Pepin

A society based on the non-aggression principal would divulge into mass murders, rapes, and gang warfare.

I am having a difficult time taking this argument seriously. It feels analogous to someone going up to a doctor who just pronounced someone dead and asking them "how can you say that if you can't really say what death is?" and then proceeds to ask "how do you know that you are working on is a human?".

I don't think it is surprising, Dawkins is a person, and these sorts of rationalizations tend to happen to most people. If you look at the personal lives of so many great scientists, you will get similar or worse stories. I think there is less of a reason to be outraged at this, and more of a reason to show that this normalization occurs no matter your intelligence.

I'm going to try something new and just give my thoughts and theories as I read, instead of reading the whole thing and then commenting. It may not work out very well, especially if I am wrong, but it may stimulate a lot more thought. I find with myself that often hearing a lot of wrong theories about my dreams helps me find the answer and stimulates a lot of thought, so even if it doesn't work, I think it'll be helpful. It is interesting that you apartment is in the basement. What I also find interesting is that you are turning on the lights for the upstairs area, which I'd argue is a metaphor for the three brain system, the basement being the lower reptilian brain, the upstairs being the high functioning unique to humans brain. What I'd anticipate based off this idea is that there will be some physiological sort of reasoning sent to the higher part of the brain resulting in some simple yet profound realization. A lot of the family issues falls into the camp where your physiology is completely aware of the situation, but it isn't processed on a higher level, and if it is it is more likely to be normalization. I'd say this works pretty well with my theory, though it would be more the emotional mammalian brain that is being turned on. I think this would make more sense given the forum you are on as we tend to be hyper rational and disconnected from the emotions. This works well with my theory because the base brain is very primal and empirical. You could only get people to deny their senses to that extent through intensive childhood indoctrination. What I also find interesting that he is using emotion as a means of control. I'd say that this is where the dream gets internal and personal. In the dream, you are abstracting away from yourself by asking "why would you teach them that is a good way to live". Though this question does have merit on its own, it has far more relevance to your own childhood, especially in having to spend so much time within the church. Going along with this, the kid who blurts it out is some part of you that knows why. I am basing this off of Stefan's "you already know everything about your parents" idea, and also off the general idea that dreams are a manifestation of your internal world. I'd say that this is supported in the dream because you clearly understand the implication of a vague set of words. Unless the miscarriage relates to something real, I feel like the best way to explain it is to see it as an unprocessed event of trauma. Essentially she is teaching you and others this because she hasn't processed her past, which is essentially the cycle of violence. What I also find interesting about this part is that it is abstracted away from you in that it isn't talked in terms of your brother who died far too young, which leads me to say that the child that she lost is you. She likely expected you to stay this way and to have a long term relationship. Now as an adult, that obviously didn't happen, and you are likely to not even see her after you gain full Independence. This loss of relationship with her is quite analogous to the miscarriage because fundamentally: she doesn't know you, she doesn't have a relationship with you, she only can relate to what could have been. I hope that was helpful and that I struck at least one chord. I think I have a pretty decent theory, but you are the best judge.

I've been reading the post and forming a rebuttal, and I don't feel at all like the negative rating on it are warranted. So far, this is one of the best criticisms I've read. It is obvious that a lot of effort is put into understanding the opposition and it is quite well written.

I certainly feel where you are coming from and am I guess it can be said that I came out, but it was during a breakdown I was having where I was saying far too many other things as well. I am curious, what is the best outcome of coming out to these people? How does it benefit you? This isn't a leading question at all and it may sounds harsher than intended, but I am curious not just about your rational, but also about mine as I don't quite understand my own.

I'm quite sorry about your family circumstance. It sucks to feel on edge about this sort of topic. I'd agree with your post. There are so many factors that go into these sorts of events. What makes it worse is that the placebo effect in regards to medical issues is actually quite effective.

