James Dean

(obviously totally just my opinion) the best thing to do is to come clean about it to your in laws. Just like with your mom, it sounds like you told her how you felt and she attacked you (which I hate to gloss over, I have a lot of sympathy for that) but it gave you closure. If your wife feels caught in the middle, she should tell that to her family. If you're having issues with people's religious beliefs, tell them about it. Their reaction will help you get closure, if they reveal the ugly demon behind the pleasant facade, it often gives you clarity to the next step, weather that's cutting of contact or whatever you feel is appropriate.

I do notice that, in my opinion, this generation of "millennials" (by which I mean anyone born post 1990) had become extremely self conscious about it's image. If you look at the whole hipster trend, it seems those people would have our generation be a carbon copy of other generations. How ironic that we get the best that technology has to offer and all we want to do is listen to vinyl, write things on typewriters, and play 8bit videogames on a used NES. The things that our generation can claim for ourselves like memes and social media, videogames and dubstep all elicit a collective eyeroll from older generations and members of the current one as well! Did generation X feel so ashamed of it's bell-bottom jeans and disco music. Did the boomers try to couch their Buddy Holly, malts and muscle cars is a veil of protective irony? I don't know because I wasn't there. I do feel sick of people just not being able to embrace what makes them happy and this new generation seems awfully unsure of itself. Like they've all be collectively traumatized or something..... oh wait...

As I wrote in a journal 6 months ago. "No one ever shot to great height in a singe moment, but instead, every day stood on legs that gradually grew in length."

First of all, I've found our exchange to be civil for the most part, and honestly was enjoying the passion and clarity with which you debate, something I really enjoyed on other threads, I have a massive respect for your intellect. I also respect my own intelligence, and think I can make a case for my argument backed up by logic and empiricism. Obviously you do as well, and thus we exchange ideas. In light of that, I'd like to say I really experience things like this negatively, I don't see the need for "listen carefully" or "sigh." I understand that you are frustrated by this thread, and I'm trying to be gentle here, as I think there's been a failure of communication, which I accept could totally be me just talking shit, so let my try and clarify some things. There is a huge difference between giving advice and stating facts. I give advice about things subject to opinion; i.e. the clothes that one might wear. I can advise someone to not wear stripes and plaids, but the combination of stripes and plaids is not wrong in any objective sense. I can also only give advice on matters I have no choice in. I can advise my friend to follow directions to my house for a party, but his choices are totally his own. I have no interest in doing this with you, partly because I have profoundly less knowledge than you about what's in your self interest and partly because I know that you will make the best decisions for yourself. If you choose not to associate with people based on their physical characteristics, it's not the initiation of force or fraud, and it's a-OK in my book. Stating facts, which I am solely interested in doing, has no concern with the opinions, concerns, histories, objections or emotional preferences of me or you. This is why I did not find it particularly useful to ask you about your inner state and your feelings. I want to be sensitive so I'm not abrasive, but fundamentally trying to understand your needs and wants for intimate relationships would be a whole other conversation, and would have no bearing on any truth statements. The stating of facts also has no bearing on what you ought to do. If I state that the sun is 93 million miles from the earth, there