Nerburg

Yo, I'm digging it so far. I'll try to post some constructive criticism later when I have time to finish it-only just completed ch.1

Thanks for making me double check this James. I remember searching fdrpodcasts for the "Friendship 101" show, but until coming back just now to find the original place I saw the video: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/36973-friendship-101/ I didn't realize that it was still a private one on youtube. As it was uploaded almost a year ago, I just kind of assumed, which would probably explain why it didn't come up in a search on fdrpodcasts. Testing again now and search appears to be working just fine. My apologies.

I was thinking it would be nice If at all possible, that searching by title should exist in conjunction with tags.

Thanks for resource suggestions, I'll look at them. Subtitles never put me off

Maybe it's a flawed principle, but I was assuming that peaceful parenting didn't have a 100% success rate. Even at 99.9%, there would be some abberations. But what Wuzzum's said was helpful. I was only looking for theorizing here, and am perfectly aware that OP could be wrong.

Not making any judgement about your position: when it comes to video games it's definitely, 'to each their own'. I just wanted to point out that this reason is a major point of appeal for lots of online games as well.

It seems well understood that while not all children from abusive homes end up being the dysfunctional type, the majority of dysfunctional types come from those kinds of homes. What I'm interested in then, is sort of the reverse equation. It seems understood that while most healthy parents (overall, not just physical health) will produce healthy and happy offspring who are not dysfunctional, some children from healthy homes end up as the dysfunctional type. What could be the cause of this, and how might it be fought? While it's obviously a smaller enemy in the struggle, a foe it remains. I would be grateful for thoughts and discussion on this, keeping in mind that I'd like to avoid genetic aberrations for now, such as birth defects. One hypothesis I could think of would be that certain well-raised kids, when exposed to the corruption of larger society, are swallowed up by that larger current, but I'm not sure if this is sufficient as an explanation.

This topic made me reread stef's page again, and it's looking way better than it did last time.

Just saw link on facebook, an associate from many years past recently helped on a study that just came out about the long-term impact of proposed carbon reduction policies in the local area: Quantifying the emissions and air quality co-benefits of lower-carbon electricity production From the end of the free synopsis: In this case study, the marginal improvements in emissions and air quality associated with carbon policies were less than the technology, renewable, and conservation assumptions under a business-as-usual scenario. If I'm not mistaken about the meaning of that sentence (please correct me if I'm wrong), this is a case study clearly stating that new Wisconsin environmental policies will be less effective than current market trends in efficiency.

Thanks for the reply dsayers. Yes, I'm aware of this and I didn't mean to imply that this was a valid explanation. What I was trying to get at was that she wouldn't have tolerated any behavior like that had she not been so desperately dependent; the consequences for that kind of acting would have been high and thus that form of abuse would not have existed. I do, however accept that he was living his values, as he was brutally beaten as a child by his father, who was a cop, and he became a hardcore liberal as an adult, so non-aggression was not the foundation of his ethics. So I believe abuse would still probably have occurred, albeit in a much less destructive manner. You are not wrong. I really do appreciate the feedback. I have been discussing these issues with her (parenting, politics), though with regards to my own childhood, not as specificly and bluntly as here. I've just not quite found the approach that would bypass the defensive barriers that are up, though I know it can be done, as she's an intelligent woman who is capable of discussing almost anything- current events, philosophy, history, etc. it's just when the emotional defenses are triggered that bad things happen.Unlike the circumcision, which can't possibly be justified, I give her major props for even getting us this much of a chance in the world. She'd already broken most of the cycle of abuse from her own mother, but did not quite make it all the way. Instead of sexual, extreme physical and emotional abuse that she went through as a child, while living in extreme poverty, she managed to pull herself out of that environment and raise children in a middle-class, verbally and less-physically abusive childhood. Today we stand on the shoulders of giants, and what that woman has gone through in her life makes me understand that she is one of them which I stand upon.Again, it is very helpful and I appreciate the support you've given. I just want to reiterate that I am not giving her a free pass in terms of moral responsibility, only showing that the issue is muddy, from my viewpoint.

I could make it to Chicago as well.

