Kevin Beal

I don't understand the significance here. So what?

It doesn't form the "grounding" for UPB. UPB would be valid regardless of whether or not property rights were valid. UPB demonstrates the validity of property rights. You've got it backwards. Why are you not convinced by the fact that you cannot deny property rights without implying it's validity? Because "not necessarily"? You realize that's not an argument, right? What objection do you have beyond "not necessarily"?

Going into extreme debt though, that doesn't hurt children... *rolls eyes* Despite being an anarchist, I find myself sympathizing much more with republicans than with democrats. It's exactly propaganda like this that is why I feel that way. If it were really about any of the moral positions they vomit, they would actually do the 2 seconds of research that reveals that it's exactly the kinds of programs they push for that hurt children most by putting them hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt simply for being born. Now that's a steep tax!

Most fallacies of this type are only fallacies with regard to those arguments who claim proof on the basis of that logical formation. That is to say that actually tu quoque, ad hominem, appeal to authority, etc. are all completely valid except when they are offered as syllogistic proof. A guy being fat selling you a book on nutrition may have something, but the fact that he's fat is evidence that his nutrition advice is bad (not proof). And there aren't a whole lot of places where syllogistic proof is possible, but that shouldn't stop us from advancing philosophical arguments.

Respect people enough not to try and manage their feelings. That's a Simon the boxer scenario. A child learns to manage their narcissistic parents and as an adult he encounters other petty people and is drawn to try and manage them to relieve his own discomfort with narcissists by feeling a sense of control over how much he can manage them. (Instead of staying away from these genuinely ugly people). By putting that burden on the people responsible (where it belongs), it becomes less predictable and the result is possibly another petty narcissistic episode. That is obviously going to trigger Simon, the narcissist tamer, because he senses a loss of control. The problem is that he ever believed he had control over these people in the first place. Narcissists love being managed. Please don't enable them. They don't mind telling you what you want to hear as long as you feed their narcissistic supply. That's why I vehemently reject your approach. I would quickly vomit from anxiety if I had to do what you do voluntarily. I literally tremble imagining it. You say that you think we agree more than disagree, but either I have completely misunderstood you, or you don't understand the implications of what I'm saying. So hopefully, this addendum reinforces that component to it.

I'm not sure what you want my feedback on... What you said about having certain approaches to getting your needs met, negotiating things, offering criticisms etc all is true enough as far as I can tell. What I take issue with is asking victims of abuse to be therapists for their abusers. I think an important point to establish informs your characterization of "moralizing", and by that I choose to interpret that as putting forward (valid or invalid) moral arguments, esp. arguments delivered passionately. If you don't mind, I'm going to ignore the bits about how I'm not an authority like you are and how I lack self empathy. That's just not going to be productive, and it's not really important anyway. You don't actually know me. You said: If I understand you rightly, this completely disregards the most important part about moral arguments, which is whether or not they are true and valid arguments. If I say that the world is round, and my friend Chuck gets upset or feels ashamed or any other emotional response (positive or negative), it's not me that has upset him. It's the truth that has upset him. The infliction of false moral arguments on people in order to manipulate them through an appeal to shame is something entirely different. And honestly, I'm a little annoyed that in your very long response, you did not address this point. I am not responsible for anyone's defensiveness or their baggage. I tend to be very conscious of where people's defenses are, which I learned out of necessity as a child. And I don't try and provoke them unless it's a necessary conflict, like someone who's harassing, or is in complete denial and are someone that I can't reasonably get away from (which is very rare). And if it's someone I am hoping to have an intimate relationship with then I tend to try RTRing as a way of bringing it across. I am not interested in being anyone's therapist. And I reject the idea that adult children should be asked to do this with their parents. The prospect actually makes me sick to think about. It makes sense for a mediator or counselor to use something like unconditional positive regard (within reason). This is not how healthy friendships work, though. Daniel Mackler has a lot to say about this sort of thing in his essays. This one in particular is relevant. I think this is obvious enough that I don't have to expand on it. I refuse to deny my own judgment and prejudice in dealing with people unless it's something I know I have trouble with, or I'm ambivalent about it. And I don't want people doing that for me either. Treating people with respect is being honest about what you think and feel. And in peer relationships, it is not honest to take the role of therapist or parent. What that is is manipulation. I don't want to manage how people respond to my honest thoughts and feelings. That's exhausting and it's manipulative. I just want to be myself and for that to be enough. Especially with the people who claim to love me. You cannot reasonably criticize someone for telling the truth, whether that truth be moral or otherwise.

