Jay Paul

Bump.

Because the state demands that I earn a piece of paper to prove my competence to perform in my desired profession, personal fitness training and physical therapy. The university requires us to take prerequisite classes before we can enter into our major (as if 12 years of schooling prior to college isn't enough waste of our precious resources). I enjoy teaching people how to and assist them in healing their bodies, and luckily in this field I'll actually be subjected to the least amount of political bias compared to my fellow students. If we had a free-market I'd go get a loan tomorrow, purchase the equipment and facility I need, and begin my business tomorrow, but thanks to so many hurdles to enter the market a degree is preferable for being a personal trainer, and required to be a physical therapist. That's not to mention the business permits. I wouldn't agree that I'm actively supporting them. They'd get their pensioned paychecks with or without my ass taking up one extra seat in their lecture halls and classrooms. If this is the game their making me play to get where I'd like to go in life than I'll follow their rules. To me it's no more different than paying your taxes even though taxation is immoral. I'd just prefer to play along, take out student loans and subject myself to their propaganda, which to me is only a minor inconvenience to not spend my life practicing my passion.

I just noticed this the other day, and I found it empowering. Ben Rice, a young powerlifter with a youtube channel began accepting donations with the message that with the money he receives he'll invest in a new camera for higher quality videos. Now, just two days later he's posted a response video saying that he's already raised more than enough. I'll link the videos below. It really just goes to show that with the right audience and an honest request donations is a viable model for getting financial assistance. This is not to say that Stefan's tight-rope walk away from his old comfy salary praying that views like us would catch him has been enough evidence to prove our points. I just wanted to share that with you all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2Yb_7hL9a0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9FSeqK6Mq8

My two favorite channels (besides FDR of course): Elliott Hulse/StrengthCamp Jason Blaha/JuggernaughtFitnessTV Elliott takes a very holistic approach to strength, fitness, and general health covering a lot of functional body modalities, joint integrity, etc. On his self titled personal channel he talks about some of his pseudotheories on philosophy, spirituality, and mind/body integration. Jason Blaha talks more about the particulars in weight training programming and the science of nutrition. Combined they make a pretty formidable force of brain and brawn within the YouTube fitness community, and would encourage anyone, even if they're not into weight training, to check out some of the ideas they discuss and the manners in which they do.

When I said they have a monopoly I simply meant that as the majority if they all use a word to represent a particular meaning than that's basically what goes even though their sheer numbers doesn't make their misinterpretations correct, of course. I do see your point, and I actively try to remind people either in casual or academic conversions to avoid using any language that can be misconstrued. When they do use statist terms for things I also make an effort to correct them. "Arrest? You mean like normal men like you and I can remove you from wherever I am against my will and lock me room that I'm not allowed to leave, and if I try evading or escaping them at any time they'll shoot me dead? I thought those things were called kidnapping, holding hostage, and murder." *Sigh* It's really a shame that things even have to be pointed out. I mean, I'm 20 years old, and I believe I have an alright grasp on the whole application and implications of acting on philosophy thing, but how can most other people (>99%) not even have a fucking clue about what virtues are and how to act on them. I empathize with those who are curious, who have questions about the nature of our world, but are surrounded by people who just won't allow for their curiosity to flourish. And I understand those people (presuming their adults) are free to leave those relationships, but lack the strength of integrity to do so, because they likely haven't had the practice and training to prepare for such a terrifying false-self threatening endeavor...

Oh yeah. Of course. Unfortunately, like the roads, military/police, education, and a million and 1 other things statists have their monopoly on language as well.

I just had a thought. Yes, I have those from time to time. There's a reason why they call them "intellectuals" and not "rationals" or "universalizers". I'd say "philosophers", but unfortunately so many people who are self proclaimed "philosophers" don't in fact philosophize much at all besides justifications for their own personal incentives and preconceived preferences.

Well, of course. My geology prof mentioned on the first day of class that he has friends who work in the private sector who are millionaires and how easy it was for them to do it, and I immediately thought to myself, "Well, why in the hell do you teach at a university when you could be a millionaire doing something that is supposedly so busy? Because he's most likely a terrible employee and lacks the skills for success in the free-market."

