Philosphorous

I would not act in such a way again except in certain circumstances when I was protecting a friend or stopping somebody from bullying. I think part of the reason I don't feel bad is because I was in a victim's shoes. I was bullied. My parents did not pull me out of school. In high school, a kid bullied me until I finally got fed up with it and laid him out. I didn't want to do that, but it stopped the horrible treatment almost immediately. This actually happened a few times. Kids acted terribly toward me. Physicality ended that very quickly. Would I do it again? Absolutely. Bullies tend to listen closely when you speak their "language." In all seriousness, is that something about which I'm supposed to feel bad? There is only one person I can think of that I truly bullied who absolutely did not deserve it, and I feel pretty bad about that. I'm trying to find him to apologize, but I don't know how much of an effect it will have. I've met the person who bullied me and he feebly tried to apologize. I rejected his apology and walked away. Would you please relax with the combative tone? I'm not doing anything on purpose.

I was the second call. I just don't feel bad. It was decades ago, and a) I was bullied as well by my parents, relatives, and others, and b) A lot of the time people provoked me into fights. I had an obvious handicap and took a lot of heat for it. For example: one of the hospital visits happened because a bully threw sand in my friend's face. I ended that quickly--perhaps too harshly, but I just see that as a bully getting what he deserved. I'm suppposed to feel bad about this? If someone comes back from a prison camp he has been in for 20 years and acts like he is still in the camp, should we jump all over him for doing so? Even if he stops? Also, it's not like I'm still doing any of this. It ended a long time ago. I have been actually talking to people and asking questions instead of avoidance or talking about myself. Also, I am working hard to not draw conclusions before talking to people. It is slow but steady progress. I don't understand what "empathize with yourself" means. Don't we do this by default?

After two conversations with with SM and then listening to this: I have come to the realization that I lack empathy. I'm not sure what to do about it. This is a frightening realization as I am not young. I don't even really have self empathy. I am not suicidal, but if my life ended, I would not particularly care. I was wondering if when I encounter situations, I can post them here and some empaths can tell me how they would feel or deal with them. I honestly have no idea. I really thought I had empathy as I feel great emotional pain when I see animals and children suffering. Adults? Not so much. If you would indulge me--first, has anyone else had this realization? What is the first step? Begin evaluating all personal relationships? I have begun to do that. I think if I elminated them all I would be completely alone. Thank you for your input and consideration. (It baffles me why anyone would want to even help me--a complete stranger. Is empathy why something like this would matter to you?) *** I was thinking about when people actually ask me about my interests or myself. Two things typically happen: 1) I feel smothered. It gives me a horrible feeling and I want to leave. 2) I feel like they are lying--like this is a social more and they are just asking to make small talk. Even SM. (I'm not saying this is true.) I feel like he was only talking to me to boost "ratings" for the call in show, not because he actually cares. How can I possibly change this? I have felt like this my entire life. Why the hell would people care about anything I do? I have made it a point to expose myself to a very wide variety of experiences and activities. (I don't want to die with regrets.) I want to try everything. I do have a lot to talk about but... I still don't feel like people actually care. I feel like they are pretending for whatever reason. (Maybe to tell people about the guy they know who does X or Y since most people come across as incredibly boring and limited.)

Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief. If a Christian tells you atheism is a religion, they must practice it also as they do not believe in other religions' gods. (Aren't they now polytheists?) If I don't eat a banana this morning, it is not a religion. In addition, all babies are born atheists. I think it sounds a bit foolish to say that a 1-day-old human has entered into a religion.

I enjoy that Stefan is focusing on men's rights; it is a topic that I have been passionate about for a long time. A decade or so ago, I found this book: http://www.revolucionantifeminista.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/how-can-women-make-the-rules.pdf It is a bit dated and occasionally the tone is quite confrontational, but I highly recommend reading it. It contains hundreds of examples of "pheminism," or female sexism. Jack Kammer, the author, was inspired to write it after seeing this (just imagine if it was about black people or any other group!): The Rules a fax dated April 14, 1997 and posted on a woman’s office wall in Washington DC • The female always makes The Rules. • The Rules are subject to change at any time without prior notification. • No male can possibly know all The Rules. • If the female suspects the male knows all The Rules, she must immediately change some or all of The Rules. • The female is NEVER wrong. • If the female is wrong, it is due to a misunderstanding which was a direct result of something the male did or said wrong. • The male must apologize immediately for causing said misunderstanding. • The female may change her mind at any time. • The male must never change his mind without the express written consent of the female. • The female has every right to be angry or upset at any time. • The male must remain calm at all times unless the female wants him to be angry and/or upset. • The female must under no circumstances let the male know whether or not she wants him to be angry and/or upset. • The male is expected to mind read at all times. • The female is ready when she is ready. • The male must be ready at all times. • Any attempt to document The Rules could result in bodily harm. • The male who doesn’t abide by The Rules lacks backbone and is a wimp.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex "Japan's under-40s appear to be losing interest in conventional relationships. Millions aren't even dating, and increasing numbers can't be bothered with sex. For their government, "celibacy syndrome" is part of a looming national catastrophe. Japan already has one of the world's lowest birth rates. Its population of 126 million, which has been shrinking for the past decade, is projected to plunge a further one-third by 2060. Aoyama believes the country is experiencing "a flight from human intimacy" – and it's partly the government's fault." Government: passively and actively killing productive people for 12,000+ years!

You wouldn't feel any guilt for killing or displacing all the animals living there? I'm not trying to start an argument. If you wouldn't, I want to know how. I am envious of that position.