Changed his mind from pro spanking to anti-spanking? Since the video?

You can listen to the first couple minutes and hear for yourself, but basically the guy brought up that the solution worth focusing on is extending the NAP to children and not spanking them, as talked about by Stef-dawg. If I told you that working in the government corrupts you, do you instantly think that I'm saying that everyone working in government is wholly corrupt and evil? Of course not. People take the least favorable interpretation of something in order to reject it when they don't know why they actually feel the urge to reject it.

Can he be seen, heard, touched, detected in any way? If not, then he doesn't exist. If so, then present this evidence.

Causality is meaningless without reference to the features of objects. The meaning will be too different to apply universally as any kind of principle beyond "effects are caused, things change". The state of system can cause an emergent property to come about. The accumulation and configuration of H2O molecules produces the phenomena of liquidity. But this process doesn't occur over time. In a very different sense, me kicking a ball causes it to roll forward, described in terms of the transfer of kinetic energy. And all of that is still different from saying that psychological repression can cause splitting and dissociation, or that digestion causes food stuffs to dissolve into pieces that can be absorbed. There is no science of cause and effect. Cause and effect describe every science and in ways that are very rarely reducible to the atomic theory of matter. If everything could be reduced to the atomic theory of matter, there would be no need for any sciences except for physics. The idea that all cause and effect fits nicely on a single continuum to be described by a single theory is horse poopies. I reject the term "law of causality". It's equally as helpful as saying the "law that things exist". It makes it sound like it's a part of physics like the "law of gravity".

I think also that it's funny that there is no way that you can leave feeling uplifted. It reminds me of that saying "shit sucks, then you die", haha It just seems like there's gotta be a better way of conveying whatever message they wanted to convey. In some way that isn't depressing.

I was getting my mail today when I noticed this bumper sticker. I read it and couldn't stop laughing for like 20 minutes. It reads: "Support Kilroys: It was your choice to move here. Don't try to change things" It's for a towing company. They also happen to have the contract with the local police. I have absolutely no idea what to make of it, but I really wanted to share it.

Well, you try it. People think that it's a lot easier than it is.

I've been getting into the work of John Searle recently because he has a fascinating approach to accounting for consciousness. He's got an awesome 15min TED talk that introduces the most basic concepts that I would highly recommend. Through his work I've added some really great new concepts into my vocabulary such as intentionality, aspectual shape, ontological subjectivity and irreducibility. The focus of John's work is on the philosophy of mind. Which if you are not familiar, basically, goes back to Descartes who proposed that the mind and the physical world are of different substances. A Dualism that regards the mind as being a part of god separate from the physical. There is a tension here on the side for both the mystics and the materialists. The supposed problem is the irreducibility of consciousness. That is that the actual subjective first hand experience that is our conscious experience cannot have a full account through the reduction to lower level processes. Take the example of the color red. Imagine a person who was born truly color blind in the strictest sense. They grow up to be an expert on colors. They know exactly the wavelengths of colors and that red is 600 nanometers in the diameter of these spiraling streams of light. They have seen and measured the effects that these light waves have on the cones and rods in our eyes. They have watched the visual sense data get integrated in an fMRI into our unified conscious experience. And yet they have absolutely no clue what the color red looks like. Think about that for a second. Certain things in reality really are irreducible, and the atomic theory of matter cannot fully account for many of the emergent phenomena in this world. And that doesn't make them any less based in science or real. We don't use physics to account for biological processes. We have a science for that. It's called biology. But this is unsettling for most people who consider this. The mystics tend to want to make the physical the part that is unreal and regard the mind as having primacy over reality, if it does exist. Deepak Chopra says that we all collectively create the physical world through our imagination, for example. The materialists regard those inescapably subjective phenomena as unreal or not based in science and so they disregard the mind and seek to explain consciousness as being like a computer. And if we can only figure out the program, we can have a full account of consciousness that includes beliefs, pains, desires, decision making and all the rest of the subjective first hand experiences we have our own consciousness. John Searle doesn't accept this dualism. Neither does he waste his time on the mystics. What he focuses on is the materialist account of consciousness and how a model of computation cannot ever explain consciousness. He also includes an awesome critique of behaviorism and of Freud's model of the unconscious that will flip some things on their head for you. It certainly changed the way I looked at the unconscious. What I find so refreshing about the whole approach is that he accounts for consciousness in a way that totally accepts our experience of our decision to act in certain ways. Me deciding to lift my arm is what actually happened, is a valid description of the events. He doesn't try to reduce it away to a level of description that says my synapses fired in my motor cortex sending a electrical and chemical information from my brain to my arm activating the muscles in my arm to retract and lift my arm. As if that explained anything about consciousness in the first place. He will convince you that the materialist position on the philosophy of the mind is illogical and anti-scientific despite the enormous support in the world of academia and (many of) those in cognitive science. The book is The Rediscovery of the Mind.

