kirk paolinelli

This podcast is my gadfly! lol. Ok, I'm listening to FDR2934. Stefan suggests that the caller talks to his brother about his family and how things are going. The caller said he is worried that if he had serious conversation with his brother, and his brother pushed the issue the brother's wife might end up leaving him. Leaving him in a terrible spot, and the child in a worse spot with the possibility of step parents. The brother does have a child that he brought into that relationship. This fear of life ruining divorce and tragedy to children. Seems comparable to the apologizes to christians caller's fear. But the advice was totally different. Stefan said that he was jumping to the results of what might, but that we don't what the effect bringing honest feelings to his brother may have. This advice goes back to what I have heard since the beginning of FDR. Talk to people you care about don't assume their reactions. Both situations have children involved. In both instances the biggest fear is that the wife will leave the husband. Resulting in tragedy to the children. If the caller feels like that is a possibility with his brother why shouldn't he use caution? Is it because it wasn't the husband on the call? But I don't see what that would change. If the caller does talk to the brother. And the brother calls in and states that he fears his wife may leave if he is honest with her. Should the brother talk to her, or just do the best he can to promote good parenting. Because he got the child into the family. Am I missing something here, or is this opposite advice for the same fear?

I felt a strong reaction to this podcast. I sure it has to do with my relationship to religion growing up. I can’t really remember ever believing it was true. My whole childhood I was looking for someone to validate what I was empirically seeing. Was I crazy, or was everyone else crazy? Was a question that I constantly pondered. I actually prayed to be able to believe. It would have been so much easier. I wouldn’t have felt evil in the eyes of others. I wouldn’t have had to myself, my curious nature. I would have wanted so badly for even one of my parents to validate the truth. In fact, from my early teens until recently I would constantly get in arguments about religion. It wasn’t until after listening to FDR, and really talking with my parents, and after they acknowledged there wasn’t a god. I rarely am ever in arguments about religion. My drive seemingly disappeared. I never realized how much traumatizing all this was until I got into therapy. I had re-enforced my defenses so much I convinced that it didn’t affect me. All it took was the therapist to say was “ That must have been hard for you.” And I just broke down. I had never had someone show me one sliver of empathy when it came to religion beliefs. Not my parents, not my family, not Christians, not a church. I just wanted to give some background, I’m sure my experiences have shaped my view. Freedomain radio is about the philosophy of personal and political freedom. It is the pursuit of truth. It’s about universality. That is my understanding at least. Here is where I would argue this podcast went astray. The apology paraphrase. “I apologize for not tempering my criticism of religious doctrines with praise for positive aspects religious doctrines.” If Stef feels the need to apologize about his critique of religious doctrines, should I feel the same about criticizing my parents for my childhood. Because there were positive aspects to that as well . This seems to be inconsistent with what has been said to past callers. This would need to universalized, would it not? Why apologize at all. When religions have had power they have been vile and vicious. They ostracize only now because stoning is not available. The idea that Christians are willing to stand up for what they believe in. A statement similar to this was made on the call. Where Stef is talking to a man who no longer believes in his religion, and the advice is to not stand up for what he knows to be true. Because the consequences of speaking his thoughts would be too tough. Why shouldn’t the advice be to go back to his family and his church and speak honestly and openly. As so many have been suggested to do in FDR call in shows. Start the conversation. If Christians are nice, will bring lasagna when you’re sick, why wouldn’t this be the course of action. Note that almost every caller I’ve heard even with abusive parents got treated well when they were sick, if it was brought up. If Christians promote the family being together. Then why would his wife leave him if he left the church or was honest about his thoughts. Why would his friends at church turn their back to him. That is akin to the government promotes freedom so as long as you pay taxes. paraphrase “If there was giant rational community around with just 10% of the courage and generosity of Christians.” I don’t believe Christians to be courageous. They will stand up for what they believe in a crowd. If this guy went back to his church and was honest and open about his feelings, he would be rejected. Not because no one in the church has had similar thoughts and/or are unable to reason out arguments. But because they are the cowards. They are afraid of being ostracized as well. They want confirmation, not conversation. Even his wife would leave him out to dry, or it’s assumed she would from the conversation. He mentions that the churches change doctrine. Yea they change with popular opinion. They have tempered their speech against homosexuality, because popular opinion has change. The bible still says the same thing. How is that courage. If religion is a manifestation of the family, then no matter what good things it may have done, there is no need to apologize for accurate criticisms of it.

