Tyler Durden

You don't lack empathy. You actually have more empathy than most, which is why you see suffering that many other people either don't see or don't care about. As a result you've experienced so much rejection when talking about topics that matter to you that you've set up defenses to shield you from further rejection. What you call a lack of empathy is actually just a perfectly understandable defence mechanism. At least, that's my theory based on a number of your posts.

I think it's an absolutely great idea with a lot of potential. The drawings look good, only the text could use a spell check. I would also suggest you add one or two pages at the beginning to show how humans lived in tribes without governments for almost 200.000 years. Just to add some perspective and show people that there was a stable way of life long before governments ever came into the picture. If I had more time I would offer to partner up, but I don't so I can only offer my feedback at the moment. I'll be happy to comment on new pages when they come out.

Philosophically, I'd say vegetables.

I think she knows you're right and it's not about the belief itself, but about the community. When you say God doesn't exist, she probably hears something like: "your friends and family are either idiots or bad people and you can only be with me if you leave all of them behind." Which to her is like an impossible decision. So what I would advise you to do is stop trying to convince her and just start enjoying life more. Instead of going to church sign up for something else that's more fun, a language course, a cooking class, a book club, a dance class, yoga, or pick something that's considered to be good for the world, like volunteering at an animal shelter or teaching English to foreigners. These are just some examples, the important thing is that you pick something you like and that she could like as well. Show her that you can live a more fulfilling life without going to church and invite her to join you. But give her time and allow her to come to her own conclusions. If she doesn't want to join you, that's fine, if she wants to continue to go to church, that's fine too. Just continue having fun, she'll get curious eventually.

"I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do that. I was just curious."

Thanks for the answers. You forgot the link: http://www.acestudy.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/ACE_Calculator-English.127143712.pdf

Thanks for the example, I definitely see the problem now. Let me try to explain it: There were 3 mistakes, the first one is the least important, the third one is the most important: 1. You're having a discussion about something that's not relevant and probably will never be relevant to either of you. 2. Because this topic concerns a body (or potential body) inside another body it's actually the hardest question with regards to self-ownership and the NAP which means that it's the worst starting point for a philosophical conversation. 3. He doesn't express himself with the same exactness as you but he expects you to know what he means because he knows that you're smart. You however don't respond to what he means but only respond to his exact words. To him this comes across as if you do know what he means but you're trying to catch him. This pisses him off, which he communicates also, but you don't respond to that either.It starts when he says "babies are not babies until they are babies" by which he means "there's a difference between a lump of cells 1 week into the pregnancy and an 8 month old fetus". He expects you to at least acknowledge that difference. But you don't do that, instead you tell him that his "definition" is wrong, you throw a dictionary at him, and you tell him that you're right and he's wrong and that's a fact. Thereby effectively killing the discussion because you won't even address his perspective. He tries again nonetheless when he says "I think we are both smart enough to tell the difference between a fetus and 8 months into the pregnancy". But once again he doesn't express himself with the same exactness as you. He means "there's a difference between a fetus shortly after conception and a fetus ready to be born". You say that you don't understand what he means and he interprets that as "although it's clear to me what you mean, I'm only going to respond if you say it exactly right". He doesn't see any way of expressing himself in a way that you will understand and tries to end the discussion on good terms. He doesn't say I am right and you are wrong but he says "we both have valid points" which means that he understands you even though he doesn't agree with you. And then he says that whatever both of you think about it, ultimately the only people who can actually influence what happens in the real world are pregnant women, which is true. Then after he has tried unsuccesfully to get his position acknowledged by you 2 times and has tried to end the discussion on good terms, you don't even allow him that. Instead you only further demonstrate that you don't understand his point of view at all and you basically insult him by insinuating that he approves of rape. He responds by clearly showing that he is shocked by what you're insinuating, but he doesn't say anything else leaving room for you to retract your question and respond empathetically. But you don't, you stick with the insulting question. Then he sees that you don't care about his emotions at all and just want to drive your point home, so he responds with sarcasm. At that point, you manage to really really really piss him off because you immediately notice and mention the sarcasm. By acknowledging the sarcasm you show him that you do know how to pick up on his emotions, you just chose to ignore them for the entire conversation. Then you continue by telling him that he is wrong for not addressing your points, even though you are the one who hasn't even acknowledged his point of view. You haven't even acknowledged his desire to end the discussion before you started asking him if he approved of rape. And then you lecture him. By then you have shown him that the only way to have a discussion with you is if he just says yes to everything you say, and that anything else will only get him lectures and insulting questions. He shows you his frustration one last time, now in a way that cannot possibly be ignored, and acknowledges that the friendship is over. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You may have philosophy down but you have a lot to learn in terms of communication and I would strongly suggest you focus on that. Pick up some books on relationships, negotiation, and books like Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people". Read them, highlight important lessons, and practise the shit out of them. Forget about being understood for a while and become someone who understands other people. Turn yourself into someone who other people come to for advice because "you understand them so well". Don't settle for anything less.

