla is not what the "preferable" in UPB is talking about. From the book: If you want to have valid moral propositions, then it is preferable that they be logically consistent and universalizable. In other words, the goal is to have moral propositions. Toward that goal certain things are preferable, and in the same sense that it is preferable to submit your scientific theories to particular standards, summed up as the "scientific method". UPB actually contains within it the scientific method as a subset of this broader logical framework, but it's also a convenient analogy as you see here. As an addendum to the book (not in place of it), here is a good explanation of the problem UPB is trying to solve, what constitutes a solution and how UPB achieves this: FDR1776 Sunday Call In Show - Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB) October 31 2010 http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1776_sunday_show_oct_31_2010_UPB.mp3

Is it inaccurate or unsympathetic to treat needing a sex change operation as a tragedy? I would imagine that would have to be a nightmare to have to deal with. Most people feel super uncomfortable, you're infertile, people often will not want to date you, actual and perceived bigotries, sex change operations not being able to do enough to make it as if you were never the other sex. Whenever I hear stuff from feminists, it's always about how nobody can talk about it as if it's anything other than normal or else you are a horrible bigoted person. Let's bring it into the public eye, but let's not actually talk about anything real. That sort of thing.

What the word "gender" means has actually changed in popular perception not long ago. Originally gender did not describe people, but nouns. There were only 4 of them: masculine, feminine, undetermined and neuter. "Bull" is masculine, "hen" is feminine, "dog" is undetermined and "book" is neuter since no gender can be possible for it. Putting people in labels like "cisgender" or a homosexual woman in a man's body and all of these frankly stupid categorizations is convenient for people who want to manipulate you through language. In this case it's a desire not to frame people who have sex changes and the like as an aberration, in the same way we wouldn't just say that I'm normal and then there are these gay people out there. I would feel incredibly anxious to have to deal with feeling that I have the wrong sex body and all of the social awkwardness (or hostility) that comes with going through a sex change. But I don't think that inventing terms like cisgender and cis-privilege actually helps with that at all. In fact, I find it really irritating and I think it gets in the way of me empathizing with people who have had to deal with these issues. And sometimes it's about creating a "worthy victim" narrative where it's okay to be racist and sexist against white men. Because it's not actually about principles, but rather using a convenient outlet for their own pathological rages with impunity. There are things which are not black and white. Sexual orientations can blend and people can even be born with both sets of genitals. I am not my sex, gender or race. My name is Kevin Beal. "Hi there, nice to meet you. If you want to be real with me, I want to listen". I would much prefer a frank discussion about these things rather than a feminist monopolized language game where I always lose. And from what I can tell, women, gays and transgenders also lose in that game. Don't you feel like you are being made the enemy by being given all these labels? I'm not anyone's enemy because of sex or race or sexual orientation or anything like that, and yet I've been told that I am repeatedly by people who don't know anything about me beyond how I fit those labels. /rant

I was not aware of that. Thank you for the correction!

White cis men built Twitter...

This is just my theory. (Contains factual errors) They won't keep it because they never technically "seized" anything. The original owner (or a friend of his) could just take it back at any time if he has any copies of his keys lying around, which I'm certain he does if he's holding millions of dollars. He could transfer it into a mixing service and put it into another wallet. The only reason it hasn't been done yet (probably) is because it's risky. They'd have to do it right so it doesn't lead back to anyone and in a way that it isn't obvious that he (or a friend) suddenly has a bunch of money. They are auctioning it off because they know a spiteful bitcoiner could get away with it and they want at least some kind of compensation for their evil.

I thought you were suggesting that Wes was trying to change people who don't want to change the same way I (and you?) have done in the past: the unhealthy way. Did I misunderstand? *blush*

I think this is a half truth, if you don't mind me saying. Trying to change other people who don't want it is definitely a huge source of craziness and grief and I don't think that's what Wesley is actually suggesting. Rather you could phrase it "helping those who wish to change". And that's like the whole premise to FDR as a show. And there are things that are better and worse toward achieving that. FDR as a show adapts toward that end by doing more call-in-shows, more pop culture and truth abouts and all the other things that meet these people where they are at. This is something that I have been wanting to do myself (help others) and something I've been thinking about since Stef's 2011 xmas message to the listeners where he suggested that a good next move and way to push the conversation further is for people who've been in the community awhile to take on more leadership roles. I don't know exactly how that'll look for me yet, but one thing I've been doing is trying to connect with more and more people over skype. I want to connect with people who are actually committed to virtue and connect them with each other. I'm convinced that is a huge asset, not just for me. Wes has been working on other projects like the FDR Art project, the FDR glossary and other things, and I'm really curious about where this current line of thinking could lead. Your concern is clearly a healthy one, and certainly people should focus on themselves first and foremost before trying to help others, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. I want to be the beacon you mention, but a beacon shines it's light in all directions. And I want to see if, maybe, some beams converge.

