Kevin Beal

There is a surprising amount packed into this one paragraph. I value virtue more and what I say absolutely does matter. I cannot change reality because I say something that contradicts it, my words don't have primacy over reality, but what I say totally matters. I do fear losing things and by default I don't put myself out there very much, but when I begin to trust someone (or myself more) I choose to be more vulnerable making the stakes higher but the payoff bigger. It's true that I can stop dealing with someone without holding a grudge, but that's not at all what I've been talking about. The anger is the motivator to take that appropriate action. If you don't feel angry, then you are not likely to fully get the impact of that injustice and you run the risk of repetition. You cannot just get it intellectually, you need to get it emotionally as well. "Maybe when you grow older you will enlighten to what I am saying" Okay, then how about you try psychotherapy or study the psychology of your own mind with a professional and then tell me if there really is a distinction between suppression / repression and what you're doing with your anger. I really don't think that there is. This comment cements that conclusion for me. You probably did not mean it to be passive aggressive, but that would be because you've repressed your anger and it gets acted out in ways you are not conscious of. All comments like "you'll understand when you're older" ever do is elicit self doubt in people. Most of the time only because the person saying it cannot demonstrate what they are saying and use it as a kind of smoke screen, to blind their enemy as they make their escape. You know I won't be satisfied with that as a response, you know that I vehemently disagree with your thesis, so why? Why the comment?

Determinism is a topic that is off limits according to the forum guidelines. The reason is because the debate never goes anywhere and almost always escalates. Stef debating 3 determinists: Forum Guidelines: http://board.freedomainradio.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules Stef's comments on closing the topic of determinism: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/16582-i-am-closing-down-the-topic-of-determinism/?hl=%2Bclose+%2Bdeterminism Related podcasts: 1282 – The Determinist Debate http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1282_Determinist_Debate.mp3 1233 – Free Will, Determinism And Self Knowledge - Part 1 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1233_Free_Will_Determinism_and_Self_Knowledge.mp3 1234 – Free Will, Determinism And Self Knowledge - Part 2 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1234_Free_Will_Determinism_and_Self_Knowledge_2.mp3 1235 – Free Will, Determinism And Self Knowledge - Part 3 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1235_Free_Will_Determinism_and_Self_Knowledge_3.mp3 1237 – Free Will, Determinism And Self Knowledge - Part 4 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1237_Free_Will_Determinism_and_Self_Knowledge_4.mp3 1288 – Determinism, History and Anxiety - Convo http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1288_Determinism_Anxiety_History_Convo.mp3 1742 – Determinism Part 666 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1742_determinism_part_666.mp3 1724 – Determinism - The Family Backstory http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1724_determinism_the_family_backstory.mp3 1273 – A Theory of Free Will Part 1 (audio to a video series) http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1273_Free_Will_Part_1.mp3 1274 – A Theory of Free Will Part 2 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1274_Free_Will_Part_2.mp3 1275 – A Theory of Free Will Part 3 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1275_Free_Will_Part_3.mp3 345 – Science And Free Will Part 1 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_345_Science_And_Free_Will_Part_1.mp3 346 – Science And Free Will Part 2 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_346_Science_And_Free_Will_Part_2.mp3 314 – Fudging Free Will http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_314_Fudging_Free_Will.mp3

Stef has criticized people for focusing on Bill Clinton's blowjob at the expense of his wars, and then he focused on Bill Clinton's blowjob. The reason that focusing on Bill's BJ was an issue was because these same people were making it a bigger issue than mass murder. That doesn't mean you can't also focus on the exploitation of Monica Lewinski. To call it an inconsistency is to ignore the whole reason it was an issue in the first place. If you asked Stef if he thought that drug abuse was worse than theft and violence, he would likely say "no". That doesn't mean he can't also focus on the drug use. It seems to me that you are making it a bigger deal than it actually is. 531 - Logical Fallacies pt 1 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_531_Logical_Fallacies_Part_1.mp3

The point still stands. The implication is the same.

Sorry, you asked people not to comment til they had watched the videos, but this comment jumped out at me and I felt like responding to it specifically. It would me. It changes the incentives to become a good person from being good for goodness's sake to being good because if you do you will be rewarded, or punished for not doing that. If I thought that being bad meant I would return to be a toad, then my own acts of goodness would feel forced and not really my own. It would be pretentious which is why priests and politicians sound so full of hot air, their incentives are like the reincarnated persons. I think it's an important point that deserves some consideration. It doesn't say whether or not reincarnation is true, but the consequences of our beliefs are very important. I apologize again for commenting without watching, I will do that now.

Thanks all for the responses! Oh my god! It's like you read my mind, lol. I totally relate I couldn't tell if "And I really want that, because it's like blood in the water" means you do or don't want the potential for self attack in that way. I would ideally not have that at all anymore because (like you said) it (seems to) prevent me from reaching out in spontaneous ways. I can definitely relate to that. My interests were astronomy and biology and I wanted to share the things I was learning about them. Not to be like "look how smart I am" but because I found it fascinating and enjoyable. And I was called pretentious for it or it was implied in some way, some vague kind of "oh there Kevin goes on with his interests again" kind of look or eye rolling. Or the condescending way people sometimes "listen" to children: "yea, that's what you said for ya".

