Brandon Buck _BB_

That's a good assessment of the argument but it still doesn't address why you think it is that you perceived the series as emotionally manipulative. For instance, am I and the others who disagree with your original claim not smart enough to see it? Are we too biased? Have we not studied enough evidence? Has Stef not studdied enough? Have we studied too much? More importantly, are you reacting to something in this presentation that causes an uncomfortable feeling? Are you more prone to such feelings and if so, why? Have you studied enough information? etc... It's hard to answer those questions about ourselves but the degree of difficulty is the degree of importance of the task as it relates to making a truth claim about another person's motivations or appeals.

Thanks for answering my question! The hard question to answer now is why did it feel emotionally manipulative?

"Well, now we are in agreement, but you are writing as if we are not" I don't know that we are in agreement. My position is that abuse does cause stunted intelligence and violence in adulthood. But, I can't prove stunted intelligence (no one can) and I know that not all abused kids become violent adults. Although, more often than not, that is the case. We may agree with that but from what I've read in this thread, it seems as though you're arguing that genetics plays a larger role than environment and I firmly disagree with that notion. Also, I don't take the BiB series as being even remotely comparable to Reefer Madness. To me, that would be akin to conflating Mad Max movies with actual anarchism. For instance, the information in the BiB series is drawn from actual scientific studies that have been conducted in congruence with the scientific method. The information in the Reefer Madness skit was pure, unadulterated lies with absolutely no roots in science. I wonder though, why do you think it is that you got the message you did from the series?

"I felt that way reading the original text I quoted from your post which seems to accuse those that support some genetic explanations and research as motivated by their own participation in child abuse:" No, I said some people, not all, which I think you may have been confused on. The rest of my comment is applicable to any position anyone holds. In other words... we should all question our own motivations and find out whether or not they are informed by irrational biases we developed throughout our history. "I also engaged in some speculation that FDR does not want to dicuss this topic because it relies on the narrative that abused children turn out stupid and violent in order to scare parents to be non violent because it was more effective than convincing people all initiation of violence is wrong." By FDR I assume you mean Stef? Or the community writ large? I don't know how much of the podast series you've consumed, so you may not know this. Stef was raised in a violent and abusive home and I don't think anyone would argue that he is stupid and violent. Least of all, himself. Thus, it would be hard for him to take that position in light of the fact that it is completely contradictory to his own life history. The argument regarding the lowering of IQ is not that child abuse necessarily causes a lowering of the IQ but rather that child abuse can cause a lowering of the IQ. My position on that topic is that even if abusing a child who has an IQ of 100 doesn't make it 90, it certainly hinders the child from reaching an IQ of 120. Therefore, from a lifelong standpoint, child abuse does indeed cause a lower IQ.

With all due respect, what you think has nothing to do with the truth. The truth is that all humans of all races are decended from the same few apes in Africa. Different skin colors and other visible traits are the result of immigrating from Africa to different climates on different continents. So in the end, since we are all the same species, there is no such thing as racial inbreeding.

Thanks for the correction on the analogy. As for the rest, I'm not relying one position or another because I think it will help an argument. That fact is that abusing children is harmful to them and obviously, it is immoral. Whether I argue that point or not has no bearing on the truth of the matter. I'm also curious as to what makes you think I'm defending the nurture argument as though it were a political position?

I didn't read her book because what I read in the reviews leads me to believe it is primarily an opinion based on her obsevations of adult behavior.

I'm saying exactly what I said. The reasons are surely as varied as those who ponder the question so I don't think it would be wise to make general assumptions about them. And yes, it's not only possible to approach the topic from a scientific perspective... it's been done. Human beings do posess the ability to be violent and some of us are born with genetic markers for more sociopathy, psychopothy, etc. The reason.tv video that has been offered here talks about just such markers in libertarian minded people. The question is not do genetics provode for these disfuntions. It is why do these disfunctions manifest in some people who have them and not others. "If you truly believe in non aggression or promoting it, you'd be able to convince people not to abuse children by saying they are not behaving ethically using violence and aggression on their children, rather than scaring them using the nuture argument about how their kid might not turn out well." If that were true, the plight of middle eastern women and children would be much better, because surely the men who control them have been told they are behaving in an unethical fashion. The problem is that when people hold to irrational beliefs, contrary evidence, appeals to ethics and literally any other argument made only serves to further reinforce the irrational belief. Not to mention... what sense does your argument make if we change the subject from child abuse to smoking? Are we not allowed to encourage people to stop smoking by presenting to them the evidence that smoking increases the potential for lung cancer, heart disease, etc. because it might scare them? I think we must arrange our arguments based on truth. If that truth scares some people, it's still truth.