Here comes a wall o'text. I really did try to keep it as succinct as I could, believe it or not. My thanks to anyone who can help me out here, or plod through this post in its entirety.As the title says, I'm in a state of ambivalence about how I should be viewing my immediate relatives, specifically my mother. Over the past year and a half (about) I've become passing familiar with the FDR philosophical/psychological view (I.e. Truth) on personal relations and it's been quite the rush, like being dropped onto the top of the Grand Canyon, to look down on formations of people milling about below, antlike in their patterns of movement, but predictable after a long enough period of observation.(This in regards to friends, strangers, fictional characters who are now analyzable in terms of the causes and effects of their dysfunction. On a side note to this side note, it's interesting how most of the truths this community is aware of are viewable during character interaction in popular media (TV, movies), only it seems that even the writers don't know what's dripping out of their script).Thus far I feel I've finally acknowledged most of the dysfunction in my early childhood, which was the root of my previously unacknowledged adult dysfunction, which has in turn allowed me to take ownership of myself and my actions, the taking ownership of which has allowed me to reverse dysfunctional or destructive behaviors of my own, in order to lead a happier life. So while I've leaped forward in taking responsibility for myself and thus breaking the multigenerational cycle of destructive, dysfunctional, and abusive behavior, my quandary exists in assigning moral responsibility to those who had a role in my negative early childhood experiences.The main contention that I have in mind would be to what degree my mother is responsible for the things I suffered. The only reason I lack certainty, and raise the normally refutable statement, 'she did the best she could', is that from my seventh year of life onwards, she was quite arguably a victim of circumstance (and by extent, the whole family), for during a skiing field trip for my older brother, which she was chaperoning, an accident led to her having a T5 spinal cord injury, disabling her from the chest down, leaving her behind as a paraplegic to this day (she basically has use of her arms and muscles above, but not including, the abdominals). This event changed the whole timeline of my life, from that moment onwards.While the majority of abuse occurred after this incident, which I will provide context for down the line, there was still some abuse which occurred before. It isn't negligible by any means, but it's a shorter list than most of the people I know or have heard about. Considering her own history, which I can detail if requested, it's understandable, but that is no excuse: I was circumcised as a baby, my mother divorced my father when I was around 3 (she claims he was cheating, he denies and claims it was a dissatisfaction divorce), I was in daycare around two and a half, and I was spanked only twice in my memory, all of which occurred before I was 7. I was taught about the religion of my father but I was not bullied into it, as one of the sayings in the Qur'an my father was fond of is, 'no coercion in religion', so it never stuck with me.Now, that's my early childhood before the skiing accident and while it's not good, it's significantly better than a lot of people's most important formative years. It's relevant, but not necessarily the focus of this post.Two months before my mother's skiing accident, she remarried, and I think he was a nice enough fellow with my brother and I during the yearish+ they were dating. But people change when subject to extreme stress. Two months after they marry, his new wife is a paraplegic. There's nearly a two year recovery period (and it's much more complex than that, because of surgery after surgery and adaptations that need to be attempted/scrapped/modified) but for simplicities sake, we'll leave if there. Outside observers notice that I become obese (which is one of the dysfunctions I am currently succeeding in conquering) after mom is disabled, but the next few years are probably the fuzziest in my memories in terms of life at home (the distinction being that I can remember lots of details about school).Anyways, during the following years, my brother and I were subject to worse than previously. By the time I'm in 6th grade, there are verbally abusive fights between my brother and step-father about thrice a week, sometimes more, sometimes less. I get some too, but not nearly as often as my brother. The verbal fights included physical intimidation, so, the big step-father would be screaming, looming over us kids, jabbing his index finger forcefully into out chests until we were backed against a wall. One time my brother was woken up at midnight with school the next day, because he did dishes but had the drain plugs in the wrong sides of the sink. Stuff like that. The climax was one night when for whatever reason, my step-dad and brother were fighting again, and the step-father slammed my brother against the fridge and started screaming in his face. My mother called the police on him then, but he ran away from the house and nothing ever came of that.So my point is that my mother, who was raising two children as a single mother married a guy to stop that from continuing (single motherhood). It probably would have worked out, without anywhere near the almost daily abuse had events not multiplied the pressure on them by over 9000. Do I need to hold her morally responsible for choosing this abusive man, who would not have been who he became had not the fates destroyed his new marriage? They are divorced now, but in order for her and her children to live, she needed the man during the immediate recovery and for a long time afterwards, for money and much more than just money.If any extra info/context is needed, please let me know. I would really appreciate some feedback on this, whether you see me irrationally rationalizing or if you have an answer or question or ANYTHING at all. Thank you very much.

