AustinJames

Is it wrong to promote religion for the sake of their charitable enterprises? http://ftrhuman.blogspot.com/2014/12/latter-day-anarchy.html

I buy most of my clothes from Wal-Mart. The rest I get from 2nd-hand joints, or sometime sporting-goods stores (for specialty items). I don't pay much attention to the place a product was manufactured. Some brands do tend to ensure a higher quality (a company like North Face, Marmot, or Columbia have reputations to maintain). I don't really have any idea what you're talking about concerning the location of fabrication. I rely a lot on the feel of the fabric. I weigh in the cost of the item, the reputation of the brand, and the return-ability factor of the merchant, and buy clothes according to a specific rubric.

It's a little disconcerting when the creator of this video claims to provide "the numbers," as though Stef has never done a cost-benefit analysis about the merits of advertising. He does not empathize with the notion that charity may be a more viable option for a modern philosophy show. It's also disconcerting to hear him say that an individual gets "nothing in return" for donations, and that the human race has somehow evolved beyond charity. This is a clear example of somebody who knows less, presumptuously lecturing somebody who has DEMONSTRATED a superior knowledge. I feel embarrassed for the gentleman who created this video.

I really like the idea. I know a few artists whom are looking for work, but they all have different mediums/styles. What kind of style/medium did you have in mind? For some reason, when I initially considered the concept, my visualization of a successful series can only be described as post-modern/steam-punk/anime. I'm excited, though. I will correspond with some of the freedom-loving, artistic individuals I know.

I didn't know there was a film adaptation, but I greatly enjoyed the book Catch 22. I'll be sure to check out the film! In my opinion, it's a mixed bag, but I would say most war films are overall pro-war. There are some notable exceptions (Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, All Quiet On The Western Front, etc.), but even amongst these there is a bias regarding the specific conflict they are depicting. Very few films succeed in delivering an anti-war message as a universality. I'm looking forward to seeing Fury. Based on the premise, it seems like it might be one of those rare few with an accurate and consistent message regarding the nature of war.

I experienced strong emotions reading this thread. I didn't read the whole thing, so let me know if I'm off-base. I'm angry. I feel like this thread is a perfect demonstration of philosophical distraction, and I resent its existence. Two pages, dozens of comments about a paper bag puppet with a few crude jokes; is this really worth your time? Is this the cause you ought to be diverting your precious energy toward? Every time someone clicks on that video, the creator is positively reinforced for his contemptible behavior. I feel resentful toward the original poster. I feel resentful toward many of the individuals whom have driven this inane conversation forward. I don't plan to be posting anything more on this thread, but if my comments are disconcerting to anyone, I invite you to send me a private message.

I couldn't possibly tell you what to do, but I think you answered your own question. A big part of self-knowledge is just listening to yourself. I think this is an instance in which you can trust your gut. It seems to me that a confrontation would be a continuation of an unproductive conflict.

I would simply glare.... End of story-- unless his bodyguards decided to detain me.

I'm so glad I found this thread! I fancy myself as something of a film buff, and I probably watch more movies than is healthy. Moreover, I tend to make my friends uncomfortable with the level of scrutiny I apply to popular films. I've seen this film, and I love the idea of a philosophical film review, but I'm having trouble understanding the philosophical significance of this film in particular. Perhaps you can help me get the ball rolling? Of all the films currently released, why did this one get your attention?

Saw it, liked it! Good recommendation.

It may be worthwhile to monitor your sleep cycle. There is a lot of technology you can apply in this regard, from bracelets and rings, to a slim, thumb-sized device you slip under your sheets. If you aren't getting proper REM sleep, this may be indicative of a more serious underlying problem. If you are getting REM sleep, but still don't remember your dreams, I would echo the previous responses of keeping a dream journal, even if your first few entries are "I don't remember anything." I've also found that various substances (caffeine, sleeping aids, alcohol, marijuana, etc.) sometimes have an inhibitory effect on recalling my dreams. Overall, I think it is important that you go to sleep with the mindset of seeking self-knowledge. For instance, I try to go to sleep with an important question in my head. Often times, I wake up with an answer, or response, to the question I asked. Give your brain a reason to dream. Good luck! Let us know how it goes.

Yes. I appreciate you bringing this to the surface. I had not yet identified this as a source of guilt, but you may well be onto something. I feel resentful on a daily basis in the face of suspected or apparent abuse. I report what I can, but what I report often goes without consequence. Beyond that, there is much that I consider abuse that the administrators don't seem to notice; or at the very most they view with disdain, but with no legal recourse. In the most extreme circumstance, a student of mine in 2nd grade exhibited self-destructive masochistic behavior. Her parents are both known drug addicts. The girl and her siblings live with their grandmother (who is verbally abusive). In one instance, their father showed up for an event, and the children refused to go home with him because they were afraid. An administrator (whom I have since gained great respect for) locked the children in her office and told the father he had to leave. The father threatened that administrator, along with several others, and the police were summoned. Even though there were threats of violence, and several witnesses, the people involved did not press charges, and the police opted to do nothing but monitor the situation, which was eventually resolved by the children going home with their grandmother, accompanied close behind by their despicable excuse for a father. Empathizing with the children hearing their father explode at their teachers, hearing their teachers defend them, hearing the police come, and witnessing the ultimate outcome, was devastating to me. That moment, along with others, has haunted me. I don't know that I feel guilty, exactly, but there is a strong sense of helplessness. Perhaps some degree of guilt is inevitable merely by being a part of the system. All I know is that it is devastating to witness.

