Wesley

@LanceD This is what I mean by looking at only the positives an ignoring the negatives. You can do a little research on the issue. I think Adam Kokesh did a video or two about it as the politics and nepotism of Paul's campaign lead to him being not allowed to participate. It mainly revolves around his son in law Jesse Benton. @waywardvariable I think darkskyabove is somewhat right. Your position is not that Ron Paul is right, but that we should be open to all libertarians. I have some personal feelings about this that clouded what I thought you had said. I view Ron Paul and political libertarianism as a negative force and not on the same side as I am. He advocated a state, forced deportation, and many positions that I find rather reprehensible. He advocated spending on his campaign, voting for him. This legitimizes the state. Political action will not solve anything and thinking that the state is even a direction to solve the problem is the wrong direction. It only can cause more problems. I do have some personal vitriol towards him because I feel like I wasted time and money supporting his campaign in order for Benton to pocket big checks of campaign money and to set up his family in political action organizations. Also, my brother wishes to follow in the footsteps of Dr. Paul by joining the military and then running for office as one of the "good guy politicians". That was the example set for him by Ron Paul and the track that he advertised all the time. Instead of just debating ideas I let some of my personal anger, irritation, and issues with it leak into the debate and directed it at waywardvariable which was not justified as you were not the proper object of my anger. I do have some anger at the idea of political action in solving problems, but it did not justify the responses I was giving. I apologize for that.

I would very much recommend Stef's book Real-Time Relationships.

deleted

You should at least listen to a handful of the podcasts or read a few of the past forums. The negatives of political libertarianism have been addressed almost too many times. If you can bring something new to the discussion, then I will continue, but it is not worth rehashing the same stuff for the 26th time. I was where you are with politics in the past. It just doesn't logically follow in every possible way.

Ron Paul lead people to political libertarianism which is bull and only justifies the state by encouraging donations and voting. Ron Paul was for me a stepping stone into philosophy and libertarianism, but for my brother he was a stepping stone into pursuing a career in politics and joining the murder machine of the military in the name of defending the country. Ron Paul used most of the campaign money to set up businesses and find jobs for his family rather than actually trying to run to win. I would not be surprised if he caused as much harm as he caused good. If not more harm than good. It is easy for me to say that for me he happened to be a stepping stone (which I may have used another step if not for him) and ignore the mountains of negatives for people and society that were produced by his actions.

You can tell your child that it is a fun story that people like to participate in every year. To me that preserves the fun without lying to the child.

There are probably 20-25 podcasts (more?) where Stef talks about the ineffectiveness of the Ron Paul campaign and how libertarians should not support political solutions of any time. I can't think of a reason why he would interview Ron Paul anyway. I can't see what he would give of value in an interview, but you could let me know what I am missing.

There was a 13(?) year old that had a fake gun this week. Cops drive up and yell "Drop the weapon! as they thought it was a real assault rifle. He turns to figure out what the hell was going on, and he was shot several times as turning towards them could be threatening (when he was directly addressed). There could be an entire show that produces as much content as Stefan's that could be devoted entirely to police abuses and you would never run out of material.

If DRO's need cops, I think I wouldn't sign up for one with cops unless they are thoroughly tested to have a decent amount of empathy. From there, the idea that they must provide value to their customers or they will be fired should be enough. Too often the police force is a way to elevate themselves to gods among ants where they can perform all the sadism they so wish, with the occasional guideline thrown in to make sure things still look good.

I was a bit irritated by your reply, so that may color my post a little. 1. I have no idea what job/ healthcare would ever forbid therapy... That would be highly disconcerting to me and is very unlikely to be true. Hopefully someone can verify whether this is possible or not. Regardless, for depression, she should still see a therapist even if she needs to change jobs or do it in secret. If she is depressed, then she probably should not have been in a relationship. It does not change my concerns and sounds like an excuse/ fogging by her rather than the truth about the situation. 2. Conflict is distinct from harm. Conflict can be very good and growth inducing for a relationship. Do you have an example of harm that occurred? To me this feels like it could be veiled minimization of some actual harm that could have occurred by conflating it with innocuous conflict. 3. She did know. I can call bull on this one. Inability to feel love is something you should go to a therapist for. She knows a lot about herself even if she does not wish to consciously face it. 4.This is not "She doesn't want a romantic relationship" this is "she cannot feel love and is depressed and is replacing true human intimacy with the drug of sexual promiscuity." There is a bit of a difference and you are fogging me and yourself by using the other terminology. 5. It is possible that it is not in itself. However, if you are battling depression, just broke up a long term relationship because you can't feel love, and then start swinging to attempt self-medication is almost guaranteed to be self-destructive. 6. See above 7. You knew she was depressed. You know everything there is to know about someone within a couple minutes, let alone a long-term dating relationship. The chocolate comment angered me a bit and proves you have a block in this area. She tells you she is horribly depressed and she can't feel love so you bring her the band-aid of chocolate? Really...? Help her get the help she needs... Let her experience her true emotions with you. This smells of "you being sad makes me uncomfortable, so take this drug of chocolate and don't be sad anymore." 8. (The question I didn't answer) I think if you understood what I was saying you would not be asking this. I would recommend you re-read my posts.