I hope your right.

I wasn't meaning they would shut it down, just that it won't succeed. What do you mean by bitcoin is to stable now? The price isn't stable. Are you talking about the architecture of the program? People didn't get behind governments on regulating online piracy, but I think people would get behind it on bitcoin. Maybe I'm reading the tea leaves wrong.

I have been pretty surprised by how much negativity I have read about bitcoin. Even in libertarian circles. Like Peter Schiff, he talks about how bad the government and federal reserve is, but then when a non-state solution comes up he bashes it. Discussing bitcoins with people I would get a frustrated feeling, as I have in the past when talking about god or government. FDR help me understand I was having a logical argument about god or government but with that person's traumatized past. I think it may be the same thing when discussing bitcoins. Could it be possible that people are ready? I believe, I've heard Stefan talk before about the fact that even if the government ended today it would most likely be replaced by another or something to that effect. Because the people aren't mentally healthy enough, I would still want a government to recreate their parenting. Considering if bitcoin did become the dominant currency, it would effectively end governments as we know them. It would make sense that our fellow slaves would fight tooth and nail to not let this happen. I know Stefan has done podcasts about bitcoin and the blockchain, and all their uses. I starting to believe bitcoin will fail and it will have nothing to do with bitcoin itself. It might just be something that needs to stick around until after the philosophical parenting of a generation. Does anyone else see this as an issue?

Who said property was the fundamental basis of the survival of the human species? I think humans have survived for a lot of years without private property. As far as animals doing very well without private property. I would encourage one to live with monkeys, I've seen some of the nature shows where people living with animals not what most would call the good life. I agree with you completely that animals are territorial. But I don't necessarily agree that the more complex the more territorial. I guess it would depend on how you would describe it. I definite think you see animals protect their property. A rooster will definitely try to his flock from small predators and other roosters. Birds defend their nest. My dog is constantly marking his territory.What makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom is a tough question, and I have know idea. We are animals as described by biology. We know it comes from the larger brain. I think Stefan had stated before it was our ability to create concepts. Which doesn't seem like a lot, but I guess it's similar toHaving all the atoms needed to create a cell(a bunch of trees) and having an actual working cell(the concept of a forest).In this way, it seems we are a mile apart.

False, if you are talking on a macroeconomic scale. The only advantages would be similar to the advantages a counterfeiter gets when he creates money. I don't think quantitative easing steals from the unborn, as far as I understand inflation only directly steals from holders of federal reserve notes. How I got here. Money is a medium of exchange not an end good. So if 2 men were on an island and they had 5 dollars each. the sum total of all goods and services would be worth $10. There would be no way of borrowing from the future by adding $10 to man #1 reserves. What did happen, the total goods and services prices doubled in dollars. Man #2 now can buy with $5 what before he could buy with $2.50. Because Man #1 can out bid him. Even though his original $5 lost half its value he added (quantitatively eased)$10 more dollars to him self. So with $15 dollars he now has a original purchasing power of $7.50. I think we know where Man #2's value went. Where I think the myth of short term benefit's comes from is two fold. 1. GDP is measured in dollars spent! So the lower the value of the dollar the more dollars that need to be spent to purchase the same amount of goods. 2. The fed generally uses the newly created money to buy long term debt of the US government. This depresses interest rates. Low interest rates decrease the time preference of people and encourages spending in the now. Which short term increases GDP. The buying of government bonds with the money is what I think Stefan is talking about, when he mentions selling off the unborn. Keynesianism is just another fancy way of telling people they can something for nothing. People are swindled by wanting something for nothing all the time. I think every economic system should have to be explained on how it would work for 2 people. I was talking to a guy trying to get him to explain an RBE with 2 people. Other than a free market everything just sounds wrong. Side note If one were wanting to measure GDP in a free market system. How would you do it? I was thinking the measurement would be something like the decrease of CPI in a stable currency. If anyone who does think there are benefits to Quantitative Easing or Keynesianism. I would love to hear how it would work with 2 people.