I'm not sure why it needs to be any more complicated than it feels good to be happy. If we found a case where happiness somehow caused unpleasantness, we'd consider that pathological,... or at least unhealthy, something to be analyzed.

Strictly speaking, emotions are not rational or irrational. The thoughts that inform the emotions can be though. And to be even more annoying, if it is part of your awareness at all, you are conscious of it. It hurts you consciously (as it might hurt me as well). Let me know if I'm off base, but the emotion here is humiliation, isn't it? People trying to hack away at your sense of self and self worth. It's a sickening thing to do to someone, but it has a relatively simple foundation that can easily be undone with the proper perspective: it relies entirely on the premise that no one is going to point out "hey, you are trying to humiliate me right now". Because who's going to say "yea, I'm a completely petty loser that gets his kicks by humiliating other people"? That sting, is the bite of an undead lifeless vampire intent on spreading his own sickness to you. Which is the humiliated so often seek to humiliate others. The origins of humiliation are a more complicated matter that this podcast is amazing at explaining: FDR421 - Humiliation http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_421_Humiliation.mp3 I would just say that the emotion is real and appropriate, it just doesn't belong to you. That's someone else's worthlessness.

I don't have the music thing. At least not consistently. Although, Raffi's Baby Beluga popped into my head the other day. A song I hadn't heard in like 20 years. Not sure if it's a good thing or not, but something I noticed that happened for me was that I cry now during almost every movie I watch. And I mostly watch comedies and action flicks, so... 'splain me that! I watched the movie Brave by Pixar and seriously cried like 10 times. I've become a very tender guy compared to before.

I would submit that this is an enormously difficult process that takes a whole hell of a lot of work to stop. It may be the case that this isn't actually what's happening though, and I actually suspect that it is not. These are just my theories and could totally be speaking out of my armpit. For whatever reason I feel very confident expressing them (rightly or wrongly). Many people are really shitty people to have around you Alternately, what can happen is that you are experiencing all the feelings implicated in surrounding yourself with the kind of people who would rather just call you names rather than show you how you're wrong. You're feelings in that case are telling not that you are a bad, dumb, immature or whatever, but rather that you need to get yourself away from people who actually are immature and dumb and bad. You feel what they choose not to feel. It's painful to be around people who attack you for telling the truth. As it should be. It would be a problem if it wasn't. The way to not take shitty things personally If rather the problem is taking things personally and finding it difficult to feel a sense of certainty about what is valid feedback or not, the solution is both very simple and very difficult. It's living a strictly principled life. What you base your own sense of self worth on are actually valid principles that you've reasoned through and accept with certainty because you've practiced living them in your own life. That's how you've been relating to yourself, with reference to good values. The pretenders to the throne I think we all kind of know this deep down, because there is a tendency for many people to fake like they are already at this point, like those people who pretend to be above it all. What they are really doing is they reactively reject things that make them feel bad and then invent some reason why they should reject it after the fact. They are not actually basing their own worth on principle, but pretentiously invoking principles to shut you up. Also, these types of people tend to attack others who are actually demonstrating an understanding of living in accordance with principles because they know deep down in contrast that they are lying to themselves. And they use that after the fact justification machine to maintain their own narcissistic bubbles to attack the truly principled. And worse, always under the pretense of virtue (that they actually lack). People who don't know enough about virtue, and those people who use similar justifications can end up idolizing these fakers. And that's why politicians and priests can have power in this world. There is no silver bullet You and I and everyone else I know of (save for a tiny few) have been abused or neglected as children, and (I believe) we will always be susceptible to things that would serve to trigger the complexes around our traumas. And people who come up with shitty ways of defending themselves and attacking others seem to be great at finding something that'll hook into you. I've noticed that with a lot of work we can become less susceptible over time, but I'm not sure that it ever fully goes away. I don't know... This problem is why there is a show like FDR And books like the Psychology of Self Esteem, and lots of other great resources on philosophy, personal freedom and self knowledge. There are so many ways that people have been able to manipulate language and pervert the true meanings of so many of the concepts we use. It's a real battle to be able to combat these things not only in the people in our lives and in society at large, but also within ourselves. Hopefully the pursuit of philosophy should be to gain the tools to enable yourself to be a better more effective person in a distorted and potentially dangerous world. I talk a good talk sometimes, but actually living a principled life is super difficult and the people who do that work really impress me, and I can't help but feel respect and admiration for people who do the work.