He's been asked to do this for like every day this week in different threads. He's not going to start now. It's an exercise in futility.

Okay, so I can totally empathize with the fact that I implied some degree of cowardice before and how any person would take offense to that. Maybe I should have chosen my words more wisely. I'm sure that you wouldn't be saying what you are saying unless you had some reason to, and while although your name suggests that you are crazy, you as a person are in all likelihood not crazy. Your message has a ton of white space, strange editing, misspellings, things said without any context, and so I'm afraid I can't really comment on your last response, but I would like to say that there is one thing that I think is super important that I would really like you to consider even if it's antithetical to your position (as I understand it). And that is this point about making making virtues out of forgiveness and compassion. Forgiveness and compassion are all well and good where they have been earned, but there is often a case where they are preached in cases where they have not only not been earned, but where the other party has no intention of earning it. This is a very dangerous thing and having been party to and witnessed many cases where this happened, I can tell you that it's a terrible thing that leads inevitably to exploitation of one kind or another. Whether we like it or not, people respond to incentives and if you treat people like they can do you injustices and you will always forgive them and show them compassion, they are much more likely to repeat that. It is not a kindness that you do to people by forgiving them when they haven't earned it. Instead you are enabling them. They are probably not conscious of this exploitation, but by offering unconditional forgiveness you are also unconscious of the truth that this is passive aggression on your part toward them by encouraging them to be nasty people. And to whatever degree this is true is the degree to which it is bad. This may not describe you at all, but it does describe many people and that is what I'm referring to with the comments that I've made. Regardless of whether or not this does apply to you, the podcasts I suggested are quite good and relevant. Hope that is clarifying.

Let's say that someone is talking as if they know something that they really shouldn't be so certain about, or doing the false humility bit, or that a person is expressing some kind of emotional depth that they probably don't really have, and that's what being pretentious means. How does a person regulate that in themselves? A person isn't going to say to themselves: "hey, I'm going to act like I know a lot more than I really do" (or if they do then they've got bigger problems, lol) so, considering that, how could they take any kind of preventative measures? It's got to be unconscious, right? When people are being pretentious, it's not like the people around them are going to be all that willing to say: "hey man, I think you may need to express just a little more humility about that" so it's not often that a person who's being pretentious gets that reflected back to them. And if they do, it's usually very hard to accept. Occasionally (though it seems very rare) there is a person who comes off as a little pretentious and it turns out that they have some real wisdom there, and while although they might need to work on their presentation, they are ultimately right about what they are saying. So I guess what I'm saying is that it's not always obvious, so it can be difficult to draw that distinction, expecially from the inside. It would be a shame if a person were then making themselves out to be pretentious when they weren't or they became paranoid about it, because they couldn't make that distinction for themselves. I've heard it said that pretentiousness is an over-compensation for insecurity, but over compensated as compared to what? Someone who never expresses their opinions? People who are just over the top pretentious are probably beyond helping anyway, but I just mean the more subtle kinds of pretentiousness. The kind that most (all?) people have to some degree. I'd love to hear if someone has faced their own capacity for pretentiousness and how they work with it. Is this problem really as hard as it seems or am I missing something important? lol!

If truth were a matter of perception, then you would have no basis to correct me. My "perception" is then just as valid as yours. And of course I could be wrong. Do you think I believe that I'm always right? You must not think very highly of me, lol. No, it would be cowardice if he pretended that there was no conflict there to begin with while walking away. Cowardice is self deception, not fear or non-aggression or whatever you are getting at. Not for a lot of people. I've met lots of people who are afraid of their own anger and have had to do a lot of work on themselves to regain it. Luckily I didn't have that problem because it's a very difficult one to overcome, especially with people like you making it out to be some kind of unenlightened, harmful emotion to be suppressed. Not that however long it takes to accomplish it means anything about it's importance or value. Just sayin'. Okay. I know martial artists who would disagree with that and martial artists who seek out fights. And even if what you said were true, so what? Just because your teacher said something doesn't make it true or of value. You are right that I didn't provide evidence. Hopefully you can forgive me for offering anecdotal evidence, but that comment came from my experience of these kinds of people. Decades of exposure and maybe a decade of regular conversation on the topic. I think it would be a mistake to consider me ignorant. I grew up with it. The reason that I say it's repressed anger is because (for one thing) people have told me that's what they do. What I mean by suppression / repression:"Psychological repression, or simply repression, is the psychological attempt by an individual to repel one's own desires and impulses towards pleasurable instincts by excluding the desire from one's consciousness and holding or subduing it in the unconscious." If you hold anger to be dangerous to your health, then you are going to repel it, and being that you cannot repel your actual true experience, your judgments, thoughts, emotions, feelings etc, then what the effective result of that is going to be is that it simply makes it unconscious rather than actually get rid of it. Suppression is doing this consciously, and repression is when it's become such an ingrained habit that it never really reaches the level of consciousness. What people have told me is that when they get angry they said they would use some sort of suppressive technique like thru distraction or dissociation. So that looked like a particular kind of meditation, the neti neti "not this not this" meditation for example. This isn't always bad, nor is suppression always bad. It's just a problem when people use it to the point where they are avoiding legitimate issues or it becomes repression so that they no longer have conscious control over it.