is nothing in that statement that compels you to do anything. However it is incumbent on those who wish to be rational to accept that which can be proven and reject that which lacks either internal consistency or does not conform to objective reality. I wish to re-state the two premises which I wish to put forward, neither of which you have addressed thus far. (p1) People with tattoos and piercings are more likely to have unprocessed trauma. (p2) People who are consistently virtuous and have gotten tattooed or pierced exist. Lets address the first premise. Using the data that you provided, along with some common sense, we can make generalizations about people with tattoos and piercings, as we can do with most subgroups of people. The studies you cited clearly show that people with tattoos are more likely to have all kinds of negative effects which all indicate the acting out of unprocessed trauma. We also, with some degree of certainty can assume that someone covered in tattoos from the aryan brotherhood with a big swastika on his forehead isn't someone worth engaging. This is because the group "people with tattoos and piercings" is a very large and diverse group itself. We are missing the huge matters of degree that occur in that statistical category that ranges from 9-year-old girls with their ears pierced and a 260 pound 6'10'' murderer who got covered in prison tats serving a life sentence. With this in mind, a large amount of the people I have encountered with tattoos don't have any objective methodology for philosophy, have no self-knowledge, and are destructively acting out their childhood trauma. In fact most people I meet in general are that way. To say "most tattooed people are traumatized" is kind of a arbitrary statement as most of all people are traumatized so any subgroup you take from that will be mostly traumatized. Now I understand that you could make virtue the criteria and that subgroup would be all virtuous by definition, but since "people with tattoos and piercings" is such a large group of people not much can be said specifically. Obviously there's a standard distribution here... if you want to argue that the dysfunctional are the mean, then that's fine but then you can only say things about the people who cluster around the mean. But if we've already established that the average tattooed person is dysfunctional, then to say "tattooed people are more likely to show signs of dysfunction," is a tautology because you're saying that the dysfunctional are dysfunctional. of course they are! but this is a good lead in to the second premise. There exists overlap in the two groups "people with tattoos and piercings" and "people who practice consistent virtue." When you make statements of reality they must be internally consistent and in accordance with the facts. If you make a statement "any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them," then any matter can be found that is not subject to the law of universal gravitation would disprove that claim. If you make the statement "all people who are tattooed and pierced do not practice consistent virtue," then any one person I can find with a tattoo or piercing that is practicing consistent virtue disproves that statement. It's not hard to empirically prove this, and I don't think you are trying to assert that claim, but it is a fact useful in deductive reasoning. The conclusion that we can draw from these premises is this. © one ought not use the possesion of tattoos or piercings to determine the presence or absence of virtue. This is all I am really claiming at this point. I think I made other compelling arguments previously in the thread around the topic of tattooing as legitimate art which you did not address, but that's neither here nor there. I use philosophy to determine the value of relationships first and foremost. Are some types of tattoos and piercings largely indicative of past abuse? Yes, but the only way to know for certain is to ask them and interact with openness and empathy. That pretty much sums up my stance on this particular matter.

