carlip

And won? She has been having weight issues most her life and I used to fall for the trap of her projecting them onto me and denying my reaction. We had an hour long talk last night. When she attempted to project I refused to take ownership of the feeling, this led to her attempting to shut down multiple times, saying things like "I don't know" or "I can't remember". To which I would point out if she has these latent emotions there must be some memory. I started off very basic asking her some of her earliest memories of feeling bad about her body image. Asking for the age she felt it, where she was living, who she was with. Then all of a sudden she could remember who was there, the colors of what she was wearing, what people said, even where they were sitting when it happened. I really did not expect to be able to so thoroughly smash a false-self with probing questions. As she felt the emotions again I just hugged her and explained logically how a 10 year old should not be concerned with body image as well as not have money or knowledge to eat a healthier diet, and she agreed. Then I concluded that series of questioning with getting her to say "it wasn't fair", like I actually told her she had to say it verbally. I'm not sure if that was the right approach, but I was in extremely deep water and I'm not trained in any sort of psychology, I guess that was the least harmful thing I could think to do. Ill keep updates going if there is any interest in this thread, maybe you're in a similar boat with your significant other and have questions I could pose?

I see that you stated you found fun, while gaming, to lead and start groups involving other people. So I would say that gaming is the tool you used to craft fun in sharing experiences with people. The game could be an awl, the group would be the desk you're crafting. It's not the using the tool that is the particularly fun thing it's knowing the result. What kind of games did you play? Do those games hold the same interest level for you? Did you do other things, programming, graphic design, sound/video editing etc? I sometimes find myself reminiscing for a time in my past where I thought I felt safe and secure, but if more closely examine the desire I realize it's very misinterpreted and that I am forgetting that there were also bad things going on. And in my life those bad things were generally worse than what's going on now. I've even reminisced about a time I spent 6 months in jail. I guess my point would be that you shouldn't spend so much time idolizing the past because it is negating action in the present which will hold back your future.

My dad is a republican, hypnotized by foxnews without really understanding that all TV is propaganda. (I haven't had cable in over a year, I just watch net flix). I'm not sure why the rings stood out as something I remember. Perhaps some sort of commitment inference?

It was a day off work, so I pretty much lazed around the house. I went to the store twice because I'd forgotten something the first time. I played some video games, grilled some steak, watched breaking bad(episode 1-5). It was a rather run of the mill day. At work things haven't really changed in a couple weeks. So I can't draw any conclusions from that. I'm working out a defoo with my dad but I have defood him before but not properly. I view Obama as a communist who is acting as a puppet to enslave the US citizens.

I had a dream last night that I was in a laundry may of some kind hanging out with Barack Obama. We were just standing around talking about things, none of which I remember to particularly. But I noticed he was wearing rings on all his fingers. I asked to see them. One in particular caught my attention, it was a sort of skull with horns which he called tiberius. The face on the ring reminded me of a cartoon I had seen when I was around 9 years old but I have never been able to find the show or remember the name. I woke up hoping I would be able to google the cartoon but I only got the general stuff about the roman ruler. I have no idea what to make of this dream.

After listening to the review of Fight Club and Seven Year Itch it donned on me that at a very early age I may have been tainted by the statist propaganda virus. I have started listening to the podcast from episode 1, currently in the lower 200's, and while I have had these thoughts my whole life it is great to have them shaken before me like breadcrumbs for pigeons. I was always a kid who would ask questions to the point of drawing anger from my "victim", teachers, parents and the like. If you told me not to do it, I wanted to do it even more just to see what would happen. This has gotten me in some trouble in my early life though I have come to understand it is best to just leave some stones unturned in certain circumstance. So I spend my work hours taking in the podcast and some leisure time picking random debates on the internet to hone my logic process to see what needs more clarification. This has gotten me to a point where I feel it would be good to help unwind the springs of my childhood to see what makes the clock of life tick. So I thought about Disney's; The Lion King. At first it seems like a very innocuous film for children to enjoy, but as Stefan says, art mirrors society. If first thought that it was a simple parallel of communism vs. monarchy, but under further scrutiny I found much more to the story. It seems that Scar represents Hitler/German Govt. Looking at the personality traits of Scar, he is smart and cunning yet also evil and physically weak. Much the same Germany was weak after WWI with reparations holding them down. It was only after he massed the hyenas behind him was he able to take down his powerful brother Mufasa. Simba would represent the United States, a young gun of sorts. The USA was just getting to its place as in the food chain of power, not sure that it wanted to get too involved in the war. So too Simba was not able to sense the danger Scar represented until it was too late to do anything. Mufasa could be said to draw on the likeness of France, just as France helped the USA in its early days to gain ground and get a feel for being a world power. Mufasa thus helped Simba grow and learn to be a king. Mufasa was killed by Scar while trying to save Simba, I view this as Frances complacency in allowing the appeasement to go on, which ultimately lead to their defeat because Germany got too close. Nala is the United Kingdom, while their spirit is crushed by Germany yet they continued to fight, so Nala remained in the pride, waiting to get rid of the evil Scar who held them at the precipice of death. Also to note the love story between Simba and Nala, who came to rule the pridelands, is a clear parable to the empire shared between the USA and UK.Timon and Pumbaa, I feel, are the USSR. They live outside the realm of the pridelands and according to their own rules. They have no specific allegiance to anyone, they just do what they have to do to get by. The USSR, being the only well established communist government at the time, also had no particular interest aside from keeping its power base. Timon and Pumbaa only join the fight against Scar when they find out, from Nala, that Simba is the rightful king. Here you see the USSR not quite willing to full out declare war on Germany. Rafiki is the character I have trouble placing perfectly, but I draw parallels from the Zionist movement, perhaps even David Ben-Gurion in particular. The physical likeness is quite striking as well! Rafiki is there to give moral support to a young Simba and give him further encouragement to press and attack against Scar. Zazu is the only character I can't really think of anything for perhaps Switzerland, but I don't really know much how they interacted within the context of WWII. The fight between Simba and Scar is also very telling of the end of WWII. Simba did not kill Scar he let Scar's own demons do the job. Clearly this shows likeness to the Nuremberg trials yet Hitler committed suicide to avoid the shame. In all the movie seems to be telling kids that fighting to get back what was birthed to you is a totally moral justification to tearing down an empire, disregarding the fact that universal suffering is the real evil. I hope you enjoyed reading this rather rough outline of a former childhood favorite of mine. It was fun for me to contemplate too! Throw some feedback my way and maybe we can work out some more of the details. Thanks!