I know, I know. But ask google and he will back me up: http://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=3gR8U4f3LMmX-Abl84HwBQ#q=stephanie+seymour+son+kissing&spell=1

You mean like this:http://www.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Stephanie-Seymour-Son-Beach-Pic-500x333.jpgAn innocent peck on the lips between mother and son. But obviously disturbed relationships aside. I agree with you, I think it's weird, in all situations, regardless of age or context.

Can you provide an example of a conversation where this occured? With specifics as to who initiated the conversation and who said what before it escalated to name calling.

Your post was clear. I just wanted to highlight that your sister has a lot of power and that it's important to focus on your motivation for wanting to change the story. If the current story works for the 3-year-old then I wouldn't change it.If she's poking holes in the story though, I would suggest you propose to the others to replace it with this story:Do you know how candy tastes really good but if you eat too much of it you get sick? Well, there's also something like that for grown ups, grown-up candy. But it's too strong so actually nobody should eat it. Your mother ate some of the grown-up candy and then she got sick. So that's why she had to go somewhere else, to a place where they make her better and teach her how to be healthy. And that's why she can't be here.

Okay, can you answer these 10 yes or no questions and tell me your final score: http://www.acestudy.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/ACE_Calculator-English.127143712.pdf Who do you like manipulating most? Are there people that you find too boring to manipulate? In what way do you manipulate people? Do you feel like they deserve what they get, if so, why?

She has custody, you want custody, so she has the power until she gives you what you want. Don't piss her off. If the story doesn't hold because the 3-year-old is asking too many questions that you can't answer then you should call your sister and tell her that. Tell her that the coverstory is about to fall apart and that you will have to start telling a different story soon. Then decide together what the new story will be. Don't tell the child anything before you've cleared it with your sister, you want to keep her on your side. If the 3-year-old is perfectly fine with the story and you only find it unacceptable because you're pissed at your sister for getting away with being such a shitty mom, then realize that you're not acting in the children's best interest if you change the story. They don't gain anything by it, but you create a potential conflict between you and their mother which reduces the chance that she will give you custody.

However many skills you may lack, you did manage to come up with an amazingly intruiging topic title. It's a really great hook and it only gets better when you explain it, if you ever decide to write a book about your life I would seriously keep this title in mind. I realize that the message is really sad of course, and I'm sorry that your childhood was so terrible. I certainly don't want to play it down, but I just had to comment on the title.

