Kevin Beal

It doesn't make sense for the insurance company. Savings is not insurance. Insurance is asking other people to take on your risk and you have to fit a set of criteria for the insurance company to be convinced that you wont make a claim. If you have a clean driving record (for example) your premiums will be less. In the case of a driving accident, you don't choose to get in that accident, and if it were determined that you did choose it, that would void your policy. There is no way that a woman is going to give birth without choosing it. The very fact that a claim was made is the basis on which it should be void. There is no valid way that the claim could be honored unless you ignore people's choice because you are heavily subsidized by the state, thereby putting that ridiculous cost on taxpayers. This is my industry. I'm no expert, but I have at least some idea about what I'm talking about. There are ways you can save up for your maternity costs by including it as some kind of employee benefit as part of a healthcare package, or you could include maternity as a valid basis for withdrawing on some other benefit like a 401K or something, but that is not insurance. That's just savings. The insurance company that is involved with your healthcare plan wouldn't be taking that cost on themselves, it would be the company you work for. And it would only be to the amount that you already saved. Morally speaking, you cannot force anyone to pay for your decisions. I'm just commenting on the fact that such a ridiculous form of insurance ostensibly exists.

Maternity insurance doesn't make any sense. You can't insure people's choices. If she decides to keep a child, then it is her choice that the risk is there and the claim made. No insurance company in their right mind would ever insure that. Insurance is for things you don't want to happen. The level of risk that insurance companies want to open themselves up to is very small. There are ton of awesome insurance programs that never get underwritten because insurance companies will go broke immediately if there is a claim and they weren't able to get re-insurance companies to purchase that risk thereby spreading the claim around. And no re-insurance company will buy the risk of a program that will pay out because somebody decided on a whim to make a claim that must be honored. I would say that the woman is obliged to pay for the insurance if it's her choice to give birth, but it doesn't make any sense in the context of insurance.

I think MRA's are great. There is a lot that is not philosophically based, and there is some anger that is better directed at people from their pasts, and there is a lot of anti-therapy stuff too. Those things aren't so great, but there is also a lot of original thinking that has come out of MRA work and forced millions to reconsider things that aren't so great about the way that men and boys are treated. I tend to find a lot more value in philosophy, but there is some very interesting stuff that is being talked about among MRA's that AFAIK has never been really looked at before on this level. For example the idea of women as abusers, or the ethical considerations of circumcision. I also really appreciate the criticisms of feminism myself and the false moral arguments that many feminists employ. I grew up with a lot of "men are lazy brutish pervert deadbeats" kind of stuff and a lot of female authority figures who (figuratively) got away with murder. So to see a real examination and rebuttal to these kinds of things that were damaging to me feels like a relief, some visibility for the men and boys who've got it tough, but got no sympathy.

You are probably right, but wounds can bring up some heavy stuff that is hard to work with by yourself. But if it needs to be more frequent, then you'll be able to tell. I would imagine that it's a case by case basis. I always send dreams that I think are significant even if I never end up discussing them. It's not been stated explicitly in my work, but I just send whatever I think is significant and then don't have any expectation that it's being analyzed at any real depth outside of my time with her, but am pleasantly surprised when it has been given some real thought when I bring it up on the couch. I've read accounts of early psychiatry where they would do a hell of a lot of homework going over their patient's (or client's) dreams, journaling and that kind of stuff. The field of psychology looks pretty different now though, I think. I think that conversation itself could be a source of some good self work. Looking at the desires and hopes and expectations, and seeing what the actual reality is, and then what is your reaction? Is it hurtful, frustrating, relieving, not anything in particular? I find a lot of value having these kind of conversations about the therapeutic relationship itself. There is often something in there that holds some kind of charge for me. Especially if you don't have any yearning burnings to talk about.

I had done once a week (sometimes less) for the first year and then twice a week for the second and third. Once a week was good, but twice a week is better, at least for me. Luckily, I can afford that. It depends on the kind of work you are doing. Some things require a lot of feedback from the therapist, and others you don't need as much. Some things feel impenetrable and being able to live with it and hold it for a few days can mean you can pick up more or less where you left off. Other things you don't need as much feedback on, but you need some pointers so that you can do your own self therapy. If you were able to do the second kind of thing in therapy and then hopefully have someone to just listen for the first type, then that goes a long way. As a general rule, the more frequent the better so that they are very familiar with your body language, verbal ticks and that sort of thing, and can pick up things faster that are off. Things that a person is not really going to be able to tell if they only see you once a month. They are more inclined to shrug it off like "oh, it's probably nothing" if they are less familiar that way. I've heard of people providing sliding scales based on the frequency of the visits. Maybe you could ask about that?

"sheep" is plural already. Also it's not possessive or a contraction so the apostrophe shouldn't be there.

That's hard to believe (being from northern cali). There are legal brothels just across the border in Nevada.

Why would it be advantageous to engage you in debate when you say that nothing will change your mind? And why would you ever want to engage people like that? Doesn't that strike you as strange?

Except the club owner doesn't condemn you to eternal torment for it.

It would mean that we have more to talk about since they do like sports and the Raiders in particular. I would likely be praised and get comments like "I knew you would come around" and a pat on the back. It would imply that my irritation with sports had nothing to do with sports or the industry itself, but with some emotional hangup. Alright, I answered yours. Now answer mine.

What would it mean for you socially, with your friends and family in particular for you to hold the position that in fact christianity is false and no gods exist? What would be the implication?

