Kevin Beal

Very cool We use a hacked version of CodeIgniter where I work.

Nice! How did you go about making these? What language(s) did you use? Did you use a framework / library?

I don't know where Stef is getting his information about this, but I have something to say about it. What does it mean to be dissatisfied? What it's not is living with abuse, infidelity, drug abuse and other reasons you've probably heard before. Other reasons that could be considered a part of this dissatisfied category are like: - economic trouble - lack of commitment - too much arguing - lack of preparation - marrying too young - unrealistic expectations When I'm dissatisfied with a restaurant I frequent, it may be because I didn't think about it before hand that it's a Chilean restaurant and I now know that I dislike Chilean food. Maybe they raised their prices and it no longer makes a lot of sense for me to eat there anymore. Maybe the people there are off-putting and give terrible service. I stop going. There are a lot of ways that a person can be dissatisfied, and to make it clear for this discussion, I think the proper distinction is between dissatisfaction and the real ugly bad stuff like abuse and infidelity. It isn't terrible to end a friendship on such grounds, but when it's a marriage involving children, the stakes become much higher and the need to prepare becomes crucial. And the amount of data and commonsense that surrounds this issue is as reasonably expected information to have as the reality that smoking causes cancer. For somebody not to know that divorce leads to terrible results for children, they would literally have to be living under a rock. Given that, the dissatisfaction reason becomes almost contemptible, if not contemptuous. One accumulative report on the reasons given for divorce is here. It looks like this: Infidelity 18.4% Incompatible 16.4% Drinking or drug use 9.0% Grew apart 8.2% Personality problems 7.8% Lack of communication 7.4% Physical or mental abuse 4.9% Loss of love 3.7% Not meeting family obligations 2.9% Employment problems 2.9% Don't know 2.9% Unhappy in marriage 2.5% Financial problems 2.0% Physical or mental illness 2.0% Personal growth 2.0% Interference from family 2.0% Immature 1.6% Other 3.3% So, pretty overwhelming in the dissatisfaction category, I would say.

Heya Antony! I think it's a very well written article, but a couple of things confused me that I hope you can expand on. 1. "Use it to comfort yourself and tell it positive messages" and having a contradiction free mind seem to be in opposition. Perhaps a definition of contradiction-free would clear it up, but is it not the case that the mind perceives both the external problematic situation and the appropriate "negative" emotional response together? Does it not then follow that providing positive messages would produce a contradiction in the mind, in relation to the original "negative" response that it may be replacing, or with the situation itself? Feeling happy about your dog getting ran over for example seems to me an example of a clear contradiction in the mind. 2. You say that the mind lacks free will (as compared to Self), but you also describe the mind in the language of free will when you say "It may doubt you at first" and "it has to eventually reconcile previous beliefs with present understanding". Perhaps again it's simply that I don't know what your definition of free will is, or that you are using this language metaphorically rather than literally. To be able to act with reference to any kind of standard is how I would define free will. There could be a level of description that illustrates the action through a series of tropisms, but then the language would not be accurate. But at the same time, I talk about my computer as being stubborn or disobedient, so I can imagine, you are using it the same way here. I do like your distinction and description though between Self and the mind, and the importance of sure leadership within your own first person experience. Thanks for sharing

I just realized that perhaps a better approach would be "hey guys, I'm having a hard time understanding how this is supposed to work in a free society, could you help me address this challenge?" I think it's better than "you guys need to justify yourselves to me concerning this challenge".

It is a praxeological fact that people's wants are infinite. Your argument is specious because you are saying something has to exist already to be desired. That's just simply not true. I want many many things that aren't available yet. And all the things that I want that are available are valued at a higher dollar amount than I would prefer. I would like everything to cost a penny. If it what you were saying were true, then the entire basis of austrian economics would false and people who practice principled economics could not account for, or predict happenings in the market. And yet it is the austrians who have predicted all of these bubbles and whose accounts of our economic past are the most consistent.

In the industrial revolution, where competition grew the most, a proportionate number of people achieved positions where they didn't have to work. Competition increases individual capital individual capital increases everyone's wealth wealth means having more opportunities to work or not work I am compelled to work and learn very quickly in the field of front end development, because the number of people learning these skills, the quickly changing landscape and the fact that my own skills are becoming more and more outdated. That in fact, does not bother me one bit. It's an amazing opportunity if I can stay out ahead since it means I'll be an early adopter, I'm a position where it's easier for me than most, and me and the team all benefit, as do the customers and affiliates and partners we do work with. We can test your hypothesis by looking at the places where there is the most competition and that means that should be the place where there is the most pressure put on workers. And this fails. The areas of the market where there is the most competition, like in hardware and software, there are plenty of people who work 10 hour weeks and are in positions where they can securely do so. This list of countries listed by amount of labor regulation negatively corresponds heavily with the list of the wealthiest nations. This isn't even remotely true. I'm astonished that you could say such a thing! The entirety of human history has been a horrifying life, barely achieving subsistence. Poverty in the past was associated with starvation, when now it's associated with obesity. Nobody could do any of the kinds of jobs we hate to do (like refuse collecting) because if they weren't farmers, they and their family would starve to death. Vacations, health benefits, bonuses, I mean come on!

