Wesley

I disagree. The point is not necessarily to focus on your parents, grandparents, or anyone else, but to focus on your own experience and how you felt in those situations. The amount of time that you should spend expressing how you felt to the others would be proportional to how much you care about the relationship and how much impact it had on your life and early experiences. However, the biggest goal is not to confront anyone, but to become connected with yourself and how you feel and to be able to express that with people who you care about. Since personal relationships are voluntary, you do not need to be "justified" in what you did. If you do not want to see them or hear from them, then you are perfectly allowed to do that, and it is never a fun decision to have to make. I am very sorry that this happened. Having to deal with all of that sounds really rough. I hope you would consider finding a therapist to help you work through some of this.

He has said several times that he doesn't really care how people pronounce his name and there are certainly more important things to be concerned about. Just if you are going to write an article or something, make sure you spell it right!

I think it might be useful to ask what used to happen when you were scared as a child or had bad dreams? What did your parents say when you wanted to stay with them to be comforted at night? How did you/your parents deal with you moving houses as a child?

I am pretty sure that smallpox has been eradicated, so an individual not being vaccinated might be the norm for the future.

Hm, I do see the distinction and I would stand corrected if it can be explained. I do agree that there is a distinction between affection and sexual abuse and affection and neglect and that they are not just "too much affection" and "too little affection" respectively. However, I do have some problems with your post. Your post seems to me to mean that the only distinction between sexual abuse and affection would be "unwanted" and no one else could determine that a kiss on the lips was sexually abusive. (Feel free to correct me) This would also mean that the distinction between neglect and affection would be some version of "unwanted" (though the line is less clear) and that no one else could say that a certain lack of interaction would be neglect or not. (Feel free to correct me) Thus, one may have a child that is being sexually abused and has been their whole life to the point where they now "want" something to happen and feel like they are being neglected if they do not get it. This obviously would be pretty evil and abusive, and thus leaving it up solely to the child's desires when children certainly do not have the maturity or awareness to make decisions for themselves seems incomplete. They may have been abused from such an age where they did not even have the agency to make any choice, and thus only felt good in response to the act and were brought up with that idea and association. Thus, it seems like there would be a line when it comes to parent and child where one should not cross no matter what as the child cannot consent to the act, where an adult may be able to consent and may choose to consent or not. Obviously, one should not cross the line of "unwanted" with a child, but it seems that there needs to be another line that is established besides the unwanted line that cannot be crossed and would be abusive. I do not know where that line would be for either extreme.

Thank you for your input. As a secondary thought I have, theoretically children of FDR members will be raised peacefully and not experience isolation and gain some very real benefits from being the children of philosophically or psychologically aware parents. Thus, will those children be less likely to participate in FDR as a community? It has also been remarked that there is a pretty high intelligence needed in order to participate in these discussions, is that a function of isolation, or a few other factors? Is there a level of damage to a child that would be impossible to repair as an adult?

Someone who is homeless and starving might have had 10,000 choices that lead to that situation. This is akin to someone firing a shot at someone and then as the bullet is traveling toward the victim, saying they had no choice to stop it. The choices have already been made that lead to that situation. I am not exactly equating the situations, only illustrating when the choices were made. Thus, it is not exactly fair to say someone has "no choice" when they have made many choices that put them in that spot. This argument would discount anyone who actually had no choice in the situation of them being homeless and starving, but as I understand it, they are exceedingly rare in modern Western society. I would also say that if someone truly was in a situation like this from no choice of their own, that many people would donate to help support them until they could get back on their feet.

Depends who you ask:

This is curious, because I think you have no idea how much skepticism I have had or how much I have researched or tested bitcoin. So you are saying there is a lack of skepeticism, but you seem to have no idea. Not to mention that the code is open source, so anyone who can read the code doesn't need much as far as skepticism goes, for they can read it themselves.

So, my current theory is that what we may have in common is that we didn't fit in. At least long enough (with or without a couple others who were also questioning things) that we were able to question what was going on with society and our histories. As far as my history, I had a period of depression and isolation in my room after a breakup when I was finally realizing how alone I was. At some point I decided that I didn't want to feel that way anymore or ever again, so I started getting into the psychology stuff and found a therapist in my area. However, the fact that I spent nearly 6 months locked in my room and on my computer except for going to work and eating dinner and that my family never tried to figure out what was going on or help me through things tells you how no-existent a bond I had with them and thus how little a bond I had with what they taught me about religion and the state. If that makes sense. Of course, I was questioning things for a while before that (mainly anarchy), but the fact that I was so alone was obscured to me until my ex and I started falling apart and breaking up. When we were alone we looked for answers or someone pushed us into getting answers. So, does this theory make sense to people? Is there a way to break people out who are more securely attached in the current state of things, or are they not worth the effort as they never change?