I don't understand how people can be totally fine with mutilation, and then suddenly become disturbed when it's revealed that mohels are performing fellatio on infant boys. Both are completely unholy and terrible, obviously, but I'm inclined to think that mutilation of a person's genitals is worse. I know which one I would have chosen if I had the choice. What kind of a sick fuck invented genital mutilation? The future will be appalled.

I don't know, but it seems to me that a university is pretty low down on the list of places that might make you a hypocrite. Like the military, or the IRS for example. I have done work for a company that sells a product exclusively to state employees, and Stef has worked at a company that took state contracts. I don't quite remember the rebuttal he had for people who pointed that out to him, but he didn't take any shit for that. I don't remember which podcast this was from. If someone can find it, that'd be awesome. There are people who say that anarchists in general are hypocrites because they use public roads and went to public schools, which is obviously bullshit since there aren't really other options. And on the other extreme there are anarchists in the military which I would consider very hypocritical, so I don't know where to draw that line exactly. Just as far as picking a job goes, I think that it's unwise to choose on the basis of what you "should" be doing, since it's just going to feel like someone else's life you're living. Rather I think that you should do something that you enjoy, and better yet fulfills you. If you're current job does that for you, then I'd just stay there and make it work for you (even if you gotta compensate in some other way or something). Sorry I don't have any clear answers.

Is that a yes or a no?

Is this your argument? P1. taking away a child's ice-cream and attacking a child are both violations of property rights P2. I am claiming that child abuse is immoral because it's a violation of property rights P3. I don't and wouldn't reasonably condemn a parent for taking away ice-cream C1. I am being inconsistent about my application of property rights and/or morality C2. It is similarly baseless to say attacking a child is immoral as it is to say that taking away a child's ice-cream is immoral This seems to be the implication in your statements. Have I interpreted it correctly? If so, would you say that this is a good argument?

Self knowledge is kinda strange since the things we realize about ourselves are things we already on some level know. Many things, anyway. If it helps, I don't think you are alone. I can surely relate. And some people are so disconnected that they have no idea how much pain and anger there is below the surface. I suspect that it could be some people's avoidance of their own anger and pain that could trigger your frustration since what it serves to do is make you feel alone in it. It feels like another denial of your honest experience. At least that's something I've noticed for myself. Another related thing, I think, is self care. I didn't receive much in the way of caring beyond cooked dinners and laundry and there was very little affection in my house, so learning to take care of myself, like making sure I eat right, simply hygiene habits, getting exercise, being fiscally responsible and all this sort of stuff, I had to ask (much to my own embarrassment) friends, landlords and bosses how to do what for them was second nature. I'm making up now for years of not taking care of my teeth, doing very regular dentist visits racking up a steep bill. Similarly, I never learned how to become connected with myself (or taught not to be connected, maybe) and so I'm doing regular therapy and spending a lot of money there. I resent the fact that I have so much to do there, but at least I actually am finally taking care of myself and undoing that damage, and that, to me, feels like relief from that background tension that I feel around needing to feel connected, taken care of and feeling that I have value. If that makes any sense.

absurd ≠ immoral Attacking an adult is immoral

I hope you don't mind me being a little personal. Well, I'm terribly sorry about the lack of support and love. Really. I have some experience with that one. It's something that is so fundamental, primal, existential that it feels like there is nothing else, really. At least, it feels that way for me. If you're conflicts involve not thinking that it should feel so important, then, seriously, fuck that! It is important. It's really god damn important. The fact that you get angry and hurt is proof that you care about yourself enough to know that you want that for yourself, and that you clearly see that neglect for the injustice that it was. And it is seriously fucked up to treat a child like they aren't important enough to receive very basic support and connection. I can't even imagine putting my future children through that. I think possibly the most important aspect of a dream is what you decide to do in it. And you get out of a dangerous situation. That, to me, seems like a good sign. What I meant about emotional responses is simply, are there strong emotional responses in your dream that you remember? Are they familiar? Could they potentially match anything going on currently in your life? Emotions can clue us into what the meaning of our dream symbols are. Concerning internal conflict in general, I think it can be really important to make the distinction between what is your conflict and what belongs to other people. This podcast is really great: You Are Not Conflicted - A Listener Conversation http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FreedomainRadioVolume5/~5/Erlihaf3TFk/FDR_1596_you_are_not_conflicted_convo.mp3