Good points, all of you. Thanks for hearing my rant. Like I said in my original post, I was feeling frustrated, and felt the need to voice my thoughts. I guess that may be because I felt the need for confirmation about my feelings and ideas, and that my peers don't/wouldn't necessarily agree with me. I don't want to see my peers around me hear their misguided professors reinfect them uncontested. I don't consort with any of the other students in either of these classes, so I don't necessarily mind their foul opinions of me, so I enjoy being a gadfly to the current social paradigm by any means. Someone has to stand up against these inconsistent and irrationally immoral theories, right? Fortunately enough for me I've been doing much better avoiding negative self-talk and chastising myself. I've also been improving my ability to unapologetic when sharing what I believe is the truth, what is moral, and what is necessary for spreading these ideas of liberty in society.

Boy, oh boy. I just got out of my BS geology class at uni, and my prof was spewing so much statist propaganda for over half the class period talking about natural threats to humans on this earth of ours, and how it's the governments responsibility to protect us with their money. In my mind, I could see myself jumping up on stage beside this human microphone for blindly consenting to evil, and debate him on every point he made. I have a feeling it's going to be a long semester for me, and I don't know how long I'll be able to hold my tongue before I verbally lash out at this guy from my front row seat in our auditorium style classroom. I feel frustrated, annoyed, and helpless. I understand of course it's my responsibility on whether not I engage this man or not on his misguided and destructive theories about how state power should be used to fund his rock hobby. Honestly, I could care less about what this asshole thinks, but it's just that there are roughly 300 of my fellow students may actually believe what he says. I have another professor for my sociology class I have to leave for in just a little less than a half hour, and she's the bad kind of feminist as well as a statist. I can't just help, but think about how these two instructors of mine have failed in the private sector after they had graduated with their degrees to turn back around to the state out of their udder incompetence to suckle from it's tits like a baby without the ability to function outside from under the breast of the state.

Alright. Thanks Robin. I'll look into those.