Okay, let's replace your perspective with a more accurate and resourceful one. The problem that you're experiencing consists of 3 segments: 1. you think that you had control 2. you think that this control has been taken away from you by others 3. you think that these others are currently controlling your life and will continue to do so for the next year It's understandable that you have these thoughts, but all of them are partly incorrect and cause you to feel trapped. If you want to get rid of this feeling you have to correct these thoughts, so let's go over them one by one: 1. You never had full control. For as long as you've been in Australia you've been an immigrant. The only reason you were able to get an immigration work visa was because you worked for that company. That company is the reason you got to stay in the country. The Australian government has had control over you since the beginning you just didn't feel it as much because you were doing exactly what you wanted to do anyway. But the government had as much control over you as they have now, even more actually, because you didn't have permanent residency then. 2. Nobody took any control away from you. In your entire post you emphasized only 2 words: "with certainty". But the truth is, certainty is an illusion, it doesn't exist in the real world. All we have is a spectrum ranging from complete uncertainty to near-certainty. So you made a mistake here. You got told that it was certain and you didn't turn that into a probability in your head. You didn't say to yourself "this company tells me it's certain, but they have been wrong once before because they just found out that making me a contractor wasn't as easy as they thought as a permanent resident, so even though they spoke to a lawyer there's still a chance that this information is incorrect as well, I'm going to interpret their certainty as 80% certain". You didn't double check the information, you didn't visit another lawyer, you just blindly relied on what they told you. You misjudged the situation, you made a mistake. Take full responsibility for it and stop blaming them. Yes they made a mistake, but you made a mistake too by not double checking what they told you. And because this topic is so important to you and you already knew that they weren't experts on it I would argue that your mistake is bigger than theirs. 3. Nobody is controlling your life and you're certainly no slave. You made a series of decisions that have nothing to do with the company you work for. You decided to go to college and build up a monster student loan, you decided to start a family with 2 kids, and you decided to move to another country where you're bound to visa rules that you wouldn't otherwise be bound to. All of these decisions add up and take away flexibility from your life. But they have nothing to do with your company. Your company was just there in Australia minding its own business while you were making these decisions all on your own. So if you feel unfree it's because of the decisions that you made, in this entire story they have made a total of 1 mistake, and even that mistake could have been corrected if you had been more proactive. So once again, take full responsibility and stop blaming them. Also, realize that you always have the option to quit, but you'll probably get in trouble if you do. So regardless of how you came here, this company and the work that they provide you with is better than any of the alternatives at this moment. They're your best option and they're providing you with decent money and with stability. So the main point that I'm trying to make is, take full responsibility if you want to be happy again. The more responsibility you shift onto other people the less in control you're going to feel. Life is a series of choices, it's not something that happens to you. And if you're unhappy with your situation and you take responsibility you empower yourself. You allow yourself to feel the consequences of your mistakes, learn from them, and grow. You have only 1 year left to learn how to make the best of an unfavorable situation, make sure you get as much out of it as you can.

You're welcome. Yes I think it would be a good idea to turn it off by default. And the second idea might be good as well, I would definitely try it out.

It looks great, you guys really did an awesome job! As for constructive feedback: When you click on a title it automatically starts playing and it also automatically loads the entire podcast. I think this is going to cost you unnecessary bandwith. Because when people click on a title that doesn't necessarily mean that they want to listen to the podcast (right away). They might just be scrolling through them and clicking on titles to see the descriptions. So in order to save you guys bandwith and money I think it would be better if the podcasts only start playing and loading after someone clicks the play button.

Working on self-knowledge is like laying the groundwork for a skyscraper. It's a hell of a lot of work and it's not always fun. Especially when it's cold and when all the people around you are just setting up tents and huts. Even when you've completed the task it may still feel unrewarding because after all that hard work you still don't have anything to show for it, you don't even have a roof over your head. You may have the groundwork but you still need to build the entire damn skyscraper. But once you start on the actual skyscraper you soon notice how much easier it is than you would have expected, simply because you laid the groundwork first. And before you know it you've built a few stories and suddenly your building is the tallest building around. Other people even start to imitate you because they're so impressed, but their buildings keep collapsing because they don't have the groundwork. And meanwhile you're starting to enjoy the construction process, you're enjoying it more every day, and your skyscraper keeps growing and growing. Other people start asking if they can rent rooms in this magnificent skyscraper of yours and nobody understands how you've been able to build something so impressive in such a short amount of time. And you will look back on those early days when it was cold and rainy while you were digging around in the dirt, and you'll understand why it all looked so grim, but you'll realize that it was more than worth it.