Your daughter should be fine. I don't think the doctors were meaning to be manipulative. I would bet they are more worried about litigation. I believe it's considered a standard of care to give a tetanus in that situation. So if they deviate from that even if it was your decision. If in the extremely rare case something happened. You would have a sympathetic case with your two year old daughter, and you could say "the doctors didn't educate me enough to understand my decision". CYA, cover your ass. Is a big driver in the medical field.

I agree with that he is confused about scarcity. Libertus brought up some great examples. Also does he believe there is a way to alleviate the scarcity of TIME. How would it apply to companionship? As far as Stefan's performance I thought he did great. They were on for an hour and 50mins. He was able to point out what is wrong, what causing it and to lay out almost the entire, dare I say STRUCTURE, of the NAP, and that it starts at home. While PJ, wasn't able to make any sense whatsoever. I felt he was so afraid to make a falsifiable statement. That Stefan could hold him accountable to. That's why believe he was speaking so broadly and abstractly. He didn't like him looking up divorce stats. And the look PJ had when Stef asked if he cared about his employees or consumers of his videos. The walls were closing in. So I've been thinking. I've found a problem that dwarfs structural violence. Cellular Violence: this violence has caused the death of every human being since they have existed.

After listening to the debate last night, I was a little confused about PJ's viewpoint. After parsing through all the adjectives and thinking about the debate. The one take away I got was that he doesn't like the idea of Personal Responsibility. I'm wondering if anyone else had this same takeaway from the debate. He didn't want to blame his old employer for lying to him and trying not to pay him. Then he kept talking about "Structural Violence" and saying how many people it kills. I was interested in the "Structural" part. What he never addressed who was creating the structure. He would imply this is what the free market causes. But the free market can't cause anything, its not a verb it's an adjective, describing the absence of something. It is a name created to describe trade in the absence of coercion and fraud. Much like peace describes the absence of war. No one create peace they only can stop war. "Structural Violence" must be setup and enforced by people not the market, but his point seems to be that the game theory of the market causes people to inflict structural violence. I think that's what he was saying, although it sounds a little different without all the extra words. When you restate this in simple terms it just sounds insane. The game theory of Trade without the presence of coercion or fraud causes people to inflict structural violence on others. Wouldn't this mean Trade = Structural Violence Obviously that makes no sense. Also I don't understand how would he get rid of the market. Make sure coercion or fraud was part of every transaction? Again it makes no sense. What I believe to his real argument: Structural Violence=determinism= individuals are not responsible for their actions

That was pretty funny.

Wow great song! I loved it! And School Sucks too. Your words spoke to my childhood frustration with school and religion that carries on to this day. The songs gave me goose bumps listening to them. I went to your site transcend, it said the fundraising is over. It said you were unsuccessful. Sorry to hear that. Is there a place to donate now. I tried to look at your website www.reyshizz.com. It said page can't be displayed. Let me I would like to help some if I could.