The best defense against hearing damage is a good pair of over-ear headphones. I use Bose QC3 over-ear headphones. This allows me to play the audio at a low volume while still hearing it distinctly. The Bose are a bit of an investment, so if you can't spend $300 on a pair of headphones, Bose makes another model that has good insulation, without the electronic noise canceling, for about half the price. Sony and Audio-Technica also make some decent products for an even lower price. Having said that, I would answer the post title with a resounding, "philosophy all the way!" They're doing amazing thing with cochlear implants nowadays.

This is all interesting to ponder. I'm sorry to say I don't have much to say in direct response to the points of your post, but it might be worthwhile to share a personal experience regarding the nature of evil. The novel Perfume, by Patrick Süskind, tells the story of a sociopath in 18th-century France who goes on a murderous rampage in order to distill and collect the scents of young virgins. It is stunningly visceral and well-crafted, and upon reading it, I had the almost-immediate impression it was a portrait of the nature of evil, beginning with the shocking circumstance of the protagonist's birth. The novel is a vast allegory exploring the nature of evil, rich with vivid metaphors and brain-tickling twists. To anyone interested in exploring the nature of evil, I would recommend this book.

Yes, that's about it. Stefan usually ties the root of their question to some adverse childhood experience. In this conversation, he addressed the questions at face value. At the time, I felt he was withholding a more productive analysis by focusing on the question itself, and not the presuppositions implied by it. Professionally, I feel as though I am not being compensated fairly for my skills, time, and efforts, but the nature of my occupation (public education) has a rigid pay scale. This has led to a gradual (and predictable) waning of my motivation. This affects my ability to impact students' lives in a positive way. I feel insecure because I've been scrutinizing my market value for the sake of seeking other career opportunities, and I doubt my ability to yield a higher salary while maintaining a position in which I feel my influence is highly valued.

It's downright disingenuous that the author lumps all repressed/recovered memories into the same category with drug-induced reconstructions of satanic cult brainwashing. It seems to me vastly different to claim you have a "normal" capacity for memory, and subsequently "recover" suppressed memories, than to say, for instance, "I don't remember anything before age 12," and then go digging for memories. I don't know, and I haven't done any research on the matter, but the fact that the author makes no distinction between the circumstances surrounding repressed/recovered memories is troubling to my amateur brain. Yes, false memories should be a concern, but by the same logic the author uses, you could say it's just as likely the daughter was abused, and then the father and everyone else in the family reconstructed happy memories, because of the strong social influence on reaffirming the health of the family unit. In this article, why is it only the daughter that could have reconstructed her past?

To me it seems dating is a zero-sum game. You're either looking for casual sex, in which case you have a slim chance of stumbling upon a life partner; or you're looking for a life partner, in which case you are not likely to start off the relationship with casual sex. I think it's important to recognize the benefits of life partnership. The advantages of monogamy are objectively undeniable. If you acknowledge the benefits, and still decide to seek out casual sex, I would say you're in a "high-risk, low-reward" scenario. This is similar to (if not a type of) addictive behavior. Examining the root of this behavior may be worth your while. I don't think Stef was chastising him for seeking casual sex. If I remember correctly, it was the lie of omission inherent in his approach that was immoral. It's hard to argue that finding a long-term partner is "a losing cause." To me, that's like saying that finding the right career is a losing cause, so you should just work the first menial job made available to you. I'll get the anecdotal evidence out the way... I have dated lately, and have only found women who are interested in long-term partnership. I suspect this is because that's what I'm looking for. It is more on the rare side, but it has a lot to do with where you look, and how you look; asking important questions up-front, and being nakedly honest. This approach is not compatible with lies of omission. It is necessary to be entirely straightforward from the start. Being straightforward is one of the greatest tools you have in filtering out what you don't want in a life partner. If that's your goal, be straightforward with every woman you meet. If your goal is just to "get some," I suppose there's no practical reason for honesty, but, depending on the circumstance, that may be inconsiderate, or even immoral. What kind of relationship do you consider ideal for yourself, Snake Oil?