But doesn't that give us the obligation to protect nature rather than destroy it? I guess the real question is where do we draw the line? I mean... I REALLY like ice cream, and I like hot showers, and I like a warm bed. I don't particularly want to give any of that up, but in the system today, all of that stuff involves unspeakable violence toward nature. Sadly, about 99% of this is because of the state. I'm just tired of feeling guilty for being alive. Perhaps I'm looking for a confirmation bias but I'd like to enjoy some part of life rather than feeling terrible because something got hurt to make it happen. I was a vegan for a while but intellectually worked my way out of it. I would like to do the same with primitivism. I didn't invent any of the systems in place today, but the whole community is insistent on throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I like some of it, and I feel terrible about that. Thank you. There's much to think about here.

Hello all:I have been searching for an answer to a basic question but I have yet to find one. This is a serious question. This is causing me great distress. My life is filled with guilt because of it.If we see nature as things that we can and should use (I mean past basic survival and comfort), what is stopping us from viewing vulnerable or 'weak" humans in the same light?For example: if someone buys land and clears it (let's assume it's forest), lots of plants and animals are going to be displaced or die. Let's also assume that person clears the land for a golf course or some other luxury purpose.Obviously, we are beyond Descarte, so we can agree that animals feel pain and emotional distress. When the land owner destroys their habitat, it will affect them.There is also some fledgling science that plants also react to negative circumstances: http://www.jperla.com/blog/post/plant-sufferingMany deny that plants and animals feel pain and/or suffer like humans, which I think it a little short-sighted.For this, let's assume they do feel pain. Some animals especially are very intelligent and have incredibly sophisticated ways of communication, structures, etc.We would never allow a land developer to displace or kill a severely mentally retarded human. It would violate the non-aggression principle.Assuming there are very intelligent animals and some mentally handicapped humans, one can assume that we cannot simply discard animals because they are not intelligent.Is it just because they are not human? What are the credentials to determine suffering?I feel like "strong" humans dominating and destroying animals and plants for luxury would lead down a slippery slope. How can we teach our children to not bully or harm when we do it to animals, plants, and the land for things beyond our basic survival?Further, since government has the guns, they dominate and oppress "normal" humans because they see us as livestock--lower than them. Well, WE see livestock as livestock--lower than us. The answer couldn't possibly be because they're not human. How can we reconcile exploiting nature because we can as acceptable, yet rail against the state for doing the same to us because they can? Thank you.

Okay. Perhaps birds should judge you on how well you can fly. Or spiders on how well you can spin a web. Or perhaps the trees will find you pathetic because you cannot live on sun and water alone. The entire argument is a specieist domination cul-de-sac. If you're human, you own the Earth and can do what you want to everything so long as you don't hurt other humans--even though by hurting animals and ecosystems, there's no way to know the extent of the damage and therefore no way to know for sure you aren't hurting other humans. Watch my video above please. It outlines how absurd the non-aggression principle is.

But you realize personal actions do not bring about social change? If I were in the woods, please explain to me what I'd do if I a) Died b) Got arrested for doing so c) Succeeded and then didn't tell anybody d) Was removed in one way or another because somebody claimed to own the land. I hate that Stefan Molyneux has made character attacks popular. If I was in hospice telling you this, or in a wheelchair, or whatever--would you still attack me instead of the message? It's just data. I didn't make any of it up.

Wow. That is pathetic. "Wild animals can't act human." That's all you said. This is my whole problem with ancaps. If it's not human, fuck it. Humans know best!

Well yeah, since I'm a human. How does what you just said disprove that humans can't judge other species except by the Human Yardstick (i.e. how human they act/are)?

Please have a look and pass on if you find this useful.I'm trying to get a show on one of the "underground" radio networks. There are no ads and never will be, as I'm not interested in profiting off of this.http://youtu.be/i68x0KdCfxoOutline/sources:1) Climate changeRising C02http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/14/entire-marine-food-chain-at-risk-from-rising-co2-levels-in-waterStrange weather (like Hurricane Sandy)http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/world/americas/hurricane-sandy-fast-facts/Polar vortexhttp://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/climate-change-skeptics-winter-cold-global-warming-still-real-20140107California droughtshttp://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CALast few years hottest on recordhttp://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-2013-nasa-2013-7th-hottest-year-20140121,0,2770402.storyTrillions of tons of waste into the atmospherehttp://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/26-trillion-pounds-of-garbage-where-does-the-worlds-trash-go/258234/2) Fukushimahttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/fukushima-leak-nuclear-pacificRadioactive waters reaching the USA:http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/03/16/radioactive-fukushima-waters-arrive-at-west-coast-of-america/Leaking nuclear reactorshttp://money.cnn.com/2011/03/15/news/economy/nuclear_plants_us/Half a million to a million year radioactivityhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/3) CivilizationExponential growthhttp://hotmath.com/hotmath_help/topics/exponential-growth.html2 Earths by 2030http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/16/wwf-warns-that-we-will-need-two-earths-by-2030_n_1520449.html27 Earths by 2050http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/mora/Publications/MoraPress1.pdfOver 200,000 people born each dayhttp://populationaction.org/Articles/Whats_Your_Number/Summary.php200 species go extinct every dayhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/un-environment-programme-_n_684562.htmlRush Limbaugh article: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/05/17/enviro_idiots_two_earths_needed_by_2030

Funny; that's what they're saying about you folks. http://www.molyneuxrevealed.com/ Primitivism is the only true, just and sustainable philosphy. Humans lived that way for hundreds of thousands of years. Give capitalism a few thousand years and look at the state of the planet. Case closed.