Thanks. I don't think anyone is arguing that genetics don't play a role in basic brain structure, cognitive ability, etc. The fact that we're all the same species lends to the similarities in those features and for twins, they're surely going to be much closer in similarity regardless of whether or not the pair is reared together or apart. I'm also not sure twin studies can tell us much since the first nine months of any twin pair's lives are spent in the same environment. Owing to the fact that the brain, memories and emotions form en utero, it stands to reason that a significant amount of fundamental brain development has already occured by the time a twin pair is seperated, so the likelihood that the pair will be similar in ability and personality later in life is obovious. With that known, I dont know that a twin study can be of much use unless the pair can be seperated at conception and gestted in two different wombs. Another mark against twin studies (in my mind, at least) is that society writ large tends to treat certain people in similar ways. For example, a pretty, blond headed girl is treated differently than a nerdy, tom boy girl. And, like gender differences, that different treatment ignores economic stature, race, location (within, say, the east and west coasts of the US), et al.

"Just so you know, I am not a genetic determinist. I just feel that Stefan's thesis on parenting and its connection to human violence and aggression is naive, as it seems t obe of that other radical side - social determinism. I consider myself a hereditarian, and that genetics and social aspects both contribute to our nature - although I have reason to believe that genetics have a more significant effect." Great. I haven't heard or read anything that provides convincing evidence but perhaps you have. Can you point out something I could review?

I don't see any contradiction and for sure, lack of religion isn't the only explation he gives. To paraphrase: "The boomer generation had not been raised to defer gratification for the sake of living for others". That has nothing to do with religion, two parents at home, good jobs or peace. But, it has a considerable amount to do with the title of the podcast and how a person structures their moral worldview.

Wow. That's not an article... it's statism on a muck run.

"Does Stefan ever question where 'aggression' and 'violence' originate in our species? Because I am quite sure that the firct act of aggression by a homo sapien was not influenced by the supposed 'sin' of being beaten as a child, it was a natural action in a world to take advantage of - it is our nature." Given the environment in which Neandethal man lived, it's clear that violence was a natural action. Even so, that doesn't mean that using violence against one's child was the correct thing to do. Medieval doctors didn't use penicillin because it hadn't been discovered yet but, that doesn't mean that using leeches was the correct thing to do. Moreover, that an action is natural (generally speaking) does not indicate that the action is preferable, beneficial or correct. After all, it's natural to crave sugar but we all know what happens when people act on that craving in an environment where sugar is readily available. There is nothing at all about the fact that human beings are naturally capable of using violence that indicates humans should use violence or, that using violence is excusable as a means of controlling the behavior of other humans in the absense of self defense against the same. All it says is that human's are naturally capable of using violence. Apologists for the nature side of the argument often assert nature as an excuse for poor parenting, even in the face of strong evidence suggesting that violence is harmful to children and that humans aren't naturally inclined toward violence. Over the past forty odd years, the peaceful parenting movement has provided considerable evidence for the latter. With all that said, I think it's imperative that those who argue so strongly for nature and against nurture ask themselves what it would cost them personally to admit that environment is the single most influential factor in determining whether or not human beings will act irrationally on the violent capabilities they naturally possess.

He only mentioned "stabe home life" and, while I can't speak for Stef, I can't imagine he had in mind stable upbringing. I'm pretty sure he was talking about the fact that the boomer generation was raised in households where there were two parents with only one working parent... thereby lending one parent to be at home caring for the child(ren). Perhaps he'll clarify.

Actually, no they aren't. To be sure, the majority of nation states are becoming more intrusive and coercive than they were in the recent past but historically, states have been horribly intrusive, coercive and just generally violent.

Where do you get that statism is more of a problem today than it was in the past?

I don't recall him mentioning ubringing (childhood) in the poscast.

UPB doesn't posit anything, it is only a methodology for testing the validity of moral theories. For a moral theory to be valid, it must be both universal (applicable to all people at all times) and preferrable (not preferred). A lot of confusion sets in when people conflate the words preferable and preferred. And, when one interchanges those words within the phrase universally pxxx behavior, the meaning is remarkably different. That said, I don't think you're taking Stef too literally about anything. I think you're attempting to use UPB as a means of explaining how people act. Does that help?