There is a lot of economic material at mises.org that will be helpful. Rothbard's Man Economy and State is seen by many to be one of the best books on economics by the Austrian school of thought. Personally I don't find historical arguments to be very helpful because it is always the case that there will be polar perspectives depending on the argument a person wants to convey, and it is far too easy to dismiss any side as "biased". Despite this, there are a lot of history books with lots of evidence in regards to libertarianism, I'd recommend anything by Tom Woods. As far as climate change and evidence, it isn't a subject that I can bring myself to care about. Provided that it is true, there really isn't anything I can do. The idea that any government is capable of solving such an issue when they are the worse polluter by incredible stretch is irrational. The idea that I can have any influence on it with my everyday actions is irrational. It is completely outside my sphere of influence. Is it like the

I am a huge fan of Derren Brown. I've seen just about everything he has done. This series was quite good and very accessible to those on the other side. He has a fantastic method of making arguments, and it is also quite artful. I actually set up a seance that was inspired by one of Derren's programs "Seance" and had this whole subliminal plan set up, and it was really working quite well... Until some "ghost hunter expert douche idiot squared" came in and ruined everything by telling me and everything that I was doing it wrong and proceeded to interrupt me and try to take over at any opportunity. "Ghosts don't communicate through ouija boards, that's a myth, watch how its down with this candle". I've somewhat seen this sort of faith healing, but it has been pretty lack luster, at most being a small magic trick. At my ex's grandmother's house, randomly she was like "let me use rakki on your burnt arm" to my ex and she didn't know what she was talking about but had it done out of some insistence, and on the drive back she was like "yeah, that rakki stuff was pretty messed up, and my arm still hurts". What I've seen far more of are personal stories of healing. Like I was in pain, I prayed, and now I feel better.

Though I haven't watched the debate, I would say that I have made that sort of observation in regard to other similar groups like Marxists. It is like there are two separate things, the system and the people. It is a bit similar to the Hegelian idea of societal changes that rush in with a zeitgeist in that there is a large disconnect between the idea and people. I am having a difficult time describing it, but there is an odd sort of feeling associated to it. Perhaps an apt analogy would be as if the fates weaved in events and changes, but did not include any names or even that people were involved. I don't know. I hope this post was relevant and made sense.

Just curious, do you feel anxious, as the raw emotion? Or do do you feel dissociated from the anxiety, but still get the effects of it. Like you feel pretty level in your head and you don't feel the anxiety, but you find that your hands are trembling and when you speak your voice has that wavering characteristic.

All you can do is be a great person and make clear and concise arguments that some people will listen to and accept.

Speaking from a anarchist point of view, if protection is a service that is needed then it will be provided through various market mechanisms. Granted that the society will be more rational and accepting of science, there will also be large cultural drives that will push toward positive norms, such as the peaceful raising of children. There is a lot of material on this. The two listed below http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdf http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf I would argue that the effects would behave exponentially with the generations due to successive implementation of verified theory, that people would become less and less dangerous, and the business of protection would begin to focus on more threats of nature and the individual. I would also argue that many processes that courts are needed for now could be handled even without a third party, unless you consider reason and evidence a third party.

A few I liked, but many I didn't find interesting.

Oh my... Quite scary reading this. Unfortunately, the atheistic liberals are more likely to see this as a moment to bash Republicans than be horrified at their at the Democrat statistic. I base this on my experience on forums where when any study comes out and the conservative comes in last, that all of the focus in on that, as opposed to the close second by the liberal group.

I'd say it is the most important of the story.

Personally, if you have an interest in this topic I wouldn't become a philosopher king only to get the podcasts. Rather I'd invest into a book on internal family systems. A decent one I'd recommend is Self Therapy by Jay Early. Also, if you have not seen it, this is an interview about the IFS model with the creator of it.

It is easier to relate to someone who is closer to your own age as you are likely to have a lot more in common with someone of your own age in terms of maturity, experience, upbringing, and outlook, and life problems. It is somewhat easy to observe that younger people tend to be more immature and are likely to lack certain qualities that makes them far less appealing to people of an older age. In much the same way, someone in their 30's or 40's is not likely to be as appealing to a younger person because of the qualities they have. To be stereotypical, while a young person is likely to stay up late partying, an older person is not as likely to want to take part in this and would prefer to go out to a restaurant with a few friends. These are of course generalizations and there are plenty of exceptions, but these are some basic reasons why most people stick to their age range. Personal, I'd prefer an older woman as girls around my age tend to lack maturity. I'd find the differences to make the person more appealing as that makes them more interesting. I also find the form of an older woman to be more attractive as the shape is fuller and the style is more elegant. I suppose a disadvantage I have in this journey to find a cougar is that people often think I am 16, when I am actually 22.