There were no responses that specifically cause me frustration; it was more of a lack of responses that I anticipated. I had expectations about the direction each conversation would take, and when they went a different direction, I was frustrated. I realized how backwards it was for me to hold the value of the conversation against my expectations. I'm embarrassed to admit, I think I was projecting a lot of insecurity. I wish I had more insight, but the realization is still pretty abstract to me. I have been feeling insecure in my personal and professional life lately. I don't know what in the conversation triggered it in me, but it was poignant. Nobody mentioned anything to me, I just woke up in the middle of the night, and found myself thinking about what I had said. I was expressing a feeling, but I somehow abandoned my curiosity and empathy in the process. It was a total RTR fail. A more appropriate way of addressing the issue would have been to say, "It seems to me that Stef isn't exerting his usual excess of proactive energy in the conversation. Perhaps he hasn't had his coffee... Am I alone in this observation?" If others shared that observation, I would have had the opportunity to discuss it. If nobody else had that opinion, it would have given me the opportunity for debate, and further introspection. Instead, I just made some sour-mouthed complaints and talked about possibly canceling my subscription. Even if I was right, and Stef was being lazy, I will still continue to donate in appreciation of the work he has done, and to support the furtherance of his goals. One lazy call-in show (though to be clear, that doesn't describe the show in question-- just a hypothetical) isn't enough to swing the balance of his massively beneficial contributions to the world. I appreciate all your curiosity! Your questions are helping me get to the bottom of this.

Last night I said some rather contemptible things in the chat room. My statements were untrue, and indefensible. I have been struggling to understand what compelled me to have certain expectations, and understand my reaction when those expectations were not met. To any of you whom were affected by my comments, I deeply and sincerely apologize. I will do everything in my power to make sure that it never happens again.

http://ftrhuman.blogspot.com/2014/11/feminism-part-1-gender-pay-gap.html Thoughts on this would be appreciated.

I think the stubborn confirmation bias apparent in this thread has clearly answered the question of how social programs are dangerous: they are blinding. When the economic incentives are skewed against providing the market with quality goods and services, price is distorted, and all sorts of erroneous justifications are formulated in the minds of the beneficiaries of social programs. I doubt there is anything I can write that will change anyone's mind that is so thoroughly entrenched, but it may be interesting to consider the role of private charities in the absence of social programs. A prime example is that of the LDS Church. Rothbard wrote extensively about the success of their welfare program, and it has nothing to do with the state. In For a New Liberty, page 149, he writes, "A highly successful private welfare program in the present-day is the one conducted by the three-million-member Mormon Church. This remarkable people, hounded by poverty and persecution, emigrated to Utah and nearby states in the nineteenth century, and by thrift and hard work raised themselves to a general level of prosperity and affluence." The differences between the Church's program and the state program are fleshed out, and it is clear why the private system experiences infinitely greater success. So not only is it shown that private charity does take the place of public welfare; it is exponentially more successful in achieving the ends of eliminating poverty, because in a private setting there is no incentive for stagnation, whereas in a political arena, the incentive will always be to maintain an underclass of desperate, needy voters.

My students don't pay. I teach children from low-income families, and a non-profit organization pays me. Still, I have no idea how this is relevant. My question was and is, how do you gauge your value as a musician in the absence of a price incentive?

I teach music part-time, and people pay me to do so. The price incentive is a useful indicator of the value of the services I provide. If you are being paid regardless of your market value, how do you gauge your market value?

This is why I appreciate Ms. Coulter. When I fancied myself a political conservative, I read a few of her books, and have not lost much respect for her since my conversion to anarchy. As has been said, her criticisms of the left are spot-on; it's her suggested solutions that need further scrutiny. This video was a perfect example of people entrenched in a particular paradigm, frustrated at their failure to invoke self-attack, resorting to emotional arguments and anecdotal assertions. Coulter did nothing but present facts, and yet she was met with nothing but incredulity and hostility. Whoopi seemed particularly discombobulated, like she refused to even understand the arguments at which Coulter was driving. The audience was silent when Ms. Coulter spoke, as well, which indicates to me (because there were no "boo's") that there was some real cognitive dissonance going on in response to her statements. I respect her the same way I do Rush Limbaugh; criticisms are spot-on, 99% of the time, and they're not afraid of being hated. In fact, they seem to derive the same satisfaction as any virtuous person ought from being hated. Whatever the flaws in their suggested solutions, I respect people with that level of grit.

Even accepting all the assertions are valid (though I don't), the conclusion is flawed. "Help spread the word... so that governments can correct this flaw." Who has been in charge of regulating money and lending for the last 200 years? Does the creator of this video really believe the problem is that governments are simply naive and unaware of these practices? That if we let our senators know, they'll spring into action against their best interest? Of course, we cannot solve a problem created by government with more government. These predatory practices would not be possible without the coercive mechanism of state power. They will not be eradicated before the state is abolished. What this video is implying is, "the real problem with our economy is that stupid people become involved in voluntary interactions with predatory individuals." It's insulting. Also, to say violence is caused by economic disparity is completely unfounded. I don't make much money, but that fact has not driven me to a life of crime and violence.