That is easily possible, but then the question would be to ask what is the difference between someone who gets help and processes their trauma and someone who doesn't. I assume that that might have roots in childhood.

Well, we understand how formative childhood is in the beliefs and ideas and behaviors of the adult. If there is a certain type of childhood history that leads to someone being an FDR member, then maybe we could target certain people, maybe others are less likely to be open to the ideas because of certain childhood circumstances, maybe the way the ideas are presented is more attractive to a certain group of people, maybe there is a kind of collective blind spot in a certain area or to a certain type of abuse or neglect, maybe we are more senstive in a certain way because we are attuned to a certain type of abuse or neglect. I am just making up random possibilities, but considering how formative childhood is in later ideas and that there have been several podcasts and theories that go into what kind of psychology makes a Democrat or a Republican, it could be useful to us to analyze what type of childhood produces an FDR board member, and what impact that may have on the community's ideas outside of pure reason.

Well, there are two possibilities. First, is that a lot of people have very high numbers and the theory would need to reflect that. The other option is that it would only be 1 or a few people and then they can be considered some sort of outlier. In general, the theory needs to conform to the evidence, not the other way around. However, we are not going to get a 100% accurate theory and there will be outliers or exceptions. However, finding general trends or where majorities are could be useful.

People don't necessarily need to share their histories, and they can still add to the forum and theories without talking about their history. However, to the extent that some people are willing to share it might add some data by which we can see where the common threads are. We also have some data from the ACE study as to what the general population is, so we might be able to compare data sets to some extent (even though the sample size here is likely small).

There may be some evidence here or it could be just random postulation, but I would like to pose a question and I would be curious to hear feedback. If you were to compare the childhoods of FDR members to the average public would the be worse or better? Would there be certain threads that might make one more likely to not trust authority or question things? Is there a particular type of abuse or neglect that would be less present as that type would tend to be too much for the mind to then be able to transfer to these kinds of ideas? Maybe there is no discernable differences, but it would be interesting to think about the histories of FDR members and what (if any) common threads there are. It could create bias in the ideas of members, make certain people more likely to be able to be reached or not, and many other possible implications. I don't have any particular theories currently, so I am interested as to what others think. Addition: As a resource that might be helpful, people can self-asses the Adverse Childhood Experiences Test here: http://acestudy.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/ACE_Calculator-English.127143712.pdf I score a 3

In debate, definitions must be negotiated and agreed upon. If a definition is agreed upon (or ignored and thus, implicitly agreed upon) then it is assumed to be correct for the rest of the debate. If definitions cannot be agreed upon, then the parties will be talking about different things and debate is pointless at best and actively destructive at worst. There often comes a time where people who are illogical or not good in debate wish to change a definition that they had previously agreed upon. This usually is the point in which they realized that their definition creates a contradiction with one or more of their beliefs. That is the point of agreeing upon definitions though and you can point out that they agreed upon it and then maybe give someone who is inexperienced a redo. However, if definitions keep changing then debate becomes impossible as the second you adequately nail something down, it will immediately change. Sometimes, people will disagree on a word, but then maybe you can use replacement words that would not carry the same connotation. Maybe ethics to you means the same thing as morality, but the other person has a connotation of morality as dealing with gods and devils and cannot get past that definition of the word. Thus, you can modify the terms you use in order to satisfy the needs of the debate at hand. In my mind, morality is defined as objective in that things are either good or bad. Relative morality to me is a contradiction. Either it is relative and thus an arbitrary preference or it is in the realm of morality of good and evil. Morality thus requires objectivity. Now, people have misused morality for millennia, so it is not surprising that people would have trouble with defining morality as objective (when people have claimed so much bullshit to be objectively evil or good in the past). However, the word still defines its objectivity or else we would call it a preference. If you want, you can ask them to try to use the term morality as an objective word for the purposes of the debate, and they may change their position to be "morality does not exist" rather than "morality is subjective". If they can't get past that, then try using different terms. If the definition or terms cannot be agreed upon, then a meaningful debate cannot occur.

