LovePrevails

Would "the evolutionary function of sexuality is for us to have children" be more acceptable Derek? I accept that the drive is there in nature for having children, but that doesn't mean that we don't get to enjoy that drive in other ways - I don't intend on having children any time soon but that's not going to stop me enjoying making love to my partner. The drive to eat is for nutrition but we get pleasure out of it in lots of other ways and that has become a natural and wonderful parts of out life, culture, social events, and so forth let me know what you think

tinned food, rice, grains, nuts and things that won't go off for 6-12 months?

I've always thought he would be a great guest, particularly if the interview can be geared to giving people actual "to dos" to reverse traumas.

IMHO you can't change, and definitely can't save, anyone else you can help them become a better version of themselves but that is about the limit if you want to change someone you put all this power in their hands to please you when they conform with the changes you want, or displease you when they don't - and inevitably they get this on the unconscious level and start acting it out to punish/reward you for not respecting their autonomy nothing wrong with having friends who don't tick every one of your boxes (they have to tick all the "need" boxes but not all the "want" boxes) but if you are going to get really close to someone eg. long term relationship - you need someone who is aligned values wise and is really into the idea of open honest communication etc. when you say that you are into it because if you can't respect their autonomy and want to change them too much they will have a nuclear weapon that may get used when they are in a bad mood with you - whether they mean to use it consciously or not. They punish and reward you by meeting or not meeting your expectations. Not a great situation to find yourself in 2 years down the line.

Chomsky has blindspots for Islam as Sam Harris has blindspots for US foreign policy. Both have a naivety.

I just love that film, I remember showing it to my girlfriend when we first started going out and at first she was like "wtf" but the moment he put the glasses on she was stunned and like "...amazing..." and gripped for the rest of it. I have never spoken to anyone who didn't love it.

Well, for the first time Scotland has a libertarian party. Do I believe that political action is effective? Not really So why would I write this? Most people in Scotland have never even heard the word libertarian! we have a strict left-right divide between labour, the greens and the marginal socialist (communist) parties and the conservative party as well as UKIP. Since people don't gather en masse to regard the philosophy of every day life, peaceful parenting &c. I thought it might be a good excuse to get people searching the term and exposed to ideas they have never even heard or considered before. Don't think I would get involved if I lived in the states but here is the article I wrote if you would like to give me any feedback - I made a concerted effort to distinguish us from both the left and right parties. http://scottishlibertarians.com/the-avengers-a-libertarian-perspective/ let me know what you think

"You might claim — as most people do — that you have never been influenced by philosophy. I will ask you to check that claim. Have you ever thought or said the following? "Don't be so sure — nobody can be certain of anything." You got that notion from David Hume (and many, many others), even though you might never have heard of him. Or: "This may be good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice." You got that from Plato. Or: "That was a rotten thing to do, but it's only human, nobody is perfect in this world." You got that from Augustine. Or: "It may be true for you, but it's not true for me." You got it from William James. Or: "I couldn't help it! Nobody can help anything he does." You got it from Hegel. Or: "I can't prove it, but I feel that it's true." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's evil, because it's selfish." You got it from Kant. Have you heard the modern activists say: "Act first, think afterward"? They got it from John Dewey." - Ayn Rand

Woody Allen is basically some kind of buddhist existentialist "life is suffering - once you accept that when there is no suffering in you then you will appreciate how remarkable that is - and you can find ways to cope with your suffering and try and make it worth it/justified by pursuing whatever you value in this life"

Love Ayn Rand

it's funny how tragedy of the commons is always taught as an argument against free markets when in fact it is ultimately a proof of the impossibility of government. weird reversal of logic.

Here are another couple of approaches I have found very practical and helpful in real world situations

are there too many nurses? too many people taking care of the environment and replanting our forests? too many great role models for children? Too many people looking after the elderly and reading stories for the blind? the proposition is really very silly

women tend to like ambiguity because it means they can back out without being accused of giving false signals or leading anyone on hence the conversation at the door where she goes, "I'd love to invite you in but I have college tomorrow" and you go "oh it's fine we'll just have one last drink" etc. everyone knows where that conversation leads, but she has to do it because then she has plausible deniability and can say "one thing just led to another" I know NAWALT but it's pretty standard, women like to check their exits, and perhaps they have good evolutionary reasons for that.

it is literally one of the best introductory videos I have ever seen on this subject and I have been researching gender issues for a couple of years. Thank you!

Great article Kevin, thought I'd add this

exceellent thanks

Thanks for sharing this

thanks for posting

he seems to be a justice warrior I think he genuinely believes his policies are for the good of the people, does not understand economics.

Notjam does not have an original thought, he is just parroting things he has heard from other creationists because he doesn't like the theory of evolution.

negative consequences are like giving a child's part in a play to another child because they wouldn't learn their lines after repeated requests punishment is giving them a detention as well punishment is any action that is chosen specifically because it is unpleasant, and there is no evidence that it is effective read your Alfie Kohn.

people say Obama couldn't close Guantanamo because his hands were tied - BS - he could have got on TV and said "I promised I would close guantanamo, I want to deliver on that promise but I can't because X Y Z I need you all to write to your congressman or woman and tell them to support me on this. I think Trump would be immensely frustrated by the fact that he couldn't get anything done, and he is a brash enough character to get on tv and explain why he can't get anything done and how fucked the system is - which is why they would never let him get elected

thanks for reminding me to take my iodine which i have been neglecting.

there is a difference between a moral actor and a moral object. If an insane or mentally retarded person or someone with a damaged brain hits you we do not call them immoral or evil for doing so - they don't have the capacity for moral thinking. However we do not call it moral to hit such a person in an unprovoked way. IE. We are moral actors and moral objects, on the other hand the person with a damaged brain can be a moral object but not a moral actor. Animals are not moral actors, they do what animals do, but they can still be moral objects.