Brandon Buck _BB_

A validated child wouldn't observe his siblings being spanked and conclude that a spanking was the thing missing from his life; to give him a sense of belonging, of worth, and of knowing that he mattered. I suspect that he desired a spanking because he thought that he was missing out on the attention that his siblings were getting. I concur. What a lot of people don't realize is that children who behave badly are more often than not doing so in order to get attention, because when they aren't acting out, they're ignored. In this case, the child is looking for attention in the only way he sees any being given. This behavior isn't unique to humans, either. My son and daughter in law were recently given a dog because her sister decided she no longer wanted it. It's about six months old and has been kept in a kennel at night and while the familty is gone (which I vehemently oppose). When the dog was allowed out, the only family member who payed any attention to her was the son and then only to play aggressively with her. Now that she's with us, she stays on the bed with our other two dogs and when someone approaches the bed, she becomes aggressive and will even bite lightly in order to be paid attention. I should say, would become aggressive because we have been stopping her aggression firmly and instead holding and petting her along with the other two and walla.... she's less and less agressive each day. Like the child in this story, she needs attention and until now, she only knew of one way to get it.

"Its ok though, hopefully when this movement grows and people actually know a few voluntaryists they won't be able to get away with such rank ignorence of voluntaryist thought. " I would be hesitant to assume ignorance on the part of someone writing about anarchism. No doubt there is some ignorance but, the larger likelihood is that the mischaracterizations are intentional.

The Saudi government is short of executioners. Swordsmen for beheadings to be exact but, if they can't find some of those plan "B" is to just shoot people to death.

I second Garet Garrett's, A Bubble that Broke the World. It's a very well written historical account and it's easy to read.

There is no rational answer for it. Religion is, for lack of a better term, a mental disorder. Those who have this problem can be highly intelligent and logical in every aspect of their lives but when it comes to the subject of gods and religion, they simply dissociate. And like any other addiction, you can't reason them out of it because they weren't reasoned into it.

LMAO... "What size t-shirt do you normally wear?" I had to laugh. Because that number does fluctuate, doesn't it? Thanks and good luck with your venture, I'll definitely be a customer.

I didn't claim women to be smarter or better than men. Women are a gender group and I don't make assertions about groups. As individuals, some women are smarter than some men and vice versa. I seems as though you've probably had some negative experience with one or more women and I'm really sorry that happened. With that said, I don't deserve to be attacked for it and women as a group don't either.

empyblessing - DeMause is pointing out observations of human behavior in his work, which is focused on the psychological, not the genetic. It's true that women have traditionally acted feminine and men masculine but that doesn't mean we are born that way. If you remember, one of the facts DeMause mentioned in The Origins of War is that boys actually need more empathy and more body contact in their formative years than do girls. The fact that they don't has a lot to do with why they're more aggressive than girls but, aggressive behavior is not and should not be considered masculine. Likewise, Delusions of Gender (haven't read it but have read reviews) deals with the assignment of gender roles, which again, isn't biological. You were correct to assume that sexism being bad is a moral statement. However, one can point out gender differences without being sexist. Things that are biologically different about women are, in addition to the pretty parts, a generally smaller frame, lower muscle to body weight ratio, higher fat to body weight ratio and a few key differences in the brain. I'm sure I've missed some but, I think you get the drift. ← Nothing sexist about pointing that out. Your quote: "philosophy, science, math, engineering etc. most ideas which deal with principled thinking." As a reference to more masculine interests, didn't have anything to do with what an best be described as accidents of birth. e.g. actual gender differences. Truth be told the female brain is typically better at mathematics and organized thinking... when that is encouraged. I don't know what your experience has been but to be honest, I prefer women to men as doctors (both my dentist and MD are female), accountants and a number of other skilled professions. My reason is that women tend to be more thorough and more patient with my questioning. And admittedly, they're much more pleasant to look at than men. All in all, it doesn't seem that you meant anything sexist with your comment, it just came accross that way. Which is understandable, given the dumb fuckery we're raised to believe. Did that make any sense... empy and Valeska?

I think it's pretty safe to say that those things are traditionally masculine. However, they are only traditionally masculine because a) women have traditionally either been disallowed that sort of study or b) forced gender identity has served as a soft social barrier to women entering those fields. Biologically speaking, there is nothing about the female brain that makes those professions better suited to males and vice versa. Consequently, if it weren't for the aforementioned forcing of gender identity on children, women like Valeska wouldn't be faced with social stigmas they don't deserve.

Wow. That article is so riddled with euphemisms it's almost illegible. And the hell of it is that of everything they talk about, they never, ever so much as even elude to the possibility that it might not be such a good idea to go around having children murder children to glorify the sick, paranoid fantasies of sadistic psychopaths. They're poison containers, these kids. No one really gives two shits about them. They're sent overseas to commit moral attrocities that the most demented among us would struggle with and when they come home broken and unable to function, they're stuck in a fucking yoga class or given an art tablet to scribble on. And that's called therapy. Enough said... sorry for the rant.

Dude... real criminals use guns. What the hell are you thinkin?

Who said he was joking?

Oh.... there are plenty of women online... most of them aren't doing much talking though. [:|]

Yep. And that's just as wrong headed as thinking we need less diversity. What we actually need is more focus on human beings and less focus on accidents of birth.