It didn't make it into the general podcast stream, so I can't embed it like the others, but you're right. It should be there. It's a very important message.

She's Leaving Home by the Beatles Wednesday morning at five o'clock as the day beginsSilently closing her bedroom doorLeaving the note that she hoped would say moreShe goes downstairs to the kitchen clutching her hankerchiefQuietly turning the backdoor keyStepping outside she is free She (We gave her most of our lives)Is leaving (Sacraficed most of our lives)Home (We gave her everything money could buy)She's leaving home after living aloneFor so many years (Bye bye) Father snores as his wife gets into her dressing gownPicks up the letter that's lying thereStanding alone at the top of the stairsShe breaks down and cries to her husband "Daddy our baby's goneWhy would she treat us so thoughtlessly?How could she do this to me?" She (We never thought of ourselves)Is leaving (Never a thought for ourselves)Home (We struggled hard all our lives to get by)She's leaving home after living aloneFor so many years (Bye bye) Friday morning at nine o'clock she is far awayWaiting to keep the appointment she madeMeeting a man from the motor trade She (What did we do that was wrong)Is having (We didn't know it was wrong)Fun (Fun is the one thing that money can't buy)Something inside that was always deniedFor so many years (Bye bye) She's leaving homeBye bye

The Ballad of Freedomain Radio http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_500.mp3 Freedomain Rave-io http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_612_Freedomain_Ravio.mp3 Can anybody find fault? http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_700_Can_Anybody_Find_Fault.mp3 The Ballad of the Trolls http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_800_The_Ballad_Of_The_Trolls.mp3 Sympathy for the minarchist... http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_900_Sympathy_For_The_Minarchist.mp3 Song - You Gave Your Brain to Freedomain... http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1100_You_Gave_Your_Brain_to_Freedomain.mp3 Human Farms - Freedomain Radio Dance Track http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1700_human_farms_dance_track.mp3 ...to be continued Could it be another Sgt Peppers?

Really fantastic video! Thank you Steven for putting this out there. It's definitely something that needs to be said. I just wanted to add to a couple things that you said: 1. I totally agree that it's super important to be comparing your own history not to the standards that are culturally held today, but to actually legitimate moral standards. Not only is it more accurate to think in those terms, you are much less likely to minimize your own trauma and sow the seeds for repeating the cycles (even if it's a subtle version by comparison). Because what you excuse in others, you justify for yourself. 2. The cycle of the grandiose cult parent, I think, gets perpetuated also in artificially inflating the virtue of the arbitrary edicts. They portray it like "if you obey now, you can be a cult leader yourself in the future". It's the same way in all cults, I think, where if you are as self denying as you can be for the sake of doctrine, you may become, yourself, a bishop or general or "goddess" or whatever. But in the case of parents, all you have to do is pop out a kid. At least the wannabe bishop has to work hard to accomplish his goal. The arbitrary super structures set up to allow for the passing of these grandiose torches, how artificial, how pretentious, unquestionable and "sacred", they are is a testament to the absolutely perverted thinking a child's mind has to be twisted into. A replacement for the earlier false virtues to gain the approval of parents who do not exist. They have continued the work of hollowing themselves out, and in doing so infect everyone around them.

There is like no context given here. I'm super curious. What the heck is going on? Stamina? Developing psychology? Break from what? Haha. I'm so confused.

The links are in the description of the video (I'd copy and paste them, but they are narrow and truncated ).

If an animal rights person says that we should treat animals with the same moral considerations as we do humans, and we would never castrate a human and limit their autonomy to our own judgments, then that's totally hypocritical of an animal rights person, is it not? The implication is that they themselves hold animals in a separate moral category, and thus have no basis for criticizing others for doing the same. We don't have to demonstrate how animals don't have moral agency when the person who's arguing that they do is implicitly accepting the premise already that they don't. That's not likely to lead anywhere productive. It's like arguing against determinism without ever pointing out the performative contradiction that determinists employ in order to make the argument. Or arguing against moral relativism without pointing out the implicit acceptance of UPB. The person advancing the case has the onus on them to demonstrate the point. Otherwise, what are we arguing against?