Here's a conversation from facebook I had about the conceivable value of bitcoin vs. gold with a fellow FDR member. I wonder what sort of general thoughts or criticism yous udder guise might have for either Christoph or me. Excuse me for the poor formatting. Facebook does not copy/paste over very well. Below is a direct link to the conversation if you find it to difficult to follow on this page. . https://www.facebook.com/ChristophDollis/posts/10151994643083548?comment_id=27932048&offset=0&total_comments=19¬if_t=share_reply ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Christoph Dollis [*] Per Bitcoin's recent plunge: some wise people (or at least astute sharks) took profits*. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-01/bitcoin-plunges-bear-market (*As in cashed the hell out of Bitcoin and moved their money to dollars or another government currency like yen or Canadian dollars.) [*] Claire Haus I was quite fortunate and lucky to sell at 990$. If I didn't need it dearly in cash, I would probably kept it intact. [*] Joshua Stebell It's back up to 1090 now. [*] Christoph Dollis It's highly volatile. [*] Joshua Stebell We must keep in mind it is such a very small market relative to the usd and gold. Extreme fluctuations can be expected in btc's infancy before it becomes more widely adopted (if it does). [*] Christoph Dollis There is no reason to believe this is true. As Peter Schiff pointed out during the debate with Stefan Molyneux over Bitcoin, and as I remember at the time, market cap rose with a highly volatile series of minibubbles, punctured during the dot com tech bubble - then the whole thing crashed with a resounding thud. This is what I expect to happen with Bitcoin. [*] Joshua Stebell I do see the faint correlation here, because these are both instances of new technologies influencing the economy, but I don't believe it's a proper comparison. This is just my amateur idea of how these markets both function, and I may very well be mistaken, but let me make my case. Dot com's are essentially businesses that must return a profit from their website in order to pay their shareholders. That where their value as an investment comes from. But btc is in part alternative currency that's market value is based upon the value of utility that offers as a medium for exchange to those who wish to deal in it. I can buy btc to trade for something and then that other person I traded with can cash that btc back out for usd to buy whatever else they wish. This is a form of utility in that the btc is being recognized by both parties as a unit of value. I believe as more businesses begin to accept bitcoins as a form of payment in exchange for goods and services it will hold even more utility (be more valuable), because the second party will not require as often to trade their btc back out for usd to buy whatever it is they wish. [*] Christoph Dollis Did you watch this? If not, do. http://youtu.be/0L7SOPDOvvI [*] Pilar Cooke Isn't that how everything works in the malets? The numbers rise and fall at will and there is no hold in which one person can tell it otherwise. I feel your argument has no volume at this moment. I can careless about Bitcoin...I never had anything to do with it to begin with. I once said that it may be a "building block" to independent currency...yet it isn't Bitcoin [*] Joshua Stebell Okay. I'll check it out. [*] Joshua Stebell Oh yeah. I had seen this. I really do like Peter as an austrian economist, and I believe he's highly intelligent. However, I believe his view on "intrinsic value" is flawed. I don't believe that aesthetics, perceived value, can be objective. So when he says that gold has an "intrinsic value" I however don't believe anything does. I haven't had to write out my argument for this before, so I may make a mistake, but again, I'll give it go. If something, an item or action, is intrinsic to any form of status of market or moral value, that item or action must universally, under all circumstances, retain that status. If you can imagine any type of situation that could make that item or action not equal to that status then that status must not be objective or intrinsic to that thing, but is instead subjective. This is where the aesthetic market value, price, of gold fails to this requirement of having intrinsic value. Imagine I'm lost in the desert and find a bar of gold and a loaf of bread. I pick them up. Later I am getting dehydrated and need water soon or I'll die. I then cross paths with a man who owns access to an oasis. He just so happens to be starving. When I approach him, he'd more than likely be willing to trade my temporary access to his oasis for the loaf a bread for an entire brick of gold. Now, we both know that in the middle of a city a bar of gold is worth much more than a loaf of bread. More than thousands even. Now if the value of the gold was intrinsic to it's nature a bar of gold would always, under every conceivable circumstance, be worth the same in relation x-number loafs of bread. So, we both see that the value of gold can vary from 0 to whatever the circumstances call for. This does not coincide with the definition of something that retains some sort of intrinsic value, like how the moral value of the threat of or initiation of the use of force or fraud, by definition, is always in the negative as I know we both already agree to as the rational type folk we are who accept the non-aggression principle. Unfortunately though for Peter's case there's no irrefutable principle for the intrinsic value of gold as any type of commodity or medium of exchange, so as he makes his case that gold has a definite intrinsic value while bitcoin does not is incorrect. Neither of them retains the objective quality of price. They are both subjectively valuable in their own respects. [*] Christoph Dollis "I really do like Peter as an austrian economist, and I