Existing Alternatives

Scientology is a perfect example here. Sure it is silly, but a lot of very smart and educated people adhere (?) to it without necessarily using it to answer all their questions or needs.

If by “right” you mean “your way”. For centuries science prospered within realm of religion. To this day a lot of top research universities are affiliated with religious organisations. Many scientists today are religious. On a personal level, science is not applicable to every part of one’s life, leaving enough room for other less rational influences, including religion. So, no, not mutually exclusive. Instead of calling my contributions trivial and meaningless, you could try and add something to the discussion.

Thank you and the same goes out to you. My argument here is that the "iron age fiction" does seem to provide comfort to some, whereas no such comforting exist in the "science land". It is "science" who says "thats it," religion however attempts to dress it up a little. Btw, I'm not arguing for the "fiction," just trying to find some sign of comfort in absence of it. Why would I care? I wont be around for billions of year and neither would he. You see, I dont know about all this planetary stuff and streams of consciousness, but I do know, that someone who I could have a nice chat with is now gone forever. Also, does it not sound a bit religious-y? "Stream of consciousness," etc...

Sure it doesn't, but the moment any bank endorses it, bitcoin will become mainstream. I am wondering if this move is an admission of sorts that this currency cannot be manipulated and thus further demonstrates its strength.

You seem to assume that all Christians (or other religious folks) are exactly the same – believe the same things, read the same books, etc. This simply isn’t true. On one side of the spectrum there are hermits who live in caves and consume nothing but morning dew, and then there others like George from Seinfeld, who does it only for the hats. The same could be said about atheists – just because one does not believe in God, does not mean they automatically accept everything that modern science has to offer. Just look at the range of advices that Stef received on this board on how to treat cancer. The point is that religion and science are not mutually exclusive concepts, but rather two dimensions of one’s world perception.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/china-bars-banks-from-handling-bitcoin-in-new-setback-for-cyber-currency/article15778732/ Chinese Central Bank moved to prohibit country's banks from handling Bitcoin. This comes weeks after the government issued a number of informative videos helping people understand the virtual currency (in somewhat positive light). What does it all mean? Are they for or against it, or just trying to confuse their populace? Most importantly what does it mean for Bitcoin - would the Central Bank's endorsement actually have made it weaker? What are your thoughts?

That's the part I struggle with: science is quite, but the religion offers you this insane carnival of multiple virgins and what-not. Which one would a "rational" person prefer? I am not sure I got which 'simple, available, effective methods' you are referring to? That part is surprisingly easy. Earlier this year we lost great-grand-father and mother, and my 4-yo was very cool about it. My wife tried the whole "angels" shpiel, but his response was "oh, I get it, they are dead." So, yeah, easy...

I agree, that's the issue, but what's the solution? Additional risk to this is many people who are on the fence with the whole faith question are more likely to slide right back into the religious embrace as opposed to reason's void...

I like this. This is a very valuable point. Focus on religion is easy. The funeral took place in Russia, which is currently a very religious country. The funeral home had a gigantic cross in there (and in general looked like a church), we were asked repeatedly where is the wooden cross to put on the grave, people asked about a choir, a minister, etc. So, there was a weird gap during the proceedings where religion would normally fit in.

It is so much easier to make excuses for the abusers than face them. This is even more true in relation to one’s parents. Our parents were abused themselves, brainwashed by culture, stressed at work, whatever, but they are still abusers. Most responders here keep going to the extreme examples of serial killers and rapist, because none of us will think twice about cutting those people any slack regardless of their “problems”. Our judgment (yours, mine, everyone else’s) is clouded enormously by the 15-20 years we spent under constant supervision by this people. It requires great degree of self-knowledge, internal strength and moral integrity to be able to stand up and face up to the abuse.

That's a good point. I always wondered about that. They should be, right? Thanks. You are absolutely right. I kind of lost track of my actual feelings. I guess, subconciously that is what I am doing right now. At the same time, I am wondering if there is some value in the supernatural way of thinking.