And maybe she could have mentioned something earlier, I don't know. It seems like both of you had a history, and what that usually sounds like to me is that it's like a perfect storm where it's usually brought up too late and people's feelings get hurt. The fact that you can talk about it like you did though with her is pretty freaking awesome. I have a very specific experience that I remember of this happening and it could easily be coloring the way I'm imagining what you're saying, so please disregard anything that doesn't apply. But what I remember seeing in the other person who was boring me was that they were on a roll with some idea they had, and they weren't making any eye contact and I got the sense that this conversation would be going exactly the same if I wasn't even present. The content was kinda heady and intellectual. I didn't say anything until after I was already overwhelmed, and talking about it afterward was a slow slog of mutually confusing possible explanations. So it sounds like your conversation afterward was much more successful than mine, which is really cool. I just assumed that it was a forgone conclusion that her expressing her boredom was bad, and I wanted to challenge that.

"Boredom is rage spread thin" I think it's a mistake to think about boredom as a lack of stimulating conversation / activity. That could be the source of your confusion. The fact that the boredom was sudden, to my thinking, confirms that it's not simply a lack of stimulating conversation. How it's related to FOO stuff is also supporting evidence. I think it may be more helpful to think of boredom as irritation, but where you feel like you are disappearing. The sudden part is the strong sense that you don't want to disappear. I'm sure your conversation is very thoughtful and interesting, but I can tell you as someone who gets bored in conversations easier than most, it doesn't really matter about the content of the conversation sometimes. I wonder, if you can remember, what was your first person experience right before she mentioned that she was feeling bored? Were you feeling connected with yourself and her both? I would imagine not. Otherwise she wouldn't feel like she was her kid self again with her parents talking over her. I'm really glad you could talk about it and become closer as a result. But if my experience is applicable here (which maybe it isn't) then it's likely to come up again. I would just suggest continuing to have that conversation, especially if you guys become closer as a result. I would also not make boredom out to be a bad thing. It's not a disease that rots the mind. Being in situations where you are made to feel bored rots the mind. You're blaming a symptom without reference to the cause. And it's making it like it's her problem, when maybe, you just actually were boring. I don't know, right, I'm just pointing it out as a possibility.

No, apparently you don't.

I'm responsible for negotiating terms in the contracts that I accept. A common result of negotiating is accepting terms you do not agree with, even some irrational terms. Those terms are accepted so that your investment in the contract is acknowledged. I do not get to say that I'm not upholding the contract anymore simply because I disagree with some of the terms, even if they are irrational. Imagine me going to court for violating my contract, and in my defense I say that I didn't uphold because I thought the terms weren't agreeable, after the fact, after I've had a chance to negotiate, after I've already agreed. Well, that would be kinda crazy of me, right? (It would also be a kind of fraud in many cases since you are saying you'll do something and you don't). I don't know what the OP should do, I'm just commenting on the point you raised.

Also, what would it mean to reason about something without a language having a syntax? By language here, I mean specifically any content of thought expressed through a consistent, syntactical and semantic form (written, verbal or private). My first person experience of thought—and I would assume by extension all of yours as well—is content expressed through language, as if I'm a separate person conversing with myself. I literally think "that guy who came into the office today was a real jerk" or "did I leave the stove on?". And, I sometimes I will even correct my own grammar even though I had never actually spoken anything out loud. You might, in contrast, point out an experience that I've too had: I may think with some anticipation about how the sentence parts will end arriving at the meaning before they are said "in loud" (compare to "out loud"). The same way I will get someone else's meaning before they actually finish their sentence. This may seem like an argument against the necessity of language for reasoning, but if that were the case, then I challenge you to reproduce it without the aid of this internal talking. I don't think it's possible. Animals almost completely lack a true language, with some notable exceptions (Coco the gorilla, Alex the grey parrot for example). The criteria for how we might determine whether or not an animal has language I'm going to borrow from wikipedia: Simple communication like presenting your engorged genitals to hopefully get some monkey sex if to be considered language has equally the same basis as releasing pheromones to attract a mate (which some animals can do of their own volition). We couldn't count out plants either since they give off scents, turn pretty colors etc. There are some animals that may actually be said to have a true language (interesting examples here). It's controversial, though. Interestingly, the same counter argument I provided about learning to communicate with primitive and isolated tribes in the amazon is (apparently) not an original gangsta on my part. Someone apparently tried to get all the clicking sounds down for dolphins to reproduce their language and play it back to them to have an actual dialog, and it failed entirely. Along the same lines, it would be pretty strange to imagine that groups of dolphins in this part of the world would share the same language as dolphins on the other side of the world who never came in contact with each other for tens of thousands of years. And yet those are the kinds of terms we talk about animals having language: that it is something instinctual, buried deep within it's biology. Therefore, I'm concluding that if animals lack the kind of private language, the internal talking, necessary for us to reason about things, then they cannot reason about things. And since they cannot reason about things, they are not moral agents.