In the long run, ASICs will cost the same amount to purchase and mine as the profits that you get from mining over a reasonable amount of time. This stabilization will happen once ASICs progress to the point as to use the current chipset technologies that are used in other computing spheres, which is fast approaching. At that time, ASICs will tend to be profitable in locations with cheap electricity and with favorable laws (like that do not tax ASIC profits like they do in America). When I wrote this, and I believe currently the ASIC technology was traveling on an almost exponential rate of growth in order to quickly catch up with the current technology. Thus, people would calculate their profitability and order. by the time they got their ASIC, the technology would have already improved to make their order entirely obsolete. Thus, during these rapid growth periods it can look attractive to go for the golden eggs, but I was cautioning to make sure you know what you are doing first. Also, there are many ASIC companies. So one successful one might only spend tens of thousands or more to make ASICs just for themselves (as development is expensive) but they most certainly will not recoup their costs before another company made their ASICs and sold a whole bunch to people. This even assumes that you are the company that finds the solution first, which is just statistically unlikely.

/me does math 1 bitcoin = $650 .5 bitcoin = $325 lets say 12 song CD => $325 x 12 = $3,900 CD price

I have had my days in the numismatic realm. I used to be very into silver. I have an old Real a de Ocho coin that I bought for the historical value of having defined the dollar in America. I also have made a few investment plays that are called semi-numismatic. For instance, if someone would buy silver, they could take a look at the Canadian Wildlife Series and buy the most recent members of that collection at very close to spot price in the hopes that in the future it gains collectors value above and beyond the spot, which is just gravy for someone who is trying to invest in physical silver anyway. Lately, I have not been following silver as much and have put a lot more effort into bitcoin (and buying a house) so I am not particularly looking for any silver, but I just wanted to "talk you off the edge" so to speak and let you know that there is at least one person of the anarchist variety who has some interest in the area, even though it is not so much in the numismatics as you are looking for, but still.

First of all, it is Men's Issues. Second, many would view the opposite in that Men's Issues is negative and that Feminism is a positive. I do they they can be all-encompassed by "Gender Issues" though, so further topics would only serve to highlight that MRA and Feminist discussion occurs there and maybe should be in the description and not in the title.

I kind of have to agree with dsayers on this one. The biggest issue I have with the Men's Rights movement is that it clings to the idea of rights which is anachronistic at its best. We can call it Gender Issues and then put in the description something about the Men's Rights Movement discussion, but the whole concept of rights falls down the oh so slippery slope to statism and the people who claim arbitrary rights on a daily basis nowadays. Edit: I now have read the title: Men's Issues, Feminism and Gender That sounds good to me as a category.

I think I don't understand what you think bitcoin is missing and could have improved. Maybe you could make that more clear and concise.

Colossians 1:16 16 For by6 him all things were created, lin heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether mthrones or ndominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created othrough him and for him. John 1:3 3 eAll things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. Revelation 1:18 18 and the living one. yI died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and zI have the keys of Death and Hades. (For those who don't know, "words in red" is a common way to quote when Jesus speaks in the Bible) Matthew 25:41 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, e‘Depart from me, you fcursed, into gthe eternal fire prepared for hthe devil and his angels. 2 Peter 2:4–9 4 For if God did not spare uangels when they sinned, but vcast them into hell1 and committed them to chains2 of gloomy darkness wto be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, butxpreserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought ya flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by zturning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction,amaking them an example of bwhat is going to happen to the ungodly;3 7 and cif he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, dhe was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 then ethe Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials,4 and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, Luke 12:5 5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him bwho, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell.1 Yes, I tell you, fear him! Mark 3:28-29Contemporary English Version (CEV) 28 I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. 29 But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever. Proverbs 6:16–19 16 There are dsix things that the Lord hates, dseven that are an abomination to him: 17 ehaughty eyes, fa lying tongue, and ghands that shed innocent blood, 18 ha heart that devises wicked plans, ifeet that make haste to run to evil, 19 ja false witness who kbreathes out lies, and one who asows discord among brothers. Isaiah 5:25 25 Therefore gthe anger of the Lord was kindled against his people, and he stretched out his hand against them and struck them, and hthe mountains quaked; and their corpses were ias refuse in the midst of the streets. jFor all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still. Matthew 25:41 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels ...' " (NKJV) Isaiah 66:24 "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." (NIV) Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (NIV) 2 Thessalonians 1:9 They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power. (NLT) Proverbs 23:14 Physical discipline may well save them from death. (NLT) (Yea, spank kids and they won't go to hell) I may have gotten carried away. However, from these versus, we can see that: 1. God created hell 2. Hell is a punishment 3. Hell is eternal 4. The only unforgivable sin is speaking against God 5. God (and Jesus) have the keys to hell and the authority to cast you in hell or not 6. If you spank your kids, you can save them from going to hell

Well, at the absolute worst, it is interesting to look at the poll as far as what other people think. I picked religious people, because at least I am not battling ghosts when I debate with statists.