Mister Mister

most people like to be helpful. obviously we have all had experiences like you are describing. so someone who thinks that businesses in a free market are going to be lying about one another all the time is suffering from an irrational paranoia. you might ask them why they are not trusting of people in general. and if that's the case, why would they trust the government?

No. But they wouldn't send an army to force him to pay either. Most likely, a woman in such a situation would have to put the kid up for adoption, where he would have a far better life with a family who actually wanted him. Because of this, women would be more discerning about what kind of men they had unprotected sex with.

Well even if that's the case, does that strike you as weird? You have asked for space, then she basically just ambushes you into a conversation, without any acknowledgement that she is violating your expressed preferences, any concern or curiosity as to how you have been doing, what's going on in your life, what's on your mind and in your heart. Instead she just talks mostly about herself and her problems, and an expression of HER needs for you, i.e. to show up at your relative's thing. It reminds me of a panhandler or canvasser or sidewalk-salesman who just comes up to you randomly and starts talking, giving you a "pitch". They might ask your name or how you are doing, but they really don't care about you, they just want your money. I think your question "what does my mother's behavior mean" is not the right one at all. You're trying to understand the reasoning and motivation of a person, without even having asked, and a person who probably wouldn't give you a straight answer if you did ask. But rather than trying to figure out what it MEANS, I would suggest just trying to see the behavior in the proper context: your mother is acting without any regard for your lived experience as a person, and your clear expression of preference. I can certainly identify, and offer my sympathy for how tough this must be for you. It's really hard to see this stuff when you have grown up around it.

Did she ask you how you are doing?

Could you elaborate? You probably have more experience in this than I do. I think I understand what you mean, and I wouldn't expect good parenting to look like treating boys and girls EXACTLY the same. In the same respect, a child who is a genius intellect will have different needs than a child who is mentally handicapped, a child who is athletic will have different needs than a child who is physically awkward, and so on. So it would seem important to me to respond to the needs of the individual child, and to recognize that these needs would be different in general between the sexes. But I think what I was getting at is that the same basic methods and standards of parenting should apply equally to all children - reasoning, negotiation, non-aggression, and to be open to the needs of the child, rather than molding them into what we think they should be.

if we leave the abortion question aside, the moral issue is that they take public money. This ought to be the central issue in the abortion debate. Pro-choice people push back against anti-abortion laws, which is basically the use of violence to prevent abortions, which doesn't generally work any way, and in the extreme cases, violence against abortion doctors and clinics. But when it comes to using violence to force those who don't believe in it to fund abortion, they have no problem. Until both sides agree to put down the gun, we can't have a productive conversation. But yes, I agree, once you've killed the fetus, selling it for money is a moot point. But if you are running a for-profit business, AND taking charitable donations then stop taking government money!

Yes I totally agree. I was thinking of making a list of these words and do a video/article about why their vague definitions cause problems.

Sorry, I'm not sure if I was very clear iBlagg. My point was, most people WILL appreciate you correcting something like an error in math, as this is something without emotional content. But you are suggesting that people can be talked out of socialism if you explain to them there is no free will. First of all, many socialists don't believe in free will to begin with. But that's beside the point. You said the Bomb in the Brain stuff had a big impact on you. Well one of the big points of that series is that ideology forms as a post facto rationalization. It's important to understand that something like socialism fundamentally serves an emotional need in people, which is then capitalized upon by politicians and others for their own benefit. People don't fundamentally believe in socialism because of some error in epistemology, metaphysics, economics, assumptions about human nature, and so on. It's because the ideology and the rhetoric taps into something emotionally for them.