I have been listening to the podcast from episode 1. I am lucky enough to have a job that I am able to wear headphones for most of my 10 hour shift, needless so say I cover a lot of ground in that time. I recently hit on the enviromentalism series and while it all made sense and sounded based in logical proofs, yet there was one thing that I could not stop wondering about. Yes I accept that the government, UN, Canada and otherwise, messed up the cod reserve. The basic message that I got was that governments cannot manage commons goods and that sort of thing is best left to the free market. One can safely say that in the 16th and 17th century there was a more free market like economic and political climate over natural resources. Ignoring the "kings" animals rules, how could the crown really know that someone was poaching anyway?"We drove them together into one place in such a manner that we could catch them with our hands, and when we held one of them by its leg, and that upon this it made a great noise, the others all on a sudden came running as fast as they could to its assistance, and by which they were caught and made prisoners also." - Lost Land of the Dodo: The Ecological History of Mauritius, Reunion and Rodrigues, 2007 They must have been good eating and seems to require little effort to trap, so the question begs, if fisherman had realized that keeping the cod population up was a good thing, why did people of the same era not realize this for the dodo population? Both had free market conditions, yet the dodo went extinct.

Today at work I decided it is time to set aside my fears of government and follow my growing moral compass. I went into the office of our human resource manager and got the W-4 form. (For non Americans, it is a "mandatory" form to declare automatic withholdings for income tax purposes.) After I filled it out and gave it back to him he looked puzzled as to why I thought I was able to claim exempt. He said " sometimes I wish I could get inside your head". (Sometimes I wish I could get out of it and away from the ideas that began after Ron Paul awoke the hungry giant.) I told him taxation is theft, he replied "I know it is!". So I pointed out this fact to him, "how will they put you in a jail if they can't afford to keep it up if no one paid taxes?" I think he was blown away, he sort of chuckled and I left, but maybe I can slowly chip away with tidbits of liberty and subtle anarchy. It will be my first "conversion" that is not a friend, who are all familiar with liberty to some degree. So here I am claiming exempt from federal income tax. I still must pay state and social security, but a matador only duels one bill at a time. I am wondering what the response will be from the government agents. I plan to point out that Steve miller agreed that taxes are voluntary during a senate briefing. So he was in front of congressmen, on tv and under oath. I see no reason to consider myself to have a tax liability as stated on the W-4 form for claiming exempt. I am not lying about this belief. The elected government officials who appointed this man are our leaders after all, they know best. I am curious to know if anyone has tried this before, if so what were the results?

I've even pointed out to some people that their 1st commandment(deut. 5:7-10) goes against one of the 7 deadly sins (envy)... Are these people really that broken that they cling to this flotilla of religion?

What do you tell people who say you have taken bible quotes out of context?Do they not realize that EVERY sermon is taking a bible story out of context from the rest of the bible, this would make for some very long mass if they had to put it all in context. Or is it their only defense to actually admitting it is wrong?

I feel we must also take intent into consideration when assigning ownership. In the example of the fenced island, would a physical fence be the only way to claim a stake of the island? Could signs hold the same value of ownership? If signs are sufficient, then one could simply draft a deed and not have to use any physical barriers, the owner need only be present with the deed in hand to deliver upon a trespasser. Intent could also be illustrated in this example, a man places a fishing trap in a river. He owns the trap of course, but does he own the fish once they enter the trap or has he expressed intent to claim the fish as property once he retreives his trap? Another man could come by and remove the fish from the trap and return the trap so the other man doesn't know. Would that be considered theft? Originally the man placed the trap empty, he would have no idea that the fish entered, or they could have escaped on their own. So would it really matter if another man removed the fish?