This thread is the reason I'm sad that there's an up vote limit

Would it be fair to say that the failure of college education is a result of the failure of public education? Those emails were kind of horrifying... Class is unfair towards students yet the final can trump all previous failures? Hah...ha...

Just pointing out that it's a fairly common meme, at least around hereabouts in liberaland, that Comedy Central's the daily show and Colbert report are better news outlets than the mainstream news networks.

INTJ every time I've taken the test over the years. Noticing a trend hurr It can apparently change over time and depending on the environment you're in. So in the workplace I might be an ENTJ because the I is incompatible for my job, but I'll revert to INTJ as soon as I'm in my comfort zone.

Yes, the government will lock you up by default and blow you up if you try to be free. Most accurate propaganda I ever seen.

Exchanged complex abstract reasoning seems to require a shared language, and I think it's well within the realm of possibility that an animal forcibly kept indoors could have discomfort on contemplating the lack of freedom (indoor cats who try to escape outside?), so I think the language barriers between species still applies here. Totally true, but I also think we might not understand certain body language of other animals in general (such as the pointing example). If I don't see the greater truth brought out by this fact, please let me know. (Emphasis added). I absolutely agree, but again, I don't think I see how this affects the larger picture. If I'm missing something, I'd be grateful if you pointed it out. I just dont quite see how this conclusion comes necessarily from the discussion so far.P.S. I know this isn't necessarily the place, but I really appreciate the way you communicate on this forum Kevin, but as someone who lurks more than I post, I just wanted to compliment you on the well thought out perspective you bring to most, if not all, of the threads you post in.

If you want to misconstrue what I said and my meaning to such a degree, go ahead, but be aware of it.

This, all of the this. Can you describe the difference between sorrow, contempt, and angst as opposed observable(without verbalization) emotions like sadness/dejection, dislike, and melancholy? The issue with regards to non-human animals, seems to boil down to language barrier. Have you owned a pet for yourself before? My cats have asked me for things, rejected things with disdain as opposed to general un-interest, shown sadness upon someone leaving the house or general melancholy if they don't get to go outside on a nice day. Once you understand the body language of an animal, there can be some inter-species communication regardless of the language barrier. Plus, when each of the six cats I've had have entirely different personalities, it seems reasonable to assume that there are individuals in those little meat-machines, since they display unique motivation, preference, and emotion towards the same scenarios/events. Who knows? Go to youtube and search for videos of animals who are naturally thought to be opposed (dogs/cats, cats/mice, etc.), and you'll find lots of odd friendships that avoid the natural predator/prey dichotomy. Interesting tangent related to this topic: in 10 years we might have computer translators for the verbal language of prairie dogs, which is much more complex than you'd expect. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/prairie-dogs-language-decoded-by-scientists-1.1322230

I'd call it a good first draft. The concept is good, but editing work needs doing. Some parts were hard to read. Constructive criticism below, take it or leave it: The verbiage seems to get a little tangled when switching from the narration of the story to the essayish bits (for lack of a better term), and I think the distinction between those two parts needs to be made more clear (italics?). There's also a couple instances of narration in the third person getting jumbled with the first-person perspective, and the first-person bits need some rewording as the sentences are jumbled, too abstracted. If I get the time later when I'm on a desktop instead of mobile, I'd like to rework (some of?) it and show you what I mean directly, with concrete examples. Writing is a hobby and I feel like I've always had a knack for editing, so's maybe I can be of some help to you.

I can't really contribute anything to this thread except to say that OP and following discussion was a very interesting theory and read. If you ever finish that essay, I'd love to read it.

A near constant refrain is that corrupt reason leads to poor choices leads to negative quality of life. For the most part, this seems very obvious and blatant in the lives of most people I observe around me. That is, irrationality leading to dysfunction. Forgive me for the poor verbiage and/or lack of example. What I'm wondering is, would the existence an evil or corrupt man who is happy with his life and choices undermine the idea of reason=virtue=happiness? Or a community of bible thumpers who never have to deal with existential crises because they can always bask in the glow of The Lord and his community approval?

So lots of people think that free-market theory depends entirely on, or mostly consisting of, rational agents but to my understanding it really doesn't depend on that and simply objecting isn't enough because I haven't been able to fully articulate what I mean. Could someone help me out here?

Desiring equity of outcome is bad, I think, but egalitarianism can refer to equality in areas that don't get evil applied? Such as equal rights?