These quotes seem to apply to the person who is dying, not the ones losing a loved one. My question is where do those left behind get comfort from. In the religious example, it’s the “better place” story, but what’s there in absence of it?

I feel that religions (particularly Christianity) play an important role in consoling people at the time of death of a loved one. They provide a sense of hope that “this isn’t the end, but merely a beginning of something better”. In absence of this, death becomes an abrupt end of the relationship. How does one cope? I recently lost my father. We were a fairly a-religious family, so there was no sermon or service of any kind at his funeral. Tears were shed, kind words were said about his life, nail it down and off to worms you go. The end. There is no comfort or comfort-ing. This being the first loss in my adult life, I was not quite prepared for what’s next. What is next? I almost wish for “he is with angels now” kind of bs.

As a Torontonian, I too was a bit confused by the Rob Ford podcast. Maybe I missed something, but what I heard was “current political system produces leaders like that” – “that” being “fat, addicted, bad, bad, bad.” If you are saying that all politicians are bad, then sure. But then again, is mayor a politician, or simply a manager of multi-billion dollar voluntary(!) congregation of people? As far as mayor Ford is concerned, if you aren’t from Toronto, you should read up a bit on some of the policies and votes he held and tried to implement. For the last twenty years as a councilor he consistently voted NO on any expense related vote, oftentimes all by himself (yes, just like Ron Paul). This is the man who consistently returned to the city most if not all of his office budget allocations. For the last three years, my property taxes remain exactly the same, and our city budget finally got balanced. For preceding 10 years, my taxes were going up every year, sometimes by as much as 10%. So, the guy is overweight, drinks and apparently smoked some crack. Guess what, I don’t see him as my moral role model, but he is pretty good at balancing them books, which is his job. One thing outsiders seem to ignore, is that Rob Ford took on an impossible task challenging the city establishment, and got punished for this. Btw, over the last three years, it was not a month that the establishment would not try and smear him somehow, they tried everything from frivolous lawsuits to harassing him at this personal residence. This crack stuff is just one of their last hijinks. Oh, and yes, I will vote for him again in 2014.

The intent of the Permanent Portfolio was not to provide the investor with superior return, but rather to develop a simple framework that allows to mitigate main risks inherent in investing, such as inflation, deflation, and outright financial system collapse. Each of the asset types used in constructing the portfolio serve to counteract any one of those risks. But the main focus is simplicity – you buy those four assets and you are done, just keep on rebalancing every year or so. The fact that portfolio has been outperforming most indices is spurious and should be treated as nothing more than icing. Harry also made a provision for “speculation allowance” – setting some money aside to invest in individual stocks, hot tips, etc. Although, in my view, the most important message in his Fail Safe approach was “investing in yourself.” First and most, you should always increase your earning potential through training and education. Those will survive any financial calamity. Highly recommended read!

Anti-government or anarchy is a tough pill for most to swallow (not here, obviously), but no “normal” person can argue with NAP. The labels are always used to manipulate people and their opinions, which is why it is always important to define them upfront. You can call your cat “government” and tell everyone how cute and fuzzy it is (yes, I’m looking at Powder’s picture). There was a nightclub in Toronto called “Guvernment” and things that went on there were simply amazing! My point is being anti-government could be highly confusing, but violence is pretty well understood by most.

I think the broader question should be, why people in general support violence? Soviet people were convinced that evil capitalists were out to ruin their workers’ paradise and they would fight for it tooth and nail. Lots of propaganda and brainwashing will do that kind of thing. Remember that first thing Soviets did was to uproot any form of intelligentsia (“uproot” in most cases meant “kill”), replacing it with their own close-minded educational structure. Publishing was only done by government and the borders were shut and radio-signals jammed, so no information ever got in. It is irrelevant when the leader were born, they just saw this structure as the means of personal enrichment. To a lesser extent same worked in Nazi Germany. Most Americans today know very little about what’s going on in the world, but are frightened by anything foreign and are willing to fight if anything is perceived to violate their status quo.

