LovePrevails

I say be generally friendly and speak to as many strangers as possible get good at starting conversations with strangers and see what is out there if you find a woman who has good qualities of character like kindness and curiosity and you develop excellent communication skills you can easily set the tone for the relationship as a man by talking about these subjects, how you don't want a relationship with any name-calling for example and if people are upset they should just be able to say how they feel and listen to one another well and talk it out instead of having an argument. You'll know if someone is good relationship material by this little test: the first time they do something that you have a profound negative reaction to you tell them how you feel without blaming them, calling them names, accusing them or moralizing, :--- if they attack you or say it's you who has the problem or anything like that you say "I'm just telling you how I felt about it, I'm not calling you any names or attacking you, and you're responding by attacking me" , if they continue then that's a big bad red light, if they say "yeah I guess you're right sorry I was just being defensive" then it means they are probably interested in working on the relationship. If, on the other hand, they are curious right away and want to talk about it and prevent it from happening again then they are a winner. I don't see how these features are exclusive to finding someone you are attracted to.

Man can be philosophically differentiated from other creatures as "a rational animal" meaning man has the ability to reason (not that he is in all cases rational) that is sufficient distinction in cases that involve man's capacity to reason this is why I think UPB is universifiable for humans only the NAP, on the other hand, I have argued, should deter people from slaughtering animals

Yes because it would be impossible to underwrite the insurance for a nuclear power plant on a freemarket because the cost to the insurance company of paying for damages would be too high to risk, so no one would trade with you if you couldn't guarantee safety. Plus since everything would be privately owned including waste disposal no one could insure disposal of dangerous waste materials from your plant since it would be to expensive, no one would accept the waste therefor you'd have to keep it yourself, therefor it would be impossible. Besides, nuclear power is expensive, the only reason it was economic was because it underwrote the cost of developing nuclear weapons during the cold war. The governments put a lot of money into making red look black.

How about instead of telling us it was a myth, demonstrating what is wrong about it. I am open to reason and evidence.

thanks for speaking please join our gorup: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1394625837446977/?fref=ts

Why not ask Peter Boghossian to review UPB?

Hey I have heard Stef repeatedly quote this statistic and I doubt one of the above is true but can I have a source for it?

nonetheless, several minutes at the beginning are dedicated to insisting (falsely) that this is not an adhominem argument. as for boor vs. monster, what relevance is this semantic issue to the purpose of the post? somehow I knew when I typed it someone would jump upon it

This is a great history lesson and I really enjoyed it, but I completely disagree that this is not an ad hominem, in fact disagree suggests I am expressing a subjective view it is objectively an ad homenem like if your doctor smokes but says your smoking is bad for you, discounting the advice would be the tu quoque fallacy "Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument." I think, since this is a philosophy show, the fact that this fallacy is so common it has its own name should have been acknowledged. Marxism is wrong because of reason and evidence not because Marx himself was a boor.

fao geeks only

Hey I came across this http://opportunities.creativescotland.com/view.aspx?id=a2a695ca-2d61-4e5c-8d41-14f04eb3ef48 I am almost certain all the submissions will be socialist/liberal/pro-welfare etc. so writing something pushing a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist angle could very possibly stand out in the pile highly recommend anyone whose brain can write a script pushing that angle submit

I commend you upon your bravery. Continue with the therapy Help other people that's all you can do now, the past is a graveyard.

I thought it was good except around 5 minutes when he started talking about marriage and also the contradiction between "lack of mating opportunities" and "going from relationship to relationship" I like when this information isn't presented with the latent misogyny it tends to be presented with it harms the efficaciousness of the message

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvtkd3BcWA0

do it for your own enjoyment, don't be too worried about quality at first, it will come with experience just do as many as you can and you will get good

I am sorry if this has been raised a half dozen times but I'm really curious as to why James Gilligan has never been on the show he is obviously of the belief that many very violent people can be rehabilitated and I want to hear him present the case and be challenged as he is a world-leading expert on violence personally I think if we can rehabilitate people along the sociopathic spectrum we should do it if not they should be isolated with one another and they can decide what they want to do to run a society of sociopaths

i can't underrstand the initial post i'm afraid

What does FDR/ anyone else use to do this? I have a cpouple of big interviews coming up for my channels (www.youtube.com/theprogressiveparent and www.youtube.com/enrichyourlife1) and would like to be able to record video as well as audio

yes it's a good exercise

i enjoyed it

in the interview about "The Myth of Male Power" on youtube, Warren Farrell states that We often think of our parents as dysfunctional, i think it would be accurate (and also more compassionate) to call them stage 1 functional... when divorce would have lead to starvation, society was forced to make divorce a taboo... codependency was functional.... technology that stopped us from starving to death also allowed women to ask the question "does my husband really listen to me?" and divorces prepared men and women to be independent instead of codependent. Now in stage 2, codependency has become dysfunctional, but not understanding this has lead us to blaming our parents, rather than crediting them for working so hard creating the circumstances that allow us to ask questions like, "are we communicating", "are we listening," "are we loving each other?" our parents couldn't afford to listen to themselves, because if the man listened to himself he would say "I don't want to work this crap job to feed the family." Discuss.

Galloway might be really good on Palestine

The Case for Anti-psychiatry as I have gleaned it from stef's video(s) http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/33920-the-case-for-anti-psychiatry-as-i-have-gleaned-it-from-stefs-videos/?hl=psychiatry

Youtube now lets you listen or watch 1.5 or 2x speed for those who want to I find podcasts quite comprehenisble at 1.5x and since I've listened to hundred of hours of different ones over the last few years this would have saved me some time go to www.youtube.com/html5 then click Request the Html5 Player presto (literally)

good to hear a postiive success story