What were your feelings that inspired you to ask for help on the board? You posted your gf's childhood/relationship history leading up to your problem "I love her very much, I want to do everything that I can to make this relationship work. We are having some difficulties. If/when we get into an argument, my g/f has a tendency to get very very defensive & self diminishing, ie: Making statements like "well I am so sorry, I didn't mean to be such a horrible person" sort of halfway sarcastic/destructive emotional statements that to me show a lot of deep insecurity... There was no content to what the argument was about. But I'm guessing since she's using "well I am so sorry, I didn't mean to be such a horrible person". uThat it was about you having an issue with some of her actions. Maybe you can clarify that. It also feels to me that you have already come to the conclusion that it's what she is doing and your doing everything okay. She may be feeling diminshed by you in these conversations. When you say "I try my best to keep the argument on track and specific to the particular issue and keep it as calm and localized as possible but this can be very difficult. Even when I succeed in this, the night if often ruined because she will be in such a bad mood for the rest of the night even if the argument is resolved. This comes off to me as a little demeaning, that she is inferior to you, and you do all you can to help to this raging women. I felt no empathy from you for her in that statement. You wrote that whole history about her childhood, I'm guessing because you believe it's causing issues for her. But then the feeling I get, is that during arguments you lose the empathy for her and expect her to deal with you like she was raised perfectly. Then your upset and treating her like a burden over (her conflict resolution skills) which you know are damaged/never learned from her childhood. Akin to expecting her to be able to keep up walking with you if she was on crutches. You may need to slow down. Then you say she is mad all night even though the argument is resolved. I would think that means it's resolved for you but not for her. Maybe you had anxiety about her brought up a conversation about what she was doing that you felt brought it up, transferred the anxiety to her, you felt better. Hopefully this helps, I have a lot of the same feelings I felt you were trying to convey. ie. I know she has issues and I love her but I have to constantly judge her to see if she is going to meet my expectations, Is she gonna defoo? I won't make her, but she would if she was virtuous so I'm on the lookout to she what she does. So I hope I'm not projecting. Let me know if any of this connects I could be way off.

I find the topic of the flu, flu deaths, and flu vaccine infinitely facinating. I have gotten the flu vaccine before, but I no longer get it. Not because I think or even believe it is dangerous, but becaus in the absence of evidence I generally choose inaction. But since I work in the healthcare field in california I may soon be forced to get it next or have to wear a mask for the entire flu season while at work. My main problem with the flu numbers is I have no idea how they are diagnosing the flu, the influenza lab test is rarely ever ordered. I have never know anyone, nor witnessed a patient die from the flu. Its never even discussed in actual healthcare circles and conversations I've been a part of. Yet I will go to infection control seminars and you would think half the patients you encounter will die every year. Granted my personal anecdotal evidence isn't proof of anything. But they are experiences that shape my thinking. The other problem I have with the flu vaccine is that. If it worked so well why hasn't the flu went the way of small pox, vaccinations are way up but I never hear how much flu cases are down. I do know that if you get the vaccine and you get the flu(which I don't know how this is diagnosed except usually by symptoms which are common to other diseases) you are told it was a different strain. But do they test the strains? Maybe the vaccine doesn't work. I know they don't do titers for the vaccines, to make sure you have sufficient antibodies. I also know they like to clump flu deaths with pneumonia deaths to makes the numbers headline grabbing. But this may also be why they can produce lower number of flu deaths cause pneumonia deaths are unrelated to the flu. So when things get this cloudy for me I tend to withdrawal. Also when I see the flu related child deaths, my mind instantly goes to fever. There are a lot of parents that do not do a very good job of managing fevers in children. Children's immune systems are very strong and can spike very high temps leading to seizures and death. I would bet a lot if not all of those deaths are preventable with modern medicine. After saying all this I don't get the strong opinions either way, to me there just isn't any real evidence that vaccines do harm or that the flu vaccine works.

So the real question then is how many calories are in a Couric?

Where is the proof other than anecdotal evidence. Belief= confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof From your posts, I guessing you should have titled this thread: "I believe lack of carbs makes people fat." That way we would have known you weren't interested in any facts.

Showing someone who eats mostly carbs and is skinny proves nothing! Here is a pic of me eating at a breakdown around 15%carbs, 35%protein, 50%fat. https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=0b75cf7c70&view=att&th=13cca616964e04c7&attid=0.1&disp=thd&zw Does this prove something to you Fzu? I hope not. So quit using the same rationale as your proof. And bring some science. Get on pubmed and do some research.