I should maybe also mention that I'm invested emotionally in my position being that I eat meat. I would rather not think that pigs and cows are doing moral calculations. And that's really interesting about elephants, and I know that dolphins can understand shapes and play complex games. I think that higher intelligence is one reason I wouldn't ever want to eat a dolphin or an elephant or Coco the gorilla. A fish by contrast, I feel no ambivalence about eating. I'm not convinced they are reasoned enough to hold accountable for crimes. Elephants and dolphins kill other animals that they don't plan on eating, but certainly I would feel conflicted if I saw it on a menu.

Firstly, thank you for the kind words Second, I'm not sure if you are missing something. I wasn't terribly clear. My only real point was that it's (for all I know) impossible to know for sure whether or not animals are capable of complex emotions. I just think that if I can see an ant as having nothing really going on up there (or a jellyfish with it's 800 neurons if an ant isn't dumb enough for you), then at least some animals do not have emotions. The mere existence of a brain isn't sufficient, so it must be something about the particular brains of humans and cats allows for emotions. Emotions like anxiety, depression and excitement don't really require any thoughtful evaluation of a situation in order to be elicited. They are very basic emotions. And I totally grant that some non-human animals have these emotions. A more complex emotion like remorse, or shame or angst requires a bit more brain juice in order to be processed. Likewise, some concept formation must be necessary for my cat to understand that this new tin contains wet food like the last tin did, but there is a whole magnitude higher abstraction to understand mathematics, or epistemology or ethics. One way that we know animals are not capable of math (for example) is that we've taught animals to count. A horse stomps it's foot a certain number of times to get a carrot. The highest any horse has ever gotten is 6, I believe. There is a language barrier humans to animals, but I'm not so sure that barrier goes the other way. At least I would very much doubt it. Two human societies that don't speak each other's language, even if they don't share cultural references, can still communicate beyond mere body language. Anthropologists have gone into the amazon rainforest to meet primitive tribes and they were able to eventually get some shared language worked out enough to communicate the way you and I can. I can reproduce the sounds my cat makes, but it doesn't add up to a syntax, much less any meaning. I would just be careful not to project your own experience onto your pets. The cat is actually my roommate's and I hear her talking to the cat constantly making up a story about what the cat is thinking and saying with it's meowing. And she comes up with some very elaborate things that are definitely not what the cat is thinking. She is so used to relating to the cat in that way that she doesn't even really realize she's making anything up. She's essentially talking to herself, projecting her own irritation on the cat, who for all we know doesn't have a clue what it's meowing about. It just feels like meowing. Emphasis on "for all we know" Hopefully that's a little clearer.

I agree, generally. I don't think that short posts is necessarily better. If we required arguments to be short, then I can't imagine why you'd be into this show I think there is a problem with long posts that make a point simply for the sake of providing further evidence, or to drive a point home that has already been made well enough already (I'm speaking more about myself here than anyone else ). Rather I think that if you are trying to bring someone to an important conclusion, you do it by recreating the process you go through in thinking about things. Often in the more loosely structured podcasts, you can relate to what Stef is saying because he's talking about the kinds of things he thinks about with reference to some sort of standard for determining the truth. It's almost as if he's relearning the conclusions. Some things need to be long in order to be communicated effectively. If you think about the last book you read, you can probably determine afterward whether or not you would liked it to have been shorter or longer. Drama of the Gifted Child was probably about the right length, I think. Brave New World was not long enough IMO. And For Your Own Good was too long, I thought. And they are the right or wrong length for a variety of reasons. So, to talk about posts needing to be short without reference to any of the actual content seems, at least to me, to not make a whole lot of sense. Certainly people frequenting a message board are not likely to want to read a gigantic post, since the format is supposed to be a back and forth, but I can forgive a person for writing a long post about something they are passionate about and requires some context. There are occasionally some people who come on the boards to write a long proof for god's existence (somewhere in the aether), but I don't think that the problem with those posts is that they are long, if you know what I mean

Here's the playlist for The Fascist That Among Us series (which is about the prevalence of sociopathy): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCIXnn9KVeY&list=PL2qmP3NJnaV7mDp3ODv8HM5rx5LjwnYKo

Shoot. Well, I can't find it. Haha. Well, I'm one for two so far. 50% success rate's not terrible, right?

I'm having trouble finding it so I have a couple questions. Are you sure it's in the public stream? Is it when he and the missus are on vacation in central america? Is it the one where he's talking to a listener about the value of the sort of office space, take the printer out into a field and crush it with a bat sort of thing?