I totally agree that "equality" is one of these political talking points that doesn't really make sense when analyzed. Of course there is the age-old conflict between equal treatment under the law, and equality of outcome. There is this weird idea that we should treat everyone the same, which sounds nice if you don't think about it, but I think is not possible as it is completely against human nature. As much as I try to be pleasant and curious and empathetic and reciprocal, I am never going to treat an attractive woman the same as an unattractive woman the same as an old woman the same as an old man, a homeless man, a man in a suit, a kid dressed as a "gangster" and so on. There's this weird thing in feminism where, women shouldn't be expected to put all this time and energy and money into their appearance, and I say, great! But at the same time, if a woman has put all that effort into her appearance, I'm supposed to treat her exactly the same as anyone else...WTF??? But this idea of a society where men and women are treated exactly the same, outside of basic moral standards, I'm not sure if it is possible. Yes you're right that people should focus on the issues important to them, and they have no obligation or responsibility to focus on the issues important to you. But then, feminists should be honest -- if their goal is to secure political and social advantages for women, then be honest about it. It's dishonest for them to say they're all about gender equality, but to ignore male circumcision, male victims of sexual assault and domestic violence, male suicide, family courts, and so on, but to complain "you're oppressing me" when employers don't want to pay for their birth control pills. Recently I saw some feminist on the John Stossel show, supporting that Obamacare is supposed to correct gender discrimination in healthcare (women tend to use more healthcare, so their healthcare costs more). He brought up the fact that, conversely, men pay more in auto insurance, because we tend to get in more accidents. "That's different", she said. It's just dishonest, hypocritical, special pleading. Furthermore, they have actively censored, slandered, and threatened people who advocate for men's issues. So it's not quite as simple as you focus on women's issues, other people focus on men's issues. Great question! I think the answer is - you treat boys and girls the same, while respecting the difference in trends. Parents need to be aware of the basic tendency to neglect boys, and coddle girls, which they should try to overcome, and to give both boys and girls what they need physically, emotionally intellectually. As a society, however, we have to respect that there will tend to be differences in boys and girls, and not expect them to be exactly the same. As you probably know, these days boys are being punished in schools for not being more like girls.

I see, more like BuyNet

Many socialists also believe in determinism. It's just that they imagine some intellectual class that can act on behalf of, even reprogram, the mechanistic masses, towards some Platonic greater good. Also you are imagining that through making abstract arguments you can unlock a key in peoples' brains, and they will abandon false ideologies, as simple as if you correct an error in their math, and they say "oh, I see where I made an error. thank you so much for instructing me ". But the truth is that people tend to have an attachment to ideologies for emotional reasons. Without dealing with this you are just making mouth-noises. We have all fallen into this. Because it's easier to talk about abstractions like free will or the calculation problem, than fundamental moral truths which threaten relationships, and false identities based on irrational collectivist bullshit.

Does this system have access to nuclear weapons, or any weapons at all? If not, then SkyNet is not really a fair comparison.

The "right to discriminate" is the right of free association. Really, "rights" is not the best way to look at it, but rather, to associate or dissociate with people for whatever reason, is not the initiation of force. One may do this for irrational reasons, they may be petty or cruel or foolish, but it is fundamentally not immoral to say "I don't do business with people who are shorter than six feet", "I only date blue-eyed women", or "I am not friends with people who like blow-jobs". Also, one person's "right" to discriminate based on shallow characteristics of birth such as race or gender or sexual orientation, is your or my right to discriminate based on that person's irrational preferences. This way, society can negotiate these things peacefully, based on the withdrawal of resources from, or provision of resources to, those with whom are values are aligned. When instead we appeal to the government to just impose values on the minority by majority opinion, we are escalating conflict with FORCE, rather than negotiating the conflict with reason. If a person refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, is imposing a government penalty of $100,000 dollars on them really a rational and just response? Is this the way to make social progress? Tolerance of homosexuality and other sexual deviations has made enormous progress without initiating force over the last half a century, do they really need to start picking up guns? Why not just allow the bigots to show themselves, and direct our resources towards those who are more accepting? I have heard religious conservatives say stuff like "I don't care what you do in your own bedroom, just don't force it on me", and I used to think that's ridiculous, no one is forcing anything on you - I thought they were just talking about the fear that their kids would see two men kiss in public or on TV. But now, I kinda see their point. It's ridiculous and out of control and can only escalate from here until people come to their senses. And yes, as long as we have a government, it ought to be as color-blind and gender-blind as possible, but the Left are the biggest culprits of making it otherwise so. I hope that makes some sense.