I'm surprised he wasn't just arrested by the fashion police. these people are paid to get us outraged at petty and inconsequential bullshit while they pick the pockets of your unborn children. stop letting them win. V.V.V.V.V.

seeing as how I have a pretty good handle on American sign language I'll take philosophy any day.

it has nothing to do with people personaly attacking Stef as that happens all the time and we generally ignore it. it's making light of people who have experienced trauma from spanking or neglect which a lot of people have on this forum and it is unempathetic to present that material to people who have survived that trauma as if it were a laughing matter. holocaust jokes might be funny to you, but you shouldn't tell them to a concentration camp survivor. does that make sense? *thunderous applause*

But where would that desire come from? For me it comes from a sense that the person is virtuous and rational, a quality that is easily ascertained by being vulnerable and connected to them. I don't believe I've ever given you advice. I made a strong case as to why tattooing is a legitimate art form. I've corrected a mistake that you made by claiming that tattooed women are more promiscuous, have sex earlier, and have sex more often. This was and still is a false statement unsupported by any science or evidence. I then presented the thread with 2 facts and a logical conclusion we can derive from these facts. I've overlooked all the random and nonsequitor things you've thrown in so far, I've even overlooked you accusing me of 'shaming' which was just not true. What does that have to do with tattooed people and their interests? What does that have to do with women in particular? What does that have to do with your father and how he acts? I think that if a woman found out that you had a prior prejudice but saw past it for the virtue of her character, that would be a sign of emotional strength on your part, but this is neither here nor there, again, this has nothing to do with women in particular. So are you saying that you would not benefit from virtuous people in your life? because that is what I'm advocating, that you associate with virtuous people and that virtue has nothing in particular to do with how one looks, dresses, does their hair, or pierces their body. And all parties ultimately benefit as I am only stating fact that I can support with logic and science and you are posting speculation on people's motives and characters based on an outward appearance. An employer who looks at a study that says "There is a positive correlation between being his Hispanic and being lazy" and incorrectly interprets that as "I should not hire any Hispanic people because statistically they are lazy" would close off to himself a whole sector of hard working people. Would he hire more lazy people if he did hire Hispanics? NO! Not unless he was hiring totally at random! The employer should instead interview (as he already probably does) people before hiring them to determine if they are a hard worker or not. Once he has objective standards, why would he need statistics? Let's even say every single Hispanic person on the planet was lazy except for one. He would reject all the Hispanic people that he interviewed until he found that one person without ever having to know that statistic because they would fail his criteria in their own right, regardless of their outward appearance. I have no problem that you choose to not associate with large swaths of people who have certain characteristics. You claim that it's based on statistics although the statistics would only matter if you engaged in relationships with people totally at random. I don't think that makes you a bad person. It is, however, an inferior methodology for determining the virtue of someone and this can be shown with simple deductive reasoning. Please refute the logic or the premises of my argument and enough with the nonsequitors and speculation... we're trying to have a conversation here and it's becoming frustrating with how much you are fogging. This is just pure speculation and any "stance" you have based on this claim is just conjecture. Again, you are perfectly free to live your life by conjecture (we are V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y-I-S-T after all) but don't claim that it's somehow objective or scientific. These are your prejudices and you are totally right to have them, but it will harm other people who might eschew relationships with virtuous people because there's a picture of a bunny on their ankle.

I don't meet with undesirable relationships in my life not because my life has a small sample size, it is because I have a consistent and rational methodology for finding facts, if others have this methodology, they also avoid undesirable relationships. Once you have a methodology it's either true or false and is not subject to chance. If I were randomly grabbing at a bag with mostly red marbles, yes, statistically I would get more red marbles and so would anyone else. Statistics have no bearing when I open the bag and specifically pick out the one blue marble in the bag. I am not encouraging people to associate with more tattooed and pierced people. I agree that would lead to more negative results on the whole, but this mischaracterizes my position. I am saying the most consistent way to determine if people have unprocessed trauma is to ask them, not to rely on physical markers. I'm not speaking for them, I'm presenting them with the facts. (1) Pierced and tattooed people are significantly more likely to have unprocessed childhood trauma (as we agree, is scientifically verified) (2) Not all pierced and tattooed people have unprocessed childhood trauma. In light of the second fact, it logically follows that we must use a different criteria to determine weather or not people have unprocessed childhood trauma. The easiest way I've found is to ask them, you usually have an answer within about 5 minutes.

Again, the studies that you cited only say that, at best, it's more likely to happen. Not that it's some sort of certainty. And I don't know what the "gambling with other's lives" conundrum is, but it seems pretty fallacious to me. If I convince you of a truth claim and that truth claim leads to negative consequences, how am I responsible for the negative consequences? Either I knew it was wrong or I didn't. If I did arrive at that conclusion in err through no fault of my own then the consequences are purely accidental, if I did purposely mislead you, that is surely a transgression in and of itself and needs no "gambling" conundrum.