believe he's highly intelligent. However, I believe his view on "intrinsic value" is flawed. I don't believe that aesthetics, perceived value, can be objective." No it isn't objective. It's actually subjective second and third-order value, but I explain, including using a colourful analogy, how certain libertarians and anarchists go way wrong here (and cause people to roll their eyes) in this conversation, starting with this comment: "I think a gold-backed digital currency could be a good idea, or backed by another commodity. Other than that, barring government order, I don't see how you give a currency any kind of stable value. It will always depend on psychological popularity in a free market unless it has some kind of "intrinsic value" in the financial sense. Now you don't believe in it, but I think those arguments are silly. Of course gold doesn't have value itself, nor does a man floating in space alone with no one else ever to be reached, but it has second-order value. So if you don't use it to buy something, it still has other uses. It can be bartered away if nothing else. Good luck doing that with a blockchain, but I digress." You'd need to read from there. I won't retype it all. https://www.facebook.com/stefa.../posts/10152379827421679... Stefan Molyneux The Sunday Freedomain Radio Call In Show is now live! Listen live at fdrurl.com/stream or fdrurl.com/chat [*] Joshua Stebell Alright, I will. Thanks. [*] Christoph Dollis You're welcome. [*] Joshua Stebell Okay. So, I'm still failing to see how Peter's and your argument makes sense. He says bitcoin is an attempt to replicate a digital version of gold, but fails, because it's missing a property that gold is. "Intrinsic value." If we both agree that nothing has an objective market value than how does Peter's argument back you in opposition to my case that BTC, a tool for the measure and exchange of subjective value (money), is not analogous to what happened to DOT COM's, businesses that failed to profit and reimburse their stockholders. [*] Christoph Dollis It doesn't have to have an objective market value, whatever that could mean. It has other uses. This creates, as I've said, second and third order value. Basically, you can use it to barter with. Somehow anarchist libertarians get themselves trapped in really black and white literal definitions of things in a statistical world. [*] Joshua Stebell Is that not also a function of bitcoins though? Also, I don't think that by implying my being trapped in a psychological world of using definitions as evidence in order to reason towards a conclusion being a negative thing is all that of a clinching argument against the one's I've put forward. [*] Christoph Dollis "Is that not also a function of bitcoins though?" No, it's all tied to its use as a currency/speculative investment. [*] Joshua Stebell Gold is also seen as a currency and a speculative investment. Is it not? I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two for the reason why you believe bitcoin is such a malinvestment. Bitcoin is digital, and gold is physical. Gold has additional properties of being used in technology, as jewelry, as decoration, and more that may add to it's subjective value. Bitcoin is anonymous, open source, can be used as a contract, and other things that adds to it's subjective value. If we both agree these qualities of both gold and bitcoin are subject to the unpredictable nature of aggregating individuals in a market, then I do not see your case. [*] Christoph Dollis "Gold is also seen as a currency and a speculative investment. Is it not?" Do people wear Bitcoin necklaces? Us it in industrial processes? Put them in their teeth? "I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two...." Indeed. [*] Christoph Dollis "Bitcoin is anonymous, open source, can be used as a contract, and other things that adds to it's subjective value." All of which are completely and utterly worthless except as regards to the specific transaction. Whereas gold can be traded to others who value it. A piece of paper works as a contract. [*] Joshua Stebell I don't believe you read my last comment thoroughly. "Gold has additional properties of being used in technology, as jewelry, as decoration, and more that may add to it's subjective value." -Me. "Do people wear Bitcoin necklaces? Us it in industrial processes? Put them in their teeth?" -You. I clearly pointed that out. Also, I do not appreciate you using a quote of mine out of context as well. I said, "I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two... for the reason why you believe bitcoin is such a malinvestment." I already pointed out that there is a distinction between the two in that one is digital and the other is physical, and we've already agreed these distinctions that have the potential to add to the subjective value of each of these commodities. If you do not believe bitcoin is a good investment for the lone reason that it is not physical than make that claim outright, but remember we've already established the physical quality of gold and everything that entails is in the same category of value as the bitcoin's quality being digital an everything that also entails in that their values are both purely subjective. This means that your argument for bitcoin being a bad investment on the ground that it is conceivably worthless applies equally to gold. If you think that gold's physical properties of utility are more subjectively valuable than bitcoins' digital properties of utility which also retain a subjective value know that this is purely your opinion. If the properties of each these things only retain a subjective value than any case made in reference to their properties is just your opinion, an argument you're perfectly free to make. Please acknowledge you're only advocating your opinion, and not making any universal claim about the value of a commodity.