Personally, I was shocked, and continue to be shocked at times 5 years later. I think it's the irreverence and the strong opposition to minimizing things that helps shock the truth into me. Shocking how much I wasn't seeing before and yet now in hindsight seems so obvious. Taxation is force? Spanking is immoral? Whoa! How did I not see that before? The recent gender topics have been a big source of shock for me. At the same time it seems so natural, like I've always known these things on some level, which is weird on account of how much of it is stuff that no one ever talks about in my daily life, until recently, now that I bring it up.

Hi Alex! Welcome to the boards How did you come across the show? Was it pretty natural or was it more of a shock to your system?

He's also pronounced Stefan with that short "a" sound like in the words "pan", "ban", "map", etc. I think he's just trolling us

Thanks. I'll check out the podcast you mentioned too.

I didn't include it because it makes no difference as far as I can tell. Of course consciousness requires brain activity.

Influence is just another way of saying it's causal. It's a distinction without a difference. Compatibilism maybe. I'm assuming incompatibilism in order to make that statement. We are not actually programmed by our genetics. It's a useful analogy, but that's not what programming is. When you use "programming" in the literal sense it already implies causal determinism since programming is conditional symbol manipulation. If it's a choice to use reason (and it is) then it's not exactly programming. I program for a living. My programs do not literally decide to go with or against the conditional logic I put into it, but I do decide whether or not to reason things. The reason it's important is because of morality. If I cannot choose my actions, then I am not culpable for them. We don't get mad at a rock for falling on and smushing my toe. The reason is because the rock doesn't have any culpability. And the reason it has no culpability is because it is not a moral agent capable of making decisions independent of the conditions that led it to fall on my toe. I really don't want to debate determinism. It's actually against the forum guidelines. I've done it multiple times already to my own dismay. It seems to be just one of those topics that people cannot debate productively, which is part of the reason it's against the guidelines of the forum, I'm sure.

You are saying that subjective experience is causal. I don't think you understand the implications of that and how it contradicts the things you said before, but that's all I was really trying to get at. And I don't know how to explain the contradiction without just repeating myself. That's like the whole point of the last few posts I made...

You are saying the (basically) same thing I am, except I'm using the word "caused" and you're using the word "programmed". I could quibble about your characterization of "epiphenomenal", but it's close enough, I guess.

With much hesitation, I accept that concepts of unicorns exist. And whether or not he is programmed to seek the truth is actually irrelevant. It's the programming part that is the problem. He cannot claim to have reasoned anything thru since that implies that his faculty for reason is causal (from thought to brain activity). He cannot claim superior logic because all that means is that he was programmed to think that. Logical conclusions must be so regardless of what a person thinks (epistemic objectivity). And in order to reach that logical conclusion, you have to assume your (ontologically subjective) capacity for reason is causal in reaching that conclusion. But his programming is the causal part. His reasoning is epiphenomenal, fluff, nothing. Determinism and materialism (with regard to philosophical dualism) is epiphenomenalism. Epiphenomenalism is a broader category that contains those two things. Once you accept that your reason, desires and beliefs are causal in your action, you are not a determinist (or a materialist with regard to the mind). Robots don't have beliefs and desires. Their programming simulates beliefs and desires. But by definition a simulation is not the thing itself.

A rational being whose consciousness has certain causal features including beliefs, perceptions, desires, etc. I'm a man, who has a capacity for reason, where that reason builds on itself causally from one logical premise to the next until reaching logical conclusions. My thoughts lead to action. All of that is illusory if epiphenomenalism is true. My consciousness is not only sustained by brain activity, but also causes brain activity through some yet unknown mechanism. But, as I said, there is no point debating a flesh robot. You are programmed to do what you will do and I can't argue with that. You are not responsible for truth, but to your programming.