They aren't supposed to help children. They're supposed to help lazy parents. And fishing lures are designed to attract fishermen.

"I am obiously sure that the chldren of the elites are raised very peacefully without violence." Do you have evidence to support this assertion?

His foundational error is in the assumption that voluntarists would force people to abide by the NAP. If I can convince others to honor the NAP through my honoring of the NAP, then I haven't violated anything and I haven't coerced anyone. Principles are not laws.

All news networks and even local news programs highlight the failures of the state from an argument from effect stance. That's because the same people will use the same arguments against their own parents. And, those arguments are useless. None of them will use an argument from morality, because to do so would expose the evil of the state and, those who raised them. As for the 15% number, that's a direct cash number. They also pursue and receive a huge percentage of funding for the programs they air through government grants for pet projects which they know will only be aired on PBS. Likewise, most of the scienctists who appear on PBS receive their entire incomes from the state. So in the end, PBS claiming the state only provides 15% of its income is exactly like a seven year old claiming that his parents only provide him with a five dollar a week allowance while mentioning nothing about who buys his clothes, his food or his medical insurance.

You wouldn't expect a network that's funded through the violence of the state to point out the violence of the state... would you?

Well, there is no change of scenery, to speak of. I'm from Tyler, which is in East Texas and I'm now in Shreveport, which is in NW Louisiana so I'm only twenty miles from Texas and 110 miles from Tyler. The main change is going from a town that I can only best describe as being stuck in the late nineteenth century to a city that's stuck somewhere in the mid twentieth century. [:O] But seriously, Shreveport has about four times the population and it's a bit easier for a long haired hippy type pinko like myself to succeed in business here than it is in Tyler. As for IFS, since no one has responded yet, it stands for internal family systems, which Stef has termed the mecosystem. It's essentially your inner "voices". If you haven't heard any of the listener conversations involving the mecosystem, you're in for a fascinating journey into the self.

As we say in Texas.... howdy! I'm no longer in Texas but, perhaps for the worst, I was born and raised there. You don't have to become some sort of brilliant orator in order to advance the cause of voluntarism, btw. Just living the principles you endear will suffice to spread them.

When I visited the website I didn't get the "creepy" vibe. I got the douche bag vibe. This guy has serious problems with women, which is obvious from his interest in them as purely sexual exploits who are incapable of rising to the level of the male intellect. Since I'm not a women, maybe I shouldn't comment but I know my wife would say he's a creepy douche bag, so I have authority by proxy. [H]

Africans have little to know no Neanderthal DNA Fixt. That's an interesting video but it doesn't support the notion that blacks are inferior to whites or any other race.

Your argument doesn't present any concrete evidence for the existence of free will. In fact, it shores up the determinist position better. Senses are input devices and input devises are used to determine action, if any. For instance, if we see a lion running toward us, our brain will use past experiences to determine that we should run away. If we didn't have those past experiences to draw from, then our brain would determine another course of action or, perhaps, inaction. As I understand it, the (secular) determinist position is that we have no control over our actions because they are fore ordained through our subconscious mind's assessment of a given situation based upon past knowledge. If that's true, then the senses are, again, mere input devises used to assess our immediate environment and then direct our actions according to stored data. I think that's a plausable explanation of how the human mind functions and I agree that our past actions determine out future actions to a large degree. However, we do not completely understand consciousness and that's where the entire debate over determinism and free will starts... in an attempt to explain the unknown. Those who support the notion of free will argue that we are capable of changing our actions in spite of the fact that the brain uses past experiences to formulate the appropriate action or reaction to a given scenario. Those who support determinism argue that there isn't actually any conscious control to be had over such decisions and because of that, everything is fore ordained. In as much as I understand it, the evidence overwhelmingly supports free will. After all, if our decisions are all unconcious and all based upon past experience, then it stands to reason that we wouldn't be capable of inventing. Unless of course, one argues that our brains are capable of free thought but that said thought takes place in the subconscious mind and thus, is uncontrollable. In any event, I support the notion of free will but your argument doesn't advance the position. I'd also like to offer a critique of the video... there's an element of condescension in the video that also shows up in this thread. In the video, we're treated to a repetition of pointing at the nose, eyes, ears, etc. as if we were children who needed a visual aid in order to relate hearing with the ears, sight with the eyes, et al. Then, in this thread, you've asserted that defining certain words is somehow something that only a child should need to do, even in the face of some logical arguments for those definitions. There's a correlation there that, for me at least, creates quite the disincentive for either debating with you or watching another of your videos.

People weren't in a psychedelic state, they were in a psychotic state. There were a lot of sexual partners but most of the sex wasn't consensual and suffice it to say, far too much of it was perpetrated against children. The notion of private property did exist but gift giving/sharing was (and still is among modern primitive cultures) commonplace, although not for the romantic reasons asserted. Primitives gift because they fear being punished by demons and gods, thus, the gifts they bestow on others are sacrificial. The "coming of age" parties are actually ceremonies wherein boys are brutally initiated into manhood and they include but are not limited to bloodletting from the genitals with the intent being to purge the young man of the "poison" he received from his mother's breast milk. And, the poison is often purged with the semen of adult men. In short, there is nothing at all fun, utopian or romantic about primitive cultures. These fanciful stories are based on evidence but they're not based on science. http://psychohistory.com/childhood/writech1.htm