Apparently a 1/3 were in favor of breaking, a decent bit more than a 1/3 were against, and the rest were apathetic. It seems as though who was in each group mattered more than the numbers. In so far as the reasons, I would look at it like a long abusive relationship in that there could be 1000 factors involved in the breakup, but the ones most likely to be noted are the most major and past the tipping point. Also, much a relationship, it is just not what is said and done, but the how.it is said and done. Like you can apologize to your partner and if you do it poorly it might actually hurt you.

I think this will have a positive impact on atheism. There is a large hatred of atheists, especially among theists, and a lessening of this is likely to make it more socially acceptable. Honestly, theists and people in general being agnostic about atheists is probably the next social step in progress.

Lucid dreaming is nothing that I really try to do, but I find it happens when I start to notice certain dream events that only happen in dreams. A lot of these are likely to be rather indescribable, but it should be possible to make a mental note of the experience of it and to associate it with dreaming. There are also more obvious events that only happen when you are dreaming, a big one for me is when I find money on the floor in a dream I will find more and more indefinitely. Being more an observer that wants to understand what is happening helps out. It becomes much easier to spot what doesn't make sense when you are coming at it more of an internal point than an external go with the flow. You might also have some limited form of thinking. If your unconscious is anything like mine, it will pulls these very complex and convincing maneuvers within the dream when you realize that you are dreaming. There is this cliche of waking up from a dream to find out that you are still dreaming, and this is something that occurs to me a little too often. On a more minor level, my dreams will often correct for what isn't making sense to me. I had a funny moment in a dream a while ago where I was talking to someone and they turned into another person mid-sentence, so I was like "what just happened, I was just talking to Nate", and then the dream put Nate back in and the dream continued. The worst possibility for me is that my dreams they become wicked long realistic forms of abstract art that are impossible to put into words and to interpret. I don't know if you or others are like me in this respect, but I'd recommend exploring whether there is a force that will do whatever it can to prevent you from realizing it is a dream.

Hi, welcome to the forum. Feel free to make an introduction in the self titled section. Something that I think is important to realize is that most people don't have a compulsion to apply reason and evidence to everything. Instead, they will tend to come to a conclusion that is often based off of past trauma and then start rationalizing their conclusion. The Bomb in the Brain series covers this pretty well, and I'd recommend watching it in full if you haven't. I would assume that this man grew up in Christian household and is now somewhat agnostic, though I doubt he's confronted the abuse inflicted on him. He likely has some close ties to Christians, some being in their family. As someone who is more intellectual and has this sort of background, when Atheism is brought up, it is likely to feel rather like having a cheese grater scraped against the ear. Of course this is just a character sketch of the person who tends to make these arguments and may be quite off in this instance. I feel like you have to expect quite rational people to have completely irrational views in certain areas, only because if you don't: you're going to be disappointed. By rationality I don't mean the right conclusion, but rather a consistent methodology. I like to put it in terms of myself, as in if people were to study my life and views in the future for some reason, even where I was wrong I'd want them to say "he may have been wrong on this issue, but if we could revive him and show him this reason and evidence he didn't have, he'd certainly be convinced and change his views". My post likely doesn't help, but I hope it provides an explanation that makes out of place irrationality a little more understandable.

The classroom/school is a social environment that you do not fit into. The class you are supposed to be in represents the social group you want to be in, and the "learning environment" would indicate that you want to be surrounded by more intellectual people of like minds and to learn about truth. The fact that you can't find the class and that the dream is reoccurring is hinting at the fact that what you are looking for does not exist where you are looking for it. The embarrassment has to do with being older and being surrounded by others who are in a social tribe and the social perception that goes with this. To condense the above: it is not about something you should have learned, but rather about something you didn't learn. You didn't learn it because you weren't supposed to learn it. Hope that strikes a few chords, it may not, but even then it may still be helpful in triggering some thoughts.

I listened to this one about a year ago, and have to say that the reasoning in it has really had an impact on me. It don't think it is so much the concept as I think so many people including myself have had similar thoughts, but more how it is presented and argued. The emphasis on the "compared to what" was a big clicking moment for me. It is a bit weird to say, but I have been gradually more and more able to objectively judge myself. I still have further to go as it is more a process of changing the direction of something with a large amount of moment, as in it takes times, but I anticipate seeing even more change in myself a year from now.

To my knowledge and sampling of some online economic classes, the beginning courses tend be about what everyone agrees with, which are the principals of microeconomics. It seems like it takes a little while for them to get into the modern economic models, a large reasoning being that: they build upon the foundation of economics, they are much harder to understand theoretically, the mathematics involved are quite complex.