There is a bronze level podcast entitled Polyamory and History that may be helpful. So right off the bat there were a couple red flags for me. ---- Amazing and rational and all of the myth surrounding the relationship (may be true or not, but until proven, it is just a story) However, there are a couple things that do not exactly fit this myth that I am hoping you could explain: 1. Battled depression. Was she in therapy? How did she battle it? I have found it is very hard (if not impossible) to be in a romantic dating relationship and be fully present to show love, care, reason, etc when one is depressed. So I am hoping you could fill me in on this. 2. Neither of us INTENTIONALLY caused harm to the other. Did you unintentionally cause harm? Maybe it was intentional, but not conscious? This makes me think of someone driving recklessly and causing an accident, but then saying they are not at fault because it wasn't intentional. We could debate the level of responsibility for unintentionally causing harm, but in short you are still the one responsible. 3. Broke up with you because she feels she cannot love. This also is a thing she should have been in therapy for and not in a romantic relationship. 4. She cannot feel love and has instead replaced it with swinging and "being a nympho" which seems like something she should be seeing a therapist for. 5. You are asking if you should be happy for her. To me, this looks like someone shooting up heroin to dull the pain of her past. You are saying "who would I be to stop her and try to get her help?" I am saying true love would be someone who would get her help, not who calls destructive behavior the definition of happiness. 6. Polygamy is not unethical. Just like shooting heroin is not unethical. Either action in light of the other points and her likely past do show that they are both personally destructive. This is not the same as unethical. 7. How did you get into a relationship with her and why are you not seeing the cries for help and support? I would examine you own past in light of this. I am sorry if some of these were rather direct or if my thoughts have a perfectly logical explanation that I have not realized yet. I am very interested as to what you think of all of this.

Its a Black Friday Church special! Of course, we did not like the connotation with calling it "Black Friday" which would emphasize the evils of the church or our daily baths in the money of donors. Thus, this year we decided to rename it "Pretty Good Friday". (Obviously, we couldn't let it's name eclipse that of Good Friday, but still had to make it appealing.)

Hmmm... I am not sure where this started but it seems to be continually escalating at this point. Something is definitely going on here, and this was a more direct experience than what I read earlier, so i would consider it better evidence. I doubt they would ever agree to it, but having Laurette and Dayna on to talk about things would be good. Even if it is not published. In-fighting does not help the spread of ideas.

It is a single word on a line by itself. -Imagine a really long paragraph or sentence that talks about something you are trying to advertize- then a hanging word. It just looks a little odd and is discouraged unless necessary.

I just would give her the benefit of the doubt until there is better evidence than hearsay. I think Stef having a "listener conversation" with her could settle whatever is really going on and help her get on the right path if something is going on. I would agree that I am glad that you went to the core of the issue for yourself and I am sorry that you experienced such things. However, it would not be fair to Dayna to project your feelings from your mother onto Dayna until we get real information from her or her children or something as to what may be going on.

In another thread, I related how I had liked the film Equilibrium in my teens. I identified with it because in my "society" as a child I was not allowed to feel in the active sense of it being scolded and ridiculed as "sense offending". Eventually, I wanted to feel and ended up learning and planning and seeking expert help to be able to rebel against my childhood society. Just another sad vote in support of your thesis about boys who are not allowed to express feeling, wants, desires, or dreams.

I'm not sure what you have, but the podcast player on my iPhone has a built in speed changer from 0.5x-2x of current speed.

This is getting into IP a little bit. IP is not valid property so it is not theft. It is slightly scummy and not the most virtuous action, but it is not theft. Feel free to search the threads or some of Stef's more recent videos, or Jeffrey Tucker's work on IP in order to outline the arguments against IP.

I do agree that a conversation would be great. I am not sure what to make of it. What bit I sifted through seems to be completely full of scary language and not full of much evidence. Plagiarism is evidenced, but occasionally copying sections when you are doing hundreds (or thousands? [i don't know how much she produces]) of articles and posts is definitely a temptation; she doesn't make money directly from plagiarized material, but they are just there for information. I do not find this a big deal if I understand the extent of it. I did not see stuff on alcoholism (which based on what I did read is probably not quoted from her, but hearsay). However, if this is true then it would be good for her to talk about it and get help with it.

It is a dick move to "sign our names for us" when we don't even agree, but it is also meaningless. The second name is Stefan himself, who would actually be the only person who he would need to sign/convince of the proposition in order for it to be done. Thus, every name that exists after Stefan's name is at the absolute best completely unnecessary. Of course, as long as Stefan doesn't do this, Stefan's name on the list also proves that the whole list is stupid and meaningless anyway, so whatever he thinks he is accomplishing by saying we signed his list isn't being accomplished.

So you are with her because she is atheist and attractive? The attractive part is kind of axiomatic that you are in a romantic relationship with someone you are attracted to and is attracted to you. Thus is seems that the only thing besides attractiveness is she is an atheist. I don't mean to state the obvious, but atheists/agnostics/no religion who doesn't care about the idea of God isn't so rare that it is a reason to date someone. Thus, I still do not understand why you are with her.

I don't mean to be annoying, but I don't think you answered my question. If I am being dense and just missed it, I would be plenty happy for you to point it out to me.

Not when God orders "Thou shalt not kill". And every Christian who is asked whether God killed more people or Satan killed more people will say Satan. And every Christian who is asked whether God killed more INNOCENT people or Satan killed more people will say Satan. After the shock of the hundreds of thousands of times more people that God has killed over Satan, then they may explain it away, but it is a big thing. Most people think they worship God because he is good, not powerful. Thus, God being more evil than Satan is still shocking. For me, my first steps towards atheism were 1. Figuring out there were contradictions in the Bible and wanting to know what was true. 2. Figuring out that by any true definition of evil, God (if he existed) was insanely evil. 3. God itself is contradictory and does not exist. Those charts were step 2 for me.

If the goal is to best match reality, then distorted perception very much means impaired.

I may be missing the obvious here, but have you ever asked her why she doesn't want to eat it? If you know why you may be more likely to come up with solutions that can solve her problem.