How fat you are or anybody for that matter, says nothing about chemical reactions at a cellular level. Genetics, activity level, diet history muscle mass, stress, are all factors into whether someone is fat or not. I have ate no carbs for weeks at a time, to the point where my body was using ketones. I was 7% bodyfat with good musle to only eating protein and fat. But that doesn't mean that eating fat and protein can't make you fat because I wasn't fat. Did you watch the video? If the link doesn't work. Search on youtube for: sugar=the bitter truth. If you have proof that there is some error in his research I would love to see it.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. But from what I have read its not that sugar is bad in and of itself. Its the amount of sugar consumed that becomes an issue. How much sugar a person can tolerate depends on their genetics and activity level. If your an athlete or a marathoner and are burning through tons of calories you can eat a lot of sugar and burn through it. It becomes an issue when you eat more calories than your burning, especially with sugar(carbs). Everytime you eat carbs they processed into glucose in your bloodstream. The glucose in your bloodstream needs to remain below 110 on average to remain healthy. I know you stated, "Carbs/sugar themself don't make you fat since they are absorbed into the bloodstream rather than stored as fat." [/font] But what do you think happens after that, because glucose can't remain in the bloodstream. When it does that is called diabetes. So when your body senses an elevation in blood glucose levels it releases insulin which takes the glucose into the cells. Your body can store glucose in the form of glycogen in the liver and muscle cells. But for every gram of glycogen stored your body stores I believe around 2-3 grams of water severly reducing the amount that can be stored. So once someone's storage capacity for glycogen is reached the body then convert the sugar to fat and store it. The reason active people and athletes don't see fat accumulate is because their activity is constantly depleting their muscle and liver glycogen levels, so they have room to refill them. An interesting fact: the quick weight people lose when starting a lo carb diet isn't actually fat, it's the loss of water that was previously stored with their carbs. Here is a link to a video by an endocrinologist at UCSF breaking down have sugar is processed in the body and what the effects are: http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM Its called Sugar the bitter truth, its an 1.5 hours long but really informative, If you watch let me know what you think.

Not a bad documentary, It's about the prevalence of rape and the cover up there of, in the US military. Hearing about this stuff makes me sick to my stomach and to think these same men come back to live among us. Also, this film didn't touch on it. But I can only imagine what these guys are doing to the native population when based or deployed in other countries. Again though as with most problems of government force, the doc maker points to reform of an evil system, like everything will be okay then. This filmed also clearly showed the impotence of elected congressmen and senators, but the director I didn't feel emphazied it at all most people probably won't make the connection. If anyone else has seen it I would be interested to know their thoughts. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3fBaFQk6aE0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So, what's your response/perspective on these "rules"? 1. The unequal distribution of wealth As someone mentioned early capitalism doesn't distribute wealth. Wealth is created and traded by people. Capitalism is a system to do this freely. The other problem is that wealth/value of something is subjective to each person. 2. Those who own the most make the rules This has nothing to do with capitalism, unless your meaning that if you have the most property you can make the most rules regarding use of your property. But that's simple property rights. 3. The more money you have, the more you can get Again not sure what this means and it makes no sense to me. Who enforces this rule? It seems as though Sam Walton, Steve Jobs, and Zuckerberg were able to get a lot from a little. 4. The less money you have, the less you can get. Who enforces this rule as well. If I buy a dollar lottery ticket or create an invention am I only allowed to get certain amount of money depending on what I started with? 5. The poorer you are, the more expensive everything is Is lesiure time something? I know this is a lot cheaper for poor people. 6. The poorer you are, the worse your health will be This isn't a rule and I would guess it's untrue. I recently was inquiring about health and life insurance and not once did someone ask for my asset to debt ratio. So i'm guessing its not that important of a factor. Could you imagine the new pre-existing condition: POOR 7. The poorer you are, the worse your education and employment Again how what is the criteria for this? It seems pretty subjective? What makes good or bad employment? or What makes good or bad education? 8. The worse the pay, the harder the job Again totally subjective. Who gets to decide if a job is hard or not? 9. The higher the pay, the easier the job Subjective same reasons above. 10. If you're really rich, then you're a capitalist and you don't need to work at all Subjective. what is really rich? What classifies as work? Is managing assets work? If not, if I pay an asset manager to manage my assets is he working? 11. The poor pay for every mistake made by the rich If this were even true what would capitalism have to do with enforcing it? 12. Rich people start wars that poor people have to fight. Rich people don't start wars governments do. Again nothing to do with capitalism. 13. Most rich people get rich through inheritance, rags to riches stories are rare Actually I think most millionaires are first generation. But I think the great thing about capitalism and property rights is that the wealth compounds so in that way we all inherit wealth generationally. 14. Most poor people stay poor through hard work, thrift, and sacrifice I believe this is also false. Capitalism raises people from poverty it does keep them in it. This video is interesting on people all over the world coming out of poverty. He states the biggest difference is the washing machine. How many U.S. households don't have access to a washing machine at cheap price? The other problem I always have with people talking about the rich and the poor is this. Rich and poor is a comparative term there is no absolute standard for everyone across the globe. And most people who have the resources to make these videos would fall somewhere in the top 10% of wealthy people in the world, but they don't consider themselves as rich. So how do they define rich? and also do they want to equally distribute wealth among everyone in the world? Or just in a very wealthy country where they are in the bottom half?