With all the respect in the world, MMX, I was correcting a very specific thing that you said. That statement is incorrect. I don't mean to be abrasive, I genuinely think this is a very important distinction to make because it is a common mistake. The studies cited by the article you linked can only credibly claim that tattoos and promiscuity have a positive correlation. To answer your question, I do hope to present a strong case for the legitimacy of tattooing, which I believe I have done and an currently awaiting any rebuttal anyone can come up with as I requested several posts ago. Since no one has taken the opportunity I think what I said has at least some validity. The criticisms you have brought to bear are criticisms that we share. When I meet someone, I take note of a lot of things, and yes I usually notice if they have excessive tattoos because, as we both agree (and the studies you cited make a good case for it) they are more likely to have unprocessed trauma, which would make them pretty dangerous to be around. I acknowledge that valuable information can be attained through "blink" judgements, but when it comes to a yes/no decision about investing in a relationship I go the surefire route and just talk about important things first. It's easy to mistake a self-knowledgeable tattooed person for another one of the crowd but unprocessed trauma has nowhere to hide when you bring up important topics, so I advise people to not put all their eggs in this particular basket, as I do think tattooing has a lot to offer. Now I disagree that tattooing or any form of art is an "inferior way of processing trauma." It certainly is not sufficient to process trauma, but I don't see the case for it being counter productive. This goes back to my other question... are you suggesting that therapy and self knowledge cannot be perused alongside tattooing?

Not simultaneously? what do you mean by that? do you mean that it's unlikely for someone to get a tattoo during their appointment with a therapist? Or is it that once people go to therapy, they don't get tattooed? If that latter, that's a bold claim that I'd like to see proof of. I don't think that's a productive way of phrasing that. Tattooed women are more likely to be promiscuous because research shows a statistical correlation between promiscuous behavior and having tattoos. To beat on an old metaphor, not all black people are thieves, however, there is a statistical correlation between being black and being a thief. I think automatically writing off a women because she has tattoos is a bad idea, get to know her history to see if she has unprocessed trauma, it's not hard to do. And I think even then the studies are inconclusive because they did not differentiate between matters of degree... some women have tonnes of tattoos and others might have a small tattoo on their ankle or something. Having your whole body covered and having a small tattoo in a non-painful or highly visible spot is a very different thing.

To me my appreciation of music has always been focused on the lyrical content rather than the genre or how the lyrics were voiced. To this end I like any music that is about something meaningful, everything from trip-hop to the blackest of black metal. Here's my take on screamed vocals. If you're an English nerd like me, and have read a lot of poetry, you could obviously see the difference between a sing-song and rhyme laden verse and something less conventional, that might not rhyme, but the emphasis is all in the meter. The stresses and rests that wouldn't usually be there in normal speech make some of that 'free verse' poetry very interesting and very pleasing to the ear. This is kind of how I view screamed vocals, they may not be rhyming and sing-songy (which is automatically pleasing to the ear, our brains are wired to like it) but they punctuate words, they emphasize different things, they have a whole other aesthetic quality for them that accents the meaning of the song. That really is the kicker for me. If the song is about something meaningful, the vocal quality is less important to me. Now I know you got a bunch of links already. When you say you don't like a certain type of music people always assume that if you just heard this one song, it would change your mind. But here's my suggestion... if you think we might be on a similar page, listen to these next songs while reading the lyrics, and try to think of how the vocals punctuate and accent the words, the meaning, the stress... see if that enhances your enjoyment. If not, hey, we all like different stuff.

I'm a bit confused here, my point was that you don't need full brain maturity to consent to sex, you do however need the amount of brain maturity that allows you to understand the decision you are making and the consequences it will have. When this point is, I have no idea, it could be well before 16 or it could be closer to your early 20's. This is not even to mention that most people, most likely including the man from the article in question, have had their brain development severely stunted by physical abuse, emotional trauma, and violent and abusive school systems. So I do think that brain maturity maters in the discussion. I'm not sure how that follows. I could see how physiologically that coupling is more beneficial, but what about psychologically? a 38 year old man who dates a 25 year old woman is either saying that the woman is 13 years beyond her physical age, quite an astounding feat, or that he is 13 years below his physical age. Men are biological inclined to have sex with younger women, but this does not mean that it's a good idea or will lead to a long stable relationship. Men are also inclined to sleep with as many sexual partners as they can to ensure the diversity of their offspring, but we don't do this because our biological impulses don't account for a long term happiness (simply because they developed when we really didn't live "long term.") We mostly choose to ignore our base biological instincts when they directly counteract our long-term happiness or self interest; that's what the prefrontal cortex does, and it's for that reason that we dominated the planet as the most successful species in the history of the earth. To then make an argument from lizard-brain instinct seems to eschew the very thing that lead us to "biological-success" in the first place