I'm not sure exactly the point you're trying to make. Farmland which is privately owned doesn't really apply to the example, depleting your own resources doesn't deplete your neighbor's, if it is agreed upon beforehand who owns what. Erosion is an example of externalities, which are not dealt with well, or at all in the present. Common Law had a history of dealing with this kind of stuff well, without the need for extra laws, regulations, and bureaucracies. I don't know what "under the duress of market survival" means. Survival is a fact of Nature. Under duress implies that someone is threatening you. So it seems like a loaded term to me. But the reality is that when people own things in perpetuity, they have greater incentive to balance consumption in the present, with preservation for the future. An example is how privately owned timber forests are well maintained, whereas National Forests which are leased out temporarily to private loggers, get clear-cut. Another example is the Cod supply in Nova Scotia, which Stef wrote an article on, called "So Long and Thanks for all the Fish", which was maintained for hundreds of years by the local population, but when the government took over, it was depleted in a few short decades. Can you think of an historical example to the contrary? Also, since I didn't get an answer in the thread about the comic strip, can I ask what is your relation to wealth and poverty and to market competition?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/baltimore-insider-blog/bal-umd-tragedy-of-the-commons-tweet-goes-viral-20150709-htmlstory.html Also kind of a Prisoner's Dilemma

This whole idea of "we've never had to internalize all of the things white people have done" - I don't know WTF she's talking about. My experience in public school in a liberal part of America was that White Guilt was constantly inflicted on us, from killing all the Natives, to Slavery, to Jim Crow, and on and on... Of course the whole idea that you should take personal responsibility for things that people with the same skin color as you have done is insane collectivist bullshit - skin color doesn't commit crimes, individuals do. And even if we accept that, then do we talk about the crimes of other "races", how about the positive achievements of different races? Sounds like the same old bullshit to me.

You're asking us a question that only you can answer

I'll take that bet, shall we say 100 Bitcoin?

Well I think the proliferation of heavier, more energetic music in the 1970s and 80s is in some ways, like I said, a reaction of youth, mostly boys, to being "contained" for most of their lives. Youthful masculinity has always been a threat to the status quo, and heavy music is one of the few places that disenfranchised and disillusioned young man can channel it without being smashed by the system. For the most part I think this is healthy, and some great music has come out of it, which despite the dismissal of people who "don't get it", can be soulful, intelligent, and moving, but of course this kind of music can also attract really damaged people, like those I described who can take it from rough but healthy fun, to violence. I actually am writing a song in the style of a band like Motorhead about this very thing. Here's a sample Blind with rage the untamed underaged they feel betrayed and underpaid "It's just a phase" says the old-aged sage with fear worn on his leery gaze But they shake the malaise, smash their slates, they scale the walls and storm the gates, they break the chains and loose the horny half-crazed untrained primates from their cage

Yes I thought it was very well done. When I first read the comic in passing on FB, I didn't think that much of it, and I certainly didn't notice the inconsistencies you pointed out - especially about the income levels between the two families. One is "doing O.K.", but can pay for private school, private tutors, and university, and has connections to get the son a high-paying job ( without ever having to work hard apparently ). The others are poor but both parents work overtime hours, (when in reality the average poor household works about 10 hrs and collects welfare), and yet they live like Soviets in the 1930s. Ridiculous. "Fuck poor people!" - I don't really see where he said this in his analysis. Can you point this out? I think the main criticism was that the comic is supposed to be about a child of a lower class family vs. a child of a middle class family (doing o.k.), but as the story develops, it seems like the girl lives in some 3rd world country, whereas the boy's parents are clearly very rich. Also as I pointed out, the average poor household does not work very much at all, but the girl's parents in the comic both work two jobs, even at the minimum wage this puts them in the middle class. But I didn't see any animosity towards the poor in his post. I think perhaps that you are projecting some attitude you've seen from other people onto this thread. As I understand, there is a pretty clear correlation between IQ and income, and IQ is correlated to genetics. Not to say that everyone "deserves" what they have in today's society (not sure what that would even mean), but the standard you propose, that the child of a construction worker has just as much chance to be a highly successful businessman as the child of a successful businessman, doesn't quite work, and may be impossible given the reality of intelligence and genetics. Of course in a free society, I believe the standard of living of the poor would be higher, there would be less poor as we wouldn't be paying stupid people to have kids, and the super-rich, who have always been those who benefit from State power rather than produce value, wouldn't exist. Again, I think you are projecting some kind of emotional reaction to a humorous and well argued criticism of a pretty stupid and poorly thought out internet comic. Obviously principled defenders of the free market are by far the minority in the world, so I don't know what you're talking about as far as ramifications and justifying oppression of a whole class of people and horrific consequences and so on, except that this has some emotional effect on you. Can I ask what is your relation to wealth and poverty?