"Now I am forced to pay even more into this f'ing Ponzi Scheme from which I get nothing in the end?" Oh, you're gonna get plenty in the end buddy... just you wait.

I haven't really shared my childhood experiences with many people and fortunately, I only scored a three on the ACE, so anything I share with most people might seem mild. But I have experienced the things you mentioned just in talking with people about childrearing in the abstract and, in talking with them about their childhoods. My wife and I have a very good friend whom I talked with about her childhood as a part of a conversation about raising her two neices she has recently adopted from an abisive environment. It's so bizarre because in one sentence she'd be telling me about how her mother left her alone at home with her stepfather whom she knew was a pedophile and in the next sentence she'd be defending her mother for doing the best she could.... Her dissociation was so bad that it took a long time to get her to see that he mother had actually not done the best she could and in fact, had done her tremendous harm. And, this is a woman who is honestly interested in doing a good job in raising the two young girls she now has. Frankly, I still don't think she get's the connection between what her mother did to her and what she tells herself. In fact, I know so, because she still visits her mother and the stepfather who molested her. That's why people react the way they do when you bring up your history. Even if they've talked about their own, I think that by looking from the outside in at someone else's abuse, they have to somehow face the tragedy and feel empthy for you that they cannot feel for themselves and that dissonance causes the irrational responses. Or so it seems to me. In any event, I really do think those of us who are facing our histories are much better off than our dissociated comteporaries. I know that for myself, once I gained self knowledge and an understanding of what happened to me, I was able to shed fears and bigotries that had been like a ball and chain tied to my leg. I very rarely get angry anymore and when I do, it's for a rational and valid reason, my friendships (the ones I have left) are more intimate and meaningful and in general, I'm a lot happier. And... I can look in the mirror and say those words.

I'm sorry to hear that you've been through such a rough time. No child deserves to be abused in any way. Anyone who responds to your history with anything other than empathy and sympathy is avoiding the task of facing their own childhoods. And, if they are parents, the abuse they have inflicted on their own child(ren).

And don't forget folks... it's your payroll department's fault that you participated in a violent theft ring...

I don't really intend to argue the minutia of your proposal. I was simply pointing out that living off the grid isn't as easy as you presented it and, more importantly, that depriving one's self of the benefits afforded by human cooperation and technology isn't synonymous with freedom. I have no problem whatever with anyone who wants to live off the grid.

That sounds good at first blush but in the society we live in today, there are a few drawbacks to that plan. Older and less expensive vehicles are fine (I drive a 14 year old truck), but what will the single mom do when the transmission goes out and she can't get to work? Aftermarket warranties on a $2000.00 car are expensive, if you can get someone to write one and the cost of being afoot during a repair can be devastating to a job. Even if you're already self sufficient and you don't have a job to go to, you and your goats still need feed... and you simply can't grow everything. Well, I suppose you can but, then you're back to having a job and no time for the kids. Of course, I'm not advising anyone to go out and buy a new car. There are a lot of used vehicles that are very dependable and much less expensive. However, a payment on a vehicle is not always wasted money. For some, it's a valuable investment in knowing that they have a much smaller chance of breaking down on the side of the road and, if they do, they know they have a warranty that will cover most repair costs. Which can be very expensive. Owning your own house in today's world isn't all it's cracked up to be either. For instance, what if your goat gets out and causes a car accident with a death? Your house is an open wallet to all potential creditors who can prove your negligence in court. If it's mortgaged, you still run the risk of foreclosure by the bank but to be sure, that is a risk you can control. Farming isn't as cheap as it sounds. And, feeding and caring for farm animals comes with a lot of responsibility and the ever present risk of illness, injury or death of your livestock... so growing all your food is a job and one of your goals was to be shed of a job so you'd have more free time. Solar panels are becoming less and less expensive as time wears on but so far, the cost to run a farm on solar panels is not cost effective unless some benevolent soul gives them to you. I'm not saying your proposal can't work. On the contrary, a lot of people do it. But to think it's just as easy as aquiring the stuff and living like you're on vacation is a bit naive, to say the least. Living off the grid is a lot of work and it takes a lot of sacrifice. If that sounds like freedom to someone, then it is freedom. It doesn't sound like freedom to me though. Freedom for me is being able to use electricity without worrying about how sunny it is this week. It's enjoying a cold glass of milk with my cookies without having to go milk a goat or cow. It's pretty much taking advantage of all the technology and division of labor that you're proposing I abandon. So yeah... I am FREE, because I depend on others who also depend on me.