DaVinci

If you don't want to continue the conversation, I think that's fine. You aren't obligated to continue. However you haven't really answered my question. Not having STD's to not having STD's would not be a change in any direction, right? Then we have to conclude that it is self maintenance, right? If you want me to correct what I'm saying without wanting to show me the language used to speak correctly then how can I correct myself?

Well, then aren't we right back to my earlier question? Wouldn't it be considered self maintenance? If a sick person improves into a healthy person, and a healthy person who continues to stay healthy isn't improving and they aren't declining then they must be maintaining, right?

I'm not sure that any definition I can give wouldn't be subjective. One person would view losing fat and gaining muscle for their health an improvement. Another would view gaining weight and losing muscle for a movie role to be an improvement. It seems contingent on the goal.

I've often wondered what would happen to the economy if everyone got a government provided well paying job, a brand new car, and a new house when they turned 18. That would eliminate 90% of what most people currently spend their paychecks on.

So self improvements can only come from a self deficit? Then not engaging in risky behavior would be self maintenance?

I suppose that depends on what we are considering self improvement. That seems subjective. I would like to improve the amount of ice cream inside myself.

What if rubbing one out, and the satisfaction that follows, prevents engaging in risky behavior that could lead to STD's or unwanted pregnancies?

I think there is a difference between self defense where someone randomly punches you in the face on the street and you punch them back to protect yourself, and getting into a boxing ring to defend yourself (assuming you are under some "Get in the ring or else" type threat of aggressive violence) where you might be defending yourself but also simultaneously legitimizing government run spectator boxing as a means for defense. To me, the core issue seems to be bringing people over to the anarchy/peaceful parenting/atheist message at an accelerated pace, which seems impossible given Stef's message that it is a multi-generational change. I don't think we have 500 years to convince people. We honestly probably have less than 25. It's not like all these terrible people aren't going to try to reclaim power after Trump, and you know if they get back in it will be back to business as usual and they will pick up the pace to make up for lost time. Maybe voting bought a couple years, but the strategy has to change or the game is over.

A biological male who is transitioning to female would be considered a transwoman.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to ask. Your entire post is confusing to me. A trans guy would be biologically a woman, so she wouldn't have a penis. Hence, the word trans. As is transitioning to being a guy from a girl. Are you talking about two different people?

So when could we consider Trump to not be unprecedented? At the end of his first term? When is the precedent set, and what then becomes "unprecedented" after Trump? Aliens? I mean the extraterrestrial type.

I don't think the shows Stef was doing before Trump were unimportant. As others have mentioned before I also don't think that Stef's reasons for concentrating on Trump for so long have completely lined up with his earlier stance on voting. He did a whole show not long ago on how Trump is unprecedented. But so was Ron Paul. I think the "we have to focus on Trump for now" shows have effectively run their course. He's the President. Mission accomplished. I'm not saying they should never do a show about Trump again, but at the same time I think many of the listeners have expressed an interest in getting back into the messages that brought them to FDR. I'm sure there are many new people who have found the show because of Trump, and maybe that was part of their strategy. Pull people in with Trump videos and then bait and switch, but to do that you are also performing a switch on the old listeners when you claim Trump is unprecedented and Ron Paul wasn't and do a ton of shows about a politician and voting, hence this topic and others where people are scratching their heads wondering what happened. Now maybe Stef just shrugs his shoulders and says "Eh, a couple people left, but we got 100K more subscribers which is good for page views on older stuff and donations." but how do they know which of the people they drew in who came for the political messages are actually going to stay for the anarchy, peaceful parenting, atheist etc, messages? Haven't most of the listeners up to before Trump been coming in because they were already leaning towards non-conformity with rulers? Why is the core political action crowd going to suddenly abandon politics for anarchy when their politics guy won? They see that the system works, and Stef advocated for it. So now what?

I agree with this, though Facebook is itself an echo chamber. So as long as you go to both echo chambers and don't just stay in one you'll be fine. Wouldn't you say though that places like FB and Twitter are getting to the point where they are going to breed their own competition the way they are deleting anyone who leans right?

From my experience the older shows can be hard to digest at first. Let me be clear. I don't mean "emotionally". I mean, actually absorbing the information. This is in part because the information is embedded in examples, and there are stories put it for context. Those things have to be stripped away to see the principles and most people don't have the time for that. Unless you are already used to taking notes (mental/written) on a subject to get to the principles you are going to be confused sometimes. It also doesn't help that most of the shows are "Stef's thoughts" and unless you understand a bit about philosophy, and/or start at the beginning of the old podcasts you might not be understanding the new material as much as you could. I doubt they will tell us that.

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are asking here. What do you mean "the show's principles"? That doesn't make sense. Who is the "favored person"?

I've been thinking about this topic in the back of my mind all day. After pondering for a while here's my two cents in the form of an analogy: Child: "Mom and Dad, why don't you ever play softball in the yard with us anymore?" Mom and Dad: "We've been busy at work." For a show that has a lot of emphasis on parenting, I don't think it is unreasonable to put "work" aside for just awhile and come spend some time with the kids.

I'm not sure what order and chaos mean anymore. Order as in order at McDonalds? Chaos as in the Joker is an agent of chaos? I would say in terms of society the problem isn't order vs chaos as much as it is simplicity vs complication. Now maybe I'm describing the same thing two different ways, but it makes more sense to me the second way. I think humans crave structure. Caves. Buildings. Right angles. We apply this to society as well with rules, but those rules can be simple or complex. Even the whole idea of property rights and that it is immoral to impede on someone's property against their consent could be taking place in a scenario where someone is surrounded on all sides by the private property of someone else who refuses to let you pass through. That sounds like a complex situation to deal with when it comes to the rules, unless of course you simplify it down to that the guy impeeding movement across his land is an asshole. I think over complication of the rules takes the cave from a structure with an exit and blocks that entrance turning it into a tomb.

Stefan... You're HYOOGE! You've got great people there. Great people. We're gonna get our philosophy out of CHY-NAH. We're gonna Make America Great Again.

How do you figure out who is going to contribute and who isn't and what do you do to the people who don't contribute? Is the problem that the system props up people who choose not to contribute? How do we ever get rid of that?

I haven't been gloating.

I thought that was the main problem. I've think I've heard Peter Schiff or Stef mention it is like buying fire insurance while your house is on fire.

Apparently Obama care, by keeping a part of it (pre-existing condition) and replacing the rest. Also some of his stances on immigration have been moving back and forth, appearing and disappearing from his website.

I've noticed that many of the people complaining have now switched over to point out that Trump is softening or reversing stances he had during his campaign. Is this a concern? Doesn't every politician do this? Guess no wall, huh? Thoughts?

I agree. I already said in an earlier thread this was similar to the flag pole scenario. I don't want to break windows, but I'm going to do so if I have to save myself from further injury or death. To the OP, if you want to show them how the media is lying, then show them that CNN clip of the Hillary protestors that CNN faked by using a former cameraman as a "protester".