Hey great topic! Not sure if it is inherently dysfunctional, but I have also had loads of fun moshing. These days I am more into more refined styles of dancing, but I can still get down in a pit when I'm in the mood. I think it may be attractive to people who have not had a great relationship to their own physicality - which is probably an increasingly large portion of the male population. If you are not into competitive sports as a kid, and you are discouraged or even punished for "rough" play as a kid. There is dance and theater but that only appeals to a few kids, and boys are mocked for this kind of thing. So I wonder if it's just a release of pressure, like opening a bottle of soda that has been shaken up, in a society which will not allow boys to be boys, unless they are football players. I know this was true for me - before getting into sports and yoga and dance I was into moshpits. But I agree, it's incredibly fun and exhilarating, to the point of intoxication. In a moshpit, there are no real requirements for physical competency, you don't have to be fast or strong or coordinated, and you are in a crowd so you can "dance like no one is watching". Furthermore, there is usually a kind of camaraderie, where people try to keep one another from falling, or will help someone up who has fallen. It is a rare opportunity to play like a child, in a society that would usually frown on such behavior, even for little boys and girls!!! That said, I have also seen the darker side of moshpits, usually when one or a few seriously disturbed individuals, usually heavily intoxicated, is actively trying to hurt others or themselves, throwing elbows, throwing themselves at bystanders who clearly don't want to be involved. Usually the crowd will take care of them, but it's scary to see kids involved in such destructive behavior. And I think the loud, heavy, counter-culture music scenes of punk, metal, hard-rock, etc. tend to attract such people.

Fascinating!!! You have links?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/27/greece-spain-helped-germany-recover What do you guys think of this?

Consumerism can be a psychological issue of trying to fill a lack of connection and love and happiness in one's life with material stuff. It is an addiction, like any other - drugs, food, sex, gambling, video games, porn, etc. and is a serious issue, but can't be solved by the government. Often ignored as well, is the role that women play in this, as they tend to control most of household spending, and the majority of consumerism is directed at women. Also, as Agalloch pointed out, Keynesianism, Central Banking, Fractional Reserve Banking, and other State policies discourage saving and encourage spending in the here and now.

"if you agree that we all have a conscience within us that knows "objective morality"" NOPE, sorry. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/basics/definition/CON-20027920 Yes you have failed to understand. It is not a man or a group of men deciding what is moral, in fact, that is how religious morality works most of the time. Rather, moral propositions are subject to a methodology based on universal principles of reason. It is similar to science or math. We don't say 2 + 2 = 4 because the Math Teachers say so, but rather because we can follow the logic ourselves. This is how UPB works. So you are welcome to evaluate it and point out flaws in the reasoning. It is not some closed religious or academic priesthood which seeks to impose its will on everyone, everyone who is capable of reason is welcome to be part of the process. Welcome to the conversation. But you are claiming that we somehow rely on the non-existence of God for a moral theory - this is not true. The existence or non-existence of God or gods, technically has no bearing on UPB, anymore than the existence of God is necessary to prove or disprove that 2 + 2 = 4. That's as clear as I can make it.