Well, sufficiently developed is different than fully developed. I could sharpen an axe until it was sufficiently sharp to cut down a tree, that would not mean that the axe was as sharp as it could possibly be. I don't know how you would judge that, but the distinction is important. I think the more important figure than the age of the person in question is the difference in age between the two people. two kids at age 5, of any sex, who are curious about each others genitalia and engage in touching of some sort is different than a person of 35 doing the same to a 5 year old. Obviously an extreme example but the principal is clear. In my experience, men are so socially conditioned to think that they're just mindless sex machines and are always thinking about sex anyway. Many men are repeatedly taught, over a period of decades, that their value to other men depends, in part, on how successful they are at having sex with women. So I think the analogy is appropriate. In addition, the boy was probably also hit as a child and so is used to having to pretend he likes abuse. It's not as if the human brain doesn't use behavior schemas from other experiences and applies them to new experiences. If he's in the habit of bragging about the abuse he suffered (as in, "man, my mom put a whoopin on my something fierce... damn she was mad! hahah!") why is it illogical to think he would not apply the same pattern here? Again, I don't know if rape is the right word here, but certainly it's not OK, and people should be very sensitive to the boys perception of it and offer him therapy should he choose. I think you could make a point that, under better parenting conditions, a 16-year-old could be capable of consenting to sex. However it's a moot point because we are all kept so emotionally stunted. We are not infantilizing him, he has already been infantilized, we are just attempting to accurately convey his emotional state. Treating a bunch of cripples like they couldn't walk would not be insulting to them, though it would be insulting to someone able-bodied.

I think that other people here are more knowledgeable and insightful than I on most of your post, and will let them address your other issues, but I think I have a nugget of wisdom to offer here. Before that, let me just state my total and immense sympathy and empathy for the pain you are experiencing, there are a lot of really difficult things that the end of relationships can unearth and I know what it's like to have a weight tied to your neck like that. My advice, for what it's worth, is to not "stay friends" ...whatever that means. Either she is worth having in your life, and you would be worse off without her, or she's not. You're just going to be tortured by the memories and the intimacy you once had and you'll never heal. That has been my experience. the switch from romantic partners to friends is not like mac to windows, it's like going from having your own really nice computer to only being able to use the public library computers for 45 minutes every day. The point of any relationship is to be enriching to the other person and for them to be enriching to you... what sets romantic relationships apart is the exclusivity; having someone that specializes in your life and who values your needs before that of anyone else, and who you value in the same way. I think that what Drew said stood out to me as well... the sex seems very important to you. Is that what you brought up mostly because that was the nature of the problems in the relationship or was it that sex was the relationship. Were you two able to communicate well? did you fight a lot or anything like that? If the issues are mostly about the sexual side of things I wouldn't throw the whole thing out for that... it's often the case that working through that stuff brings people much MUCH closer together... If the relationship was failing before that and the sex was just the nail in the coffin, again, I don't see why you would choose to have a dysfunctional relationship in your life at all, platonic or romantic. have you considered couples counseling?