Stress reduces your lifespan for sure, not so sure about anger, but let's assume that it does for sake of argument. Anger can also increase your lifespan by informing you about unjust situations to the degree to which you take the appropriate action and get that injustice away from you, take care of it, so that it reduces your stress over the long term. I haven't meditated in a while beyond simple breathing exercises which I do daily. It has had a good effect on my quality of life. I would also recommend that to people who haven't tried it. If you are just (consciously) telling to yourself about compassion and forgiveness where it is not earned so as to reduce your stress level (and not because it's true), then that's, ... okay I guess albeit very weird, but if what you are doing is holding them up as virtues to avoid acting on real conflict, then that is the very definition of cowardice and is an exploitative co-dependent nightmare that I would reject vehemently. You should check out the Introduction to Virtue series, Am I too mean? and Contempt podcasts for a deeper explanation. "Speculate" implies that I don't have firm evidence. You are speculating that I don't have firm evidence.

Thanks guys. I'm re-listening to all of these 335 – True Versus False Selves http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_335_True_Versus_False_Selves.mp3 349 – You Are Not Broken http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_349_You_Are_Not_Broken.mp3 And I wasn't sure which one of these you (Xelent) were referring to: 70 – How to control a human soul http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/how_to_control_a_human_soul.mp3 71 – Culture: How to enslave a human soul http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/culture.mp3

You're right. That's a great podcast. The whole insight about humiliation being a universal rule that applies only to you connected a lot of dots for me. Any other podcasts you'd say are your favorites?

You vote for it by starring it. You need an account to do that, but it takes like 2 seconds to do.

Welcome to the boards Slavik! I too have experienced difficulty looking people in the eyes, and I agree with Seleneccentric's view that it is a way of desiring not to be seen, being vulnerable. I don't think you necessarily need to look people in the eyes, and certainly I would resist anyone who tells you that you need to, but what I will say is that same vulnerability and visibility that causes you discomfort or anxiety, that opens it up for the other person to see into you, is what makes you able to see into them. And that's enormously valuable to get unconsciously and quickly a whole lot of information about the other person. It's really the same for vulnerability in general. If you are vulnerable, the way that people respond to that tells you more than probably anything ever could. There is a kind of strength in vulnerability for that reason. You end up showing your cards, but at the same time (if you are paying attention) you see the other person's cards. Barring some exploitative personality, if people are drawn to that, they are drawn to you for who you are, and if they reject that, then you can be sure that they are not someone you want around you. As uncomfortable as it is, it gets easier the more you do it because you become more familiar with your own capacity to accurately judge people, and that in turn gives you extra self esteem. Being vulnerable with people who haven't earned it can be dangerous though, which is likely the reason that it causes you discomfort: to protect you from people who would exploit you.

The cheapest way of doing it is probably with the "deep water culture" technique and florescent grow lights. You won't get great yields that way though. Typically if you want to do hydroponics right you need a lot of money and it's usually only sustainable for people who are using it to grow marijuana.

Of course a non-donator would say that! Just kidding He didn't say it was superior to other types of support. All he was arguing was that you gain credibility by putting your money where your mouth is and that demanding changes after not donating and just barely arriving in the community is unreasonable, and I think that he's right. I'm curious though, who brought forward what argument? You didn't complete that thought...

hypocrisy: "the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel" irony: "the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect."

You are threatening me with a flame war while telling me that I need to be more civil. Have you no sense of irony?

I believe you just called someone a moron and two other people bigots less than 20 minutes ago. Hypocrite much? Thank you As for what the PK badge gives me:

You are being divisive. Therefore all your criticisms of divisiveness fall on account of hypocrisy.

Atheism is a main topic because it's a main topic. There are literally hundreds of episodes of the podcast that touch on the subject of atheism / religion. It's not as big a topic as anarchism / economics or self knowledge, but it's probably the 3rd most common topic. Philosophy covers political theory, self knowledge and every other topic on the show. If atheism is a sub topic of philosophy, then so is anarchism.

Nobody wants to get dumped, lose that affection and closeness, seek a new partner, settle for masturbation and then dress up nicely and try and win the affection of a new potential partner. Therefore romantic relationships are structural violence.

Propaganda: "chiefly information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view" divisive: "tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people" psychological projection: "a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world"

Who's John?