Hey Friendly, There is a problem here. There are certain things that you are either not understanding the implication of, or accepting and not understanding why to accept it and maintain your position is a contradiction. To continue a debate would not seem to be productive if that trend continues. What I would like you to do, if you don't mind indulging me for a sec, is to watch this youtube playlist on the introduction to philosophy: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC1647D7F937DDE7A If we don't have any clear criteria for how a proposition is to be proven or disproven, then debate is just going to go in circles and make everyone really frustrated.

Seeing as how I'm not going to be able to convince you, I do have a question that I think is interesting. Why doesn't god heal amputees?

1980 – Walter Block vs Stefan Molyneux vs Ron Paul! http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1980_walter_block_rebuttal.mp3 972 – The Ron Paul Revolution - A Postmortem (and prescription) http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_972_Ron_Paul_Post_Mortem.mp3 814 – Ron Paul and Weightlifting http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_814_Ron_Paul_And_Weightlifting.mp3 955 – An Open Letter to Ron Paul Supporters http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_955_Open_Letter_To_Ron_Paul_Supporters.mp3 I got into libertarian politics because of Ron Paul. I was not any more free because of it though. It was working on myself as a person with the extra prompting and guidance of this show and community that made me free

I think that technically speaking, I am a scientist. Specifically a computer scientist, albeit with no formal training. I'm a sort of research and development guy, and I worked hard at marketing my skills as a programmer. I try to provide high quality products and services. I have never stolen any money in order to do the work that I do, and the idea of being paid with stolen money makes me kinda sick. I imagine that I would be more of a hobbyist if I worked with grant money or if I was subsidized, since I don't really have as good of an idea of how much value the customers are getting. I would think more in terms of "wouldn't it be cool if" rather than "people seem to have trouble with". And that's something I've noticed from the outside is that places like CERN, in whatever value they do provide (what I'm unsure), they provide infinitely less value than private companies like Google. Spacex and Virgin Galactic have made products that people actually want to use, while NASA sits on their thumbs doing nothing really. There's this station somewhere in the states where guys get paid with stolen money to send messages out into space and listen in case aliens hear it and reply. If that's not a hobby, then I don't know what is. Or digging up dinosaur bones or traveling to remote regions to investigate a new grasshopper species. Like, what the fuck? There's people dying to death ovah heeyah (in a bad italian accent).

Well, that's not very compelling. Where is the error that I'm making? People have argued that wanting to get laid is the origin of all modern technology. So what?

That's quite a remarkable statement seeing as how the vast majority of all technological progress has come out of what exists of the free market. The free market is not doing quite enough, so we need to go in the exact opposite direction as the free market to make up for it seems to be the implication here. And that makes no sense. Then they should have no problem finding work in areas that people are actually willing to pay for it voluntarily. That would be awesome if that happened. Assuming there were some things that are unquestionably beneficial from stealing people's money, they are far outweighed by the cost of doing that. Here's a relevant and funny podcast: You cannot be free because... (killer astroids) http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_674_Youre_Not_Free_Because.mp3

"How dare someone criticize me" (even when you aren't actually being criticized) is a very powerful defense against looking at the reasons you do and think things. "I just do that because I know what I'm doing. Most people are clueless compared to me". It reinforces itself that way being that it's so convenient a defense. The reasons it shows up is for lots of reasons I'm sure, but one reason that I'm aware of is that their parents did it and it gets internalized in children who give themselves permission to do it to try and avoid the humiliation and shame that can produce.

...that I'm really concerned. Has anybody talked to her about this?

What would have to be demonstrated in order for you to accept that christianity is false and your god not real? Sometimes when I've debated the issue, it turned out way later that there was nothing that could have convinced the other person. Syllogistic proof wasn't even enough, so I think it's important to figure some of this stuff out ahead of time.

We need work with atoms and telescopes? Then let's find profitable uses of the proposed technology and get investors. There is no reason we should be stealing from people to pay for these things. If it's so desirable, then people will pay for it. You might actually be ignorant of the point being made when you accuse others of ignorance.

I keep running out of positive votes, lol. Thank you guys for your openness and vulnerability. This whole issue of isolation is so frustrating because it seems so completely unnecessary. It's so hard to make real connections (at least for me) with people when I keep thinking this really shouldn't be this difficult. This area is ripe for projection for me, so tell me if I've got it wrong, but I look around at people who are looking for love and just to connect with other people in general and it's so hard, and it seems like people are quick to just give up like I had years back. And why should they try? If all the "love" relationships they are surrounded by are mutually depressive or fake or otherwise suspect, then that doesn't make it look all that appealing. It was only after listening to FDR and Stef's arguments about what a love relationship should be that I became motivated again. Anxious as hell, but motivated.

I would like to hear more if you're open to it. I know I said I just want to talk about guys, but I've changed my mind. I'd like to hear more. Childhood isolation is the issue ultimately, I think, not necessarily the isolation of boys in particular. I have a big investment in the perspective of young boys, but I'll confess that I don't really know a whole lot about the experience of young girls. Even if you were projecting somehow, I'm still interested in hearing it.

I don't think I really considered that. I'm really curious what you mean. Could you elaborate on that?

I can only speak for myself, but I felt and feel contempt for society, I wanted and want vengeance and I have a very alive dark part of myself. If you live in a world where everyone ignores your pain (or worse) and there are no beacons of virtue in your life, then how could you not feel enraged or despair? Part of me sympathizes with mass murderers. Stef actually makes a good case that you need to be aware of these parts of yourself in order to be moral and have empathy. FDR468 - Seeing Through Darkness http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_468_Seeing_Through_Darkness.mp3