[bump]

[bump]

Yeah. She was conscious of it, and seemed to be honest with me. Here's her story. Maybe it'll help. Her parents got divorced when I think she said she was 4. Her parents' shared custody and her. Her dad got remarried and his new wife was physically abuse. She told me she was afraid to tell her biological mother that she was being abused. because her step-mom would kill her. I think she felt afraid, because she unconsciously knew that her mom knew her dad was capable of being with someone who's abusive. When she was 13 and she could choose who to live with permanently she choose her mom. She told me since then she hasn't had the best boyfriends, which is of course shows how she doesn't have the best judgement. Her most recent ex was a drug dealer and had a kid. So she still seams to me an unprocessed victim, because she's made no mention of therapy or how she recognizes that she hasn't always had the best relationship with men.

Hey everyone. I recently began talking to a girl who appears to be knee deep in unprocessed history, and I would like to hear what you all think might be a good way out of this situation. When I asked this girl about her family she told me there is was history of abuse. I'm not going to write her whole story unless someone ask to hear it. Based on everything she's told me I've come to the conclusion that she is trapped in a cycle of abusive relationships, and I don't feel like playing Dr., so I need help out. Any ideas of what I might be able to say to her to cease our communication without just dropping of the map. That's something I'm desperately trying to avoid this time around when I find myself about to repeat this cycle I have myself of getting into relationships with girls who were daughters in single parent homes, victims of physical and verbal abuse, institutionalized by their "loved ones", force fed drugs, and for the most part lacked self-knowledge and a comprehension of personal history. In the past whenever this sort of thing would happen, where I'd wanted out of a relationship with a girl like this I used to just isolate myself away from that person without confronting them about how I would no longer care to continue communicating with them and let them assume I didn't want to see them any more. This time around, with the self knowledge I've acquired, I was able to catch myself before slipping into this awful cycle. So not that I've identified this new girl to be an unprocessed victim of childhood abuse I need help of getting out of this situation with her without just abruptly making it seem to her I had been abducted by aliens. Does anyone have any ideas about what I could say to this person to let her know I no longer wish to communicate with her? From there I hope we could go on to discuss how my history more in depth and perhaps what I can do to no longer attract this sort of girl into my life. >inb4 How's your relationship with your mom? I'd be happy to cover that here on this thread after I find a way to let this girl off the hook. Thanks.

Thanks for the advice darkskyabove and Think Free. I really appreciate the criticisms. At Uni I feel like I'm trying to philosophize in a desert island, cause there doesn't seem to me to be any people around competent and mature enough to entertain these ideas I have let alone give me this sort of critical advice.for how to approach different matters in philosophy. I'll definitely rethink how I use any sort of ethos in debate in the future. That's something I learned not to long ago I struggle with, and that's why I tend to avoid that sort of thing when I can. The reason why I brought up the subject though here was because it seems to me just about everyone taking this course is using emotional justifications for their belief in god, and I wanted to point out to them that in claiming faith for the reason why they believe something is just a kind of cop out and is no integrity in it if you're at the same time claiming to be logical and reasonable. . I really like you're argument style here, Think. It seems like a great way to work the premise that self-contradictory entities don't exist into the argument before applying it to god. I'll be sure to use that one to my advantage in the future. Again I really appreciate both of your words.