Well, I would say that it's a little bit of a mind-body dichotomy. I think it could be argued that the well-being that results from full self expression could be considered a health benefit, if a bit of a minor one. Again, let's not get confused, I think there's an Aristotelian mean at play here. You don't want to totally neglect your appearance to the point where you're wearing paper bags and not showering. Even if you were totally physically healthy, bathed regularly, maintained your ADLs, yet your wardrobe was 14 pairs of the exact same thing (a grey track suit for instance) it's safe to say that you'd feel a bit repressed or unfulfilled. I bet you, like me, have more clothes than you really need, clothes that you endured pain (in the form of work) to earn the money to buy. Why? because we like to have options, that's why you buy a lot of different clothes in all different styles for all different occasions. At the other end, people who tattoo their face and neck and every inch of their body are either tattoo artists, which is kind of a professional development issue; they tend to be more tattooed to make the clients feel more at ease. How would you feel getting your car's body detailed by a guy who owned a rust box jalopy? Either that or, like Stef very accurately defined, they are inspiring shock and disgust in others as a tool to manage anxiety. This is, sadly, very common. Also, I'd like to point out that tattoos are often categorized as "permanent" when that is not the case. Yes, they are much more permanent than a piercing or a hairstyle or a change of clothes... however they can be relatively easily (yet painfully) removed by laser. In addition, tattoos in "high traffic" skin areas, like the hands, knuckles, and feet, or on mucous membranes, like the inside of the lips, mouth, or the tongue (i know, yuck.) often wear down after a short amount of time, usually about 5 to 10 years, at which point you'd either let it fade or get it touched up. I'm not sure why this topic is so important to me, or why I spent the time to write these posts, but I feel like these are good points and seem to be well backed by both my positive and negative experiences with people "in the tattooing scene." If you can think of any counter points, even just to play the devils advocate, please let me know. (also I may now need to be talked out of an FDR tattoo. )

How you entered a whole foods and didn't walk out a socialist is beyond me. You can smell the statists in that store a mile away.

exactly. what's the principal here? that people shouldn't say rude things to you? I agree with that but what does it have to do with women, or men for that matter. That's what pisses me off about feminists. There are the issues that they have totally fabricated like the pay gap or the "ban bossy" campaign; and those are irritating. But then there are the issues that are actual issues for everyone like sexual assault in general, like harassment, and bullying and then they turn them into women's issues, totally erasing all other victims of those things. I think that is the more heinous then just fabricating shit to be victimized by.

A woman walked down the street and was compli- oops I mean harassed several hundreds of times. Here's the article- if you can stomach it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic... Or if you prefer feminist drivel spaced out with actual intelligent commentary (the Scottish accents just a bonus...) support 6oodfella, give 'im a like! I think he makes a great point. (well a number of great points, but this one in particular.) I just think it's unbelieveable that all these feminists get on tumblr and bitch about how compliments are harassment and sitting on a bus is sexist then mozy their way over to some BS site like "thought catalog" (yes it's a thing, no, you shouldn't go there.) to complain about how men never make the first move, men are afraid to get married, men aren't as confident as they used to be... we no SHIT! ugh. This world is so sick.

I would say, like most things, it's a decision that you have to make for the right reasons. Now, admittedly, the right reasons would be aesthetics and that is a bit vein, but again if it makes you happy for the right reasons then who is anyone else to tell you that it has to be because of trauma. That being said, people who are into tattoos should accept that a lot of people get tattoos and piercings for the wrong reasons. I think what Dsayers said about amputees is very astute and no one has addressed it. I'd also bring up transgendered people undergoing hormone therapy or gender reassignment surgery even the many people who get plastic surgery for both reconstructive reasons and purely aesthetic reasons. I think at the end of the day, you have a body and you can choose the way that it looks. I don't think the pain involved is really that relevant; lot's of bodily changes require pain. People who want washboard abs have to do a lot of situps, which can be painful. People who want thin and neat eyebrows have to get that shit waxed - which hurts like hell! how is that different aside from the cultural acceptance. I think to say "ME PLUS" just kind of as a cover all would be like saying anyone who likes to tell jokes and be funny is me+. People who choose to be funny because the risk benefit calculation worked out that way and are acting in rational self interest are distinct from the me+ people, and the same with tattoos. Like Freud and his cigar, sometimes people with a bad-ass dragon on their arm just really like bad-ass dragons. I also don't think the "If it was about the art, you could just get it in a different medium" doesn't hold up or make sense if applied to any other art-form. It would be like saying a marble sculpture costs $10,000 but why would you buy that if you could just take a picture of that sculpture on your smartphone. I think that would make sense only to people who didn't really like sculptures. People like art in the medium that it's in because of the art but also because of the medium itself. A tattoo looks much different on skin than it does on a piece of paper. All that aside, I think what Dylan said is very true. I have no tattoos and no real plan to get one beside a loose offer from my cousin to do it for free if I'm ever in his area (he's a professional tattoo artist) I think people who want to hold out for a meaningful tattoo realize sooner or later that it's not worth it and therefor just keep it on the back-burner. As a side note, I think tattooing is an interesting look into how art would look in a free market. So much of art is heavily subsidized and is therefor very banal and derivative. The artistic geniuses that come along are few and far between and, often, not recognized in their own time because of how crowded the market is. Tattooing really is art made with a customer facing mindset, the (good) artists out there are very aware that their art is going on someone else's body for the rest of their lives so it better be exactly what they want. I don't get the same sense of pompous vanity and narcissism from tattoo artists that I get from other people in the arts like playwrights or musicians. Every tattoo artist I've seen seems down to earth enough and recognizes that its not about them in the end, it's about the consumer. Anyway, that's my rant.