@tamslab obviously has a lot more experience than I do and he does a superb job answering your queries, but beating a child to sleep? I sure hope it’s not conventional. In my experience, kids fall asleep, maybe not at exact time but eventually at least. It is never fun to stop playing and go to sleep, but clean sheets, snug pillow, favourite toy, dark room and eventually built-up habit usually do the trick. Btw, by the age of 4 you are supposed to wane them off naps anyway. Why would you assume that?

I’m confused (mind you, I did not get a chance to listen to the sound file). But it sounds like this Cobb-fella already owns sizeable tracks of land in the country (the town is located within the county, right?), so what’s stopping him from controlling the county now that’s the town is dissolved? Further, if he already owns the land, how is dissolving the town going to prevent him from allowing only his friends (ie whites-only) onto the land? Who cares what you call the government structure where the land is?

True. However, giving a child a lollypop for cleaning up a room teaches him a lot about lollypops and very little about the virtue of cleaning. At best, the child will make up the easiest way to get the room clean-ish. But likely, he or she will simply figure out where the lollypops are. The key is to teach them a way to appreciate virtue for what it is and not through some weird connection to diabetes (in the case of lollypops).

You know you are getting old when you have to look up “butterfly labs” and “jalapenos”. In any case, I don’t think your argument has anything to do with whether the other guy is libertarian or not. Ultimately, the deal is never final until product and money exchange hands. And misunderstandings often cause huge deals to go up in flames. You did agree to sell and then backed out. By backing out, you might have caused him some kind of damage. Let’s say, he already found someone to resell it to for $300, so technically he is now out $150, and he should be able to seek some kind of compensation for that. Although, he should have considered that the probability of completing the deal was not 100%. Provided that no such dependencies developed, and both of you are not worse off as the result, than that is it… People are allowed to change their minds – there is no moral ground around that

I am guessing you already listened through Stef’s special collection of podcasts on parenting. One thing I noticed about my child is that he seems to reflect my emotions most of the time. He seems to get frustrated when I’m frustrated and such. Once I discovered “Stef’s approach”, somehow my son’s behavior changed virtually over-night. My point here is that you need to watch yours and your wife’s behaviors, something might be giving him clues that yelling is an acceptable way of resolving conflicts. One thing that really changed my thinking is realization that they learned most of their emotions from us. As far negotiating goes, I am still on the fence. To me “adult” negotiating is about a fair degree of give-and-take – what do I “take” from a child? All the best. From what I recently learned, this may not be as effective approach as it appears. By rewarding the child for certain action, you only teach him/her that this action leads to reward, and not necessarily that he/she should do this regardless of the reward.

I could not keep reading past #9: Walk on the other side of the street when a woman is walking towards you at night because that's not at all creepy... On the plus side, I read about similar rules in... where was that? oh yeah... any Nazi-occupied country It is an interesting reaction. I think it is important to be able to filter this type of nonsense before it starts affecting you. There are tonnes of people out there trying to guilt you into submission: from a "homeless" guy on a street to parents to socialists to feminists. No immediate advice on how, but you gotta apply some sort of reasonability test to this type of information - as I said, I stopped reading at #9 of 101, as it appeared quite ridiculous from the start.

Asking people out is very stressful. I think the only thing that’s annoying for women is being asked by a “wrong” guy or this general awkwardness of the situation. As cold as it may sound, all you need is practice and a tad of tough skin. No matter what, you will feel awkward, and worse, chances are most women will say “no.” But, by not asking the answer is already “no,” so you’ve got nothing to lose. On the flip-side, all you need is that one right person to say “yes.” All the best!

You have a perfect set-up: no financial worries, well-paid and usually rewarding career ahead and a fantastic hobby to fill up the free time. You can always take writing related classes while majoring in engineering. It will help you test whether or not you have what it takes to be a writer, sharpen your writing skills and provide a much needed break from all the engineering you’d be studying.