I'm out this conversation. But here are a couple more strategies you might find useful. What's the best strategy for fishing? Trolling What's not the best strategy to have a good conversation? Trolling

I'm talking about my strategy. To live your life free of using violence or aggression towards others. Your question was : "Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?" My approach reduces violence and aggression by at least one person. It doesn't require force to implement. I think this is best way to reduce violence and aggresion.( i.e. that I can actually take action towards.) A strategy is something you put into action. You don't have a strategy. Unless you can prove my strategy has negative consequences I don't see how you can say doing nothing is better than something. It's like I have a strategy to drive to work. You say that I can't prove it's best strategy, better than any possible strategy, even those not thought of. So I should sit at home at not drive to work until enough research is done, so I know i'm taking the best possible strategy to drive to work. Umm. I think I will stick with my strategy and then if you or anyone else comes up with a better one I will switch to that.

How do you prove something is not the best strategy without showing a better strategy?

You are on a forum devoted to discussing how to bring more peace to the world. It is therefore not just a discussion forum, but an activist endeavor, as well. Activists must decide on strategy. And Stefan seems to promote a strategy that says "We should focus on reducing childhood trauma as our main priority. That will be the best use of our energy to make the world a better place." I am not sure that is the best strategy for making the world a better place. It's ONE strategy. And it does help to some degree. But there may be other more important things. That has nothing to do with how horrific child abuse is. Many horrific things happen in the world. The question is which ones are fundamental ones which, if addressed, would have the greatest impact. That's what activists must do - prioritize based on what has the most impact. So you're basically saying that it's not even possible to know whether nature or nurture is the cause of violence/aggression? If that's the case you should be as confused as Godwin and I are by the places where Stefan seems to claim quite confidently that childhood trauma is in fact the cause. You can't extend questions of violence/aggression in dogs to humans. And on top of that, as has been pointed out, you won't find many fighting poodles. Then you should be the one railing against anyone claiming to know with any solidity, rather than me. You sound even more agnostic than me! I think it's likely overly simplistic. You not using violence or aggression doesn't necessarily stop those who do use it. It may even be that, in a game theory sense, when it's more unclear who will be violent or aggression, people are more cautious in general, including those who are themselves violent or aggressive. I'm not saying that's the case. But I think it's extremely simplistic to think "If I reduce my level of violence, that addresses violence and aggression as a global issue." There are many issues where the same issue at a personal level has different factors involved than it does at a global level. "I think it's likely overly simplistic. You not using violence or aggression doesn't necessarily stop those who do use it. It may even be that, in a game theory sense, when it's more unclear who will be violent or aggression, people are more cautious in general, including those who are themselves violent or aggressive. I'm not saying that's the case. But I think it's extremely simplistic to think "If I reduce my level of violence, that addresses violence and aggression as a global issue." There are many issues where the same issue at a personal level has different factors involved than it does at a global level." You can't beat something with nothing. What's your strategy?