what can even be said?

Glad someone else noticed, I was just on my way here to make a post about it. BUMP!

Yeah, not only is it perverted in it's current form, but it's never existed at all. He totally fails to point out that his definition of government has never existed, either. He cites the American Republic as an example of a bunch of small towns and city governments joining together to mutually protect property rights but this is not how the American Republic formed at all! All the American colonies were founded by charters from England! Not to mention the fact that George Washington wasted no time in establishing federal dominance with the whiskey rebellion immediately after the revolution. It might. Who knows? It doesn't have any bearing on the truth value of the NAP or of property rights. It follows logically that a lot of things are immoral, including the government. See, he uses this red herring trick trying to paint anarchists like they're just "against the state" and he actually comes right out and says this when he compares Anarchism with Atheism (and mentions nothing about the validity of the arguments, only how his made up definitions are contradictory). This is completely false, Anarchism is one of the many logical conclusions you draw from the NAP, but it has nothing to do with the government fundamentally. He misunderstands both Anarchism and atheism here, saying Atheists also define themselves relative to "what a mass of deluded people find important." Again, this is totally false! Yes, a bunch of people have a delusion they call "god" but weather or not other people believe in a god has no effect on the existence of god or not. The reason that people feel the need to call themselves Atheists is not because they need to define themselves relative to collective fantasy, but because the truth is important to them and the truth is that there is not god, just like the truth is that the initiation of force is immoral. He is saying it's illogical to define yourself as an anarchist or an atheist but not a anti-rapist or an anti-santaclaus-ist or something. Which is basically like saying to a doctor, "why don't you treat conditions like blond hair, or brown eyes, or the hiccups, or having 2 feet, or growing hair, or urinating." He would say, "none of those are diseases!" And just like doctors treat only that which harms the patient, philosophers focus on what is hurting people the most, not the stupid, self evident truths we all learn before the age of 2. It just makes me very angry! He's conflating a fictional character presented as fictional like leprechauns with the psychological torture of helpless children, the sadistic and evil act of brainwashing people into believing that a magical and all powerful vengeful super-being watches your every move morally judging you, and if you disobey any one of his thousands of contradictory and loosely interpreted commandments, you are brutally tortured for the rest of eternity. It's insensitive and it's un-empathetic on so many levels.

Is it even worth reading the whole thing, I'm still laughing after reading how he defined government. Its like saying "I fully support slavery, where slavery is defined as everyone having the freedom to decide what occupation to pursue." What can be said to someone like this? Edit: I got to about page 7 and stopped, he just defines government as voluntary and keeps saying "no really, it's not a straw man, trust me." I hate this style of debate. It's like he's so petty that he agrees with all the concepts he's just pissed you're using the wrong words. I could not detect an epistemological difference between his position and anarchism.