The following post is one I wrote in response to a class-blog for the Introduction to Philosophy course I'm taking. I didn't believe then nor do I believe now that this class would actually teach me much next to anything about philosophy, besides some of the basics we don't mully over here like defining words like premise and conclusions. What this class has done for me those is help me practice reasoning out the arguments for my beliefs, because unlike this environment, at the college I attend in the deep south/bible belt of the United States stereotypically composed of conservative white Christians and liberal black Christians, I'm at odds with just about everybody which has made me a stronger philosopher for it. But back to my repost below. My class was recently discussing the ontological argument for the existence of god in class and had to write a couple of posts on our class forums about it. This is my most recent post and I just wanted to share it with you all here, so that I may actually hear some type of rhetorical feedback in my lines of reasoning and how I go about structuring my thoughts, something I surely won't receive from my classmates or professor. I hope you enjoy. And just before you begin, for those of you who are unfamiliar with the ontological argument it goes like this: 1. If god is a conceivable/possible being, than god exists. 2. God is a conceivable/possible being. 3. Therefore, god exists. _________________________ NOTE: This post isn't necessarily in response to anyone else's post specifically, but I hope all of you who come across this will take care and read what I have to say. In doing so I believe you would be doing yourself and the world a considerable favor. I come to odds with the first premise in the following way. In the ontological argument the gap between conceivability and confirmed, irrefutable existence is bridged only by the definition of god we work with. I find the attempt at coming up with a self contained logical proof for the existence of god annoying personally and frustrating for those of us philosophers who rely on actual evidence on which we can base our arguments on to come up with conclusions. Like the KnowNo argument we discussed in class, we can just come up with any random word, a Foo-bar for example, and say that a Foo-bar necessarily exists. I can also say that there is no means of testing the actual existence of a Foo-bar and that you should just have faith, because that sounds like a really sweet thing to do, and if you don't agree with me or succumb to my emotional manipulations to just accept Foo-bar into your life I'm going to tell you that I'll just physically communicate with Foo-bar to warm your bitter, cold heart, so that Foo-bar can fill you full of it's inconceivably benevolent glory. You see, this isn't a case for the existence or nonexistence of Foo-bar at all. The assigning of properties to something can by no means validate the existence of that thing in reality. I also am frustrated with people who accept the second premise because of the following reason. In class we in no manner addressed this point of what it means for something to actually be conceivable or possible. We did point out how contradictory objects cannot logically exist, nor can your possibly conceive of them. Take the round-square for example. No matter how hard you think or how much you want to believe that you can picture an object in your mind that is both round and square at the same time is impossible, because by definition, the properties of a round-square being an object that is "a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles", but also "a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center)" are at odd with each other in such an irrefutable and fundamental way. I make the claim that the same goes for god. God is defined as being both all-powerful and all-knowing. If you want to test the possible (in)conceivability of something you should try to think about what both of these things mean when applied together onto the same context, 'god'. If god is all-powerful that means that god can do/change anything past, present, or future to god's own liking. But if god is already all-knowing, knowing everything as it is in reality, past, present, or future, god would thereby be incapable of using god's powers to change anything, because in doing so god would be invaliding gods own omniscience. This is a fundamental contradiction in the definition of god and there is no avoiding it. People from this point in the argument often say that god exists in a realm that's outside of time and space lah-dee-dah-dee-dah, but this claim is equally invalid and contradictory, because that is if god is to have any knowledge of or power over what exists within ours or any other conceivable realm that exudes the properties of either time or space (good luck theorizing one with them though) god would have to have some interaction with (coming into to) that particular realm of time and space in order to influence in it with his magic powers that fly in the face of the distinct laws of a nature of that realm. You can have your emotional reactions all you want and say you still believe that god exists, because you have faith. I'm not going to tell you can't, and I won't take any measures what so ever if you do. But just know that in this instance, as you use the word "faith" you are rejecting reason and evidence as the criteria for what you believe. If that's something you're happy with doing then by all means have yourself a merry time, but I urge of you NOT to waste your time with the entertaining of scientific and philosophical theories, because you are rejecting the fundamental criteria of those practices when you use the worst F-word of all. Having intellectual integrity is a very difficult virtue to adopt, and I really do deeply sympathize with those people who are experiencing difficulty making the transition. I made it myself not along ago. It was grueling, frustrating, and exhausting, but it was also worth it. I learned that having emotional dependency to conclusions is not an effective way at all to live your life as a philosopher, because that will keep you from responding to new evidence that make go against as claim of yours you've made in the past, and now feel embarrassed to give up. If anything at all to have an emotional dependency on is the methodology by which you can judge claims and the arguments associated with them. If there was brand new irrefutable evidence for the existence of god tomorrow, you'd bet I'd be a theist in a second, because I'm not attached to the idea of being an atheist. But also note, that if there was to be such an occurrence, you can guarantee that this evidence would be empirical and measurable, and not anything else. Reason and evidence are the keystones to philosophy for certain, and I also believe that they are just as foundation to someone who wants to live a moral and virtuous life and leave a positive influence on this world by learning about and practicing real freedom, not the pseudo-freedom the systems of pseudo-moral instruction and obligation would prefer you believe, in your daily life.

