MPStewart

Isn't that murder? When do parents stop being responsible for the children they bring into the world? Should all parents brace themselves for the possibility that their child might need care beyond the usual age of independence?

I think of it this way. The Mafia is overwhelmingly (100%?) Sicilian. They enjoy certain advantages due to the nature of their business and how they work with the governments where they live. Are these benefits conferred to all Sicilians simply because a small percentage are a part of this powerful organization? No. They are probably experiencing a lot of disadvantages due to it, part of that being discrimination simply for being Sicilian! Sounds familiar to me. As for the “privilege” of working more hours a week in fields that pay more and are typically more dangerous and risky and thus receiving more pay and promotions as a result, well, I don’t see how that’s a privilege at all. It sounds like a reward. As Warren Farrell says, it “requires trading quality of life for money”.

I agree; he could also be a politician or socially powerful person, like a health guru. The book the movie was based on is actually about economic issues in the late 19th century (the ruby slippers were originally red). It's fascinating to read about. I always think you can extrapolate so much more than even the author consciously intended though!

Legally speaking yes, however a pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. A 19 year old should not feel guilt for feeling sexual attraction to a 16 year old. Them having sex would be illegal, however I think most on this forum would agree that the government does not dictate morality. A sexual attraction to prepubescent children is usually a sign of a physical brain defect of some kind that needs to be treated. Humans aren't built to be attracted to prepubescent children. I believe the person attracted to children/young adults who are going through puberty is called an ephebophile. This is the age at which (most) human females can be impregnated, so "base" physical attraction isn't caused by abuse, it's caused by genes wanting to reproduce. Now is it good that we have a cultural stigma against sexual activity with such young people? Very likely, as they are generally not well prepared mentally and emotionally for a sexual relationship or the responsibilities therein.

Welcome from a fellow Texan! I started the podcasts from the beginning too, but I've mostly avoided the political stuff (I've gorged myself on Rothbard and mises.org for the last few years). How are you finding them? I'm excited about the ideas I've found here (especially IFS). What are you finding helpful?

I don't think people should use this word to insult someone; that is, calling someone creepy does not help that person in any way and is more for the person saying it to feel superior. It's a trump card, intended to stop any honest communication and humiliate the other person. However, it is an excellent way to communicate to a third party an intuitive suspicion of someone who has acted in a way that turns your stomach or makes you think twice. For instance, I immediately thought upon reading this of someone I work with who makes frequent sexual innuendoes and brings up inappropriate (usually sexual) subjects even though he has not established any intimacy --it's a social cue that tells me, "there's something off here". Interestingly enough, the "feminista" types I work with, who frequently remark "Men are stupid" or "I hate men", chat this guy up like nobody's business and tar other men in the office with the "creepy" brush because these men don't satisfy their egos or kowtow to their political sensibilities. You are absolutely right about how this word is used. I think the word is similar to "psycho" when used to describe a crazy woman you don't want to set off because she's emotionally unstable, although obviously worse as it is abused far more often. I agree it should be questioned when used!

I only use the Active threads link, but I also think sections of this forum "die" or stay relatively ignored because a lot of people might do what I do -- see the most recent threads through the Active link and not really wander from there. It's like being in a giant room with 43 different alcoves - difficult to navigate and I personally lose interest in checking everything. It seems like things might be livelier with subjects more grouped, for example: History, science, politics, economics Arts, dreams, culture, news Self-knowledge, philosophy, morality Forum/FDR-related (could include meet and greet/intros)

SPOILERS I like your interpretation. I remember leaving the theatre when the movie first came out feeling somewhat unsatisfied about this movie. Maybe it was a hangover from the previous movie's surveillance state lovefest. Also Bruce Wayne's line of work--government "defense" contractor--really irked me. But I do understand the storytelling reason for the latter. You pointed out the transformation of John Blake (who I believe will become Nightwing)--I think the transformation of Catwoman is powerful as well. She's first shown warning Bruce Wayne that people will literally steal his wealth from him because he has been "hoarding" it from them (lay off the Keynes, Selina!). Her growing recognition that property is important (in the scene you referenced) and her decision to save Batman at the end show how she has come to value virtue and life more than her "good name". A couple annoying things about this movie that I just couldn't get out of my mind: the cops emerging from the tunnels after a few months--shaven, relatively clean, and perfectly willing to walk, unarmed toward violent henchmen wielding semi-automatic rifles. The clean streets of Gotham (hey, maybe a private service started to replace the city trash department?). Women walking around unscathed while thousands of imprisoned criminals were loosed into the streets. One thing I like about the superhero genre (and Batman in particular because he is "realistic") is that superheroes are rarely a part of the state. Batman is a private actor using his resources to benefit millions of people in the City of Gotham. And, holy Adam Smith's invisible hand, he's doing it to revenge his parents and gain peace of mind from his childhood trauma and guilt!