AVENGED SEVENFOLD "Heretic" As they search for blood, All eyes descend on one. Honest man in chains, But that don't matter anyway. My judgement day. [Chorus:] My flesh will feed the demon, No trial, no case for reason. I've been chosen to pay with my life. Mad men define what mad is, Turning witches and saints to ashes. Rising masses marching to find, Heretic blood. Impose your will on me, 'Til fire sets me free. The flames of hell burn bright, My fate decided by their lies. Final demise. [Chorus] Please don't leave me, Please don't leave me like this. I've walked a fragile line and I've fallen down, Please don't leave me. [Chorus]

It certainly is difficult. I'm fully dependent on them for payment of those of my current expenses that I am not already paying for with my student loans. I don't fear being cut off financially, but the thought of throwing that monkey wrench of coming out as an atheist is still quite frightening. It's more or less the social disapproval/ostracism and religious re-conversion attempts from my family that I believe would bother me the most. I believe that imaging my parents trying to debate with me about re-accepting Christianity is frighting, because if I were to make my case to them as to how I accepted it all as falsehood I'd of course be threatening their beliefs, reminding them of the how they had not only inflicted upon me, but also upon my older brother and sister their beliefs, and also be reminding them of how their own parents threatened them too into accepting their beliefs. I'm still trying to process the abuse from my parents they inflicted on me in this particular case, along with several others, and until I'm more confident understanding of it all and how it has affected me I plan on holding off on bringing any of these matters up with them. I'd be happy to read over your letter if you choose to post it, and perhaps offer some constructive criticisms to it if I belief it requires any if you would like. I'd also be happy to talk to you about how it all goes when you do decide to let your family know this truth about yourself. I'm sure there will be a lot of things to sort through about your relationships with them when you do.

I'd use the "against me" argument and be done with it. If they refuse to reform their conclusion after saying they don't support you being thrown in prison and raped or shot for disagreeing with them about whatever it may be that you're arguing with them about whatever the subject matter may be, than they're illogical and you should not stay in the debate, and in the case they do support the use of aggression against you you'd best get the hell away from those people.

I'm not sure if these songs will meet your aesthetic preferences, but here are just a couple songs I like with sort of anti-government themes.

I think when you take a young child to the doctor for something like a booster shot falls into the category of acting as a self-defense surrogate like tackling someone out of the way of a speeding car. It may hurt them, but it's ultimately in their best interest, unlike a piecing which is something done for aesthetic purposes. But yeah, I see your point and I agree. I just wanted to clarify this one.

I'm in a similar situation, annadios. I was raised in a protestant christian house, and of course I that's how I came out of it. However, shortly after I got out when I got to college I found FDR, and began to hear so many ideas that were controversial to what I had been taught to believe. About six months ago I became an atheist, but I continue to let my family believe that I'm still christian. They bring up things in general conversations about religion and it does bother me a little how I feel I have to lie to them, because I believe coming out to them that I don't have faith would be an anxiety provoking situation. There have been times when I'm talking with parents about my life now that I'm off at college most of the time and finding my place in this world that they almost seem to challenge my religiosity by asking me how often I've been praying or other compromising questions. I do at least fully acknowledge that I'm being manipulative by not being honest with them at this time. I have intentions to coming out as an atheist to them, but I too am unsure of what would be an appropriate way of doing this. I'm actually going to seek therapy tomorrow from my school's counseling center, and will hopefully meet with a therapist who will help me with this matter and many others I've been experiencing. I hope to one day after sorting though some to most of my issues to invite my family to counseling with me where I can disclose my atheism and many other things with them perhaps over the course several sessions. This is just an idea I've come up with now on the spot, but I think it may be a good way to make my personal revelations known to my family. I hope something I said has helped. When you decide to come out to your family I'd like it if you came back to this forum and let us know how it goes. I'd like to hear about what route you went with and how your disclosure went over with your family. If I can remember I'll be sure to do the same. Best of luck to ya, annadios.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s17e01-let-go-let-gov Here's a link to a new episode of South Park I found to be funny. I just thought I'd share it here seeing as the subject matter of this episode is somewhat relevant to some of the things that are discussed here at FDR, and that maybe some of you will also find some humor in it. I hope y'all enjoy. P.S. This should go without needing mention, but for those of you who don't know, this episode, as well the entire series of South Park as a whole, is nsfw, so watch it at your own personal discretion.