Sure, I'll give you my thoughts. Your family history has been "really rough", your mother was "highly abusive" and your father has always been "her protector" who has "helped her rationalize her abusive behavior". I would argue that at least partly as a result of that you have chosen a career path that has lead you to a job that you "dislike terribly" for which you have incurred a debt, and on top of that you are also in therapy to deal with unresolved childhood trauma. Simply put: you have past problems to deal with, you have present problems to deal with, and you are in debt. This basically means that you have more than enough on your plate and you're not in a position to help anyone else. I can understand that you feel like you're abandoning your father on his death bed, because if you continue with your plan you'll be physically leaving the house where he is dying. But in reality, carrying out the plan that you had already made arrangements for is not the same as abandoning him. It's not like you heard that he had cancer and suddenly decided to move out, this plan was already in place. Be very clear about that to yourself. Another point that I think is very important to realize is that his future is not set in stone, it's uncertain. You don't know how long this process is going to take. I did a quick search on esophageal cancer and pulled this up from a cancer research site: "Of all those diagnosed with oesophageal cancer, about 42 out of every 100 people (42%) will live for at least 1 year after they are diagnosed. But unfortunately, only about 15 out of every 100 people (15%) will live for at least 5 years. And around 12 out of 100 people (12%) will live for at least 10 years." So yes, he has a 58% chance of dying within a year. But he also has a 12% chance of staying alive for another 10+ years. And if that happens it may very well be 10+ years of misery and uncertainty. He has a 42% chance of still being alive a year from now but he may be worse off than he is today, if you decide not to leave now will you be able to leave then? How long are you prepared to put your life on hold for a dying man? So my advice is this: Continue with your plan, focus on your own life. You're on your way in, he's on his way out. If you think he deserves it you can still support him, but do it via phone and via visits. Don't put your life on hold for an indefinite amount of time for a dying man who didn't give you the childhood you deserved.

It's not unethical, it's not assholey, but it is a very bad business strategy. It appears like you're restricting the actions of your supplier, but you're actually restricting your own actions. Let me illustrate this: Let's say you buy 100 items a week from your supplier with the deal that as long as he's selling to you he can't sell to anyone else. In the beginning this works fine, because it's a new market so nobody else wants to buy. But if you're successful at selling 100 items a week at some point somebody else will want to do the same thing. If there are multiple suppliers he can go to another supplier and you immediately lose your monopoly. In that case the deal you made was worthless to begin with, so let's assume that your supplier is the only one. If he approaches your supplier and wants to start small with 10 items a week your supplier might say no because of the deal you have with him, in which case your monopoly is still in place, but it wouldn't have made a big difference if some other guy was selling 10 items while you were selling 100. But your supplier might also think "ah well, it's only 10, no harm in that, and Thought Terrorist is never gonna notice anyway." Which is not a big deal if you don't notice, but if you do, you're faced with a big dilemma. Are you going to walk away from your supplier, the one and only supplier, over these 10 items, while you are selling 100, and lose everything, in order to keep your word that you wouldn't buy from him if he sold to anyone else? In that scenario, keeping your word would mean you lose everything. But maybe you know your supplier well, maybe he's a trustworthy guy who always keeps his word. In that case he will tell the other guy that he's not going to sell him 10 items because he has a deal with you. Then the other guy will ask him "okay, so Thought Terrorist is only buying if you don't sell to anyone else, how much is he buying?" And your supplier will answer "100." And the other guy will say "well okay, then I will buy 110." And your supplier will say "deal." Your supplier will sacrifice you as a customer because he can sell more by selling to someone else who doesn't even demand exclusivity, and with you out of the way the new guy can take your place. He can sell 100 of his items to the people that would otherwise have been your customers, and he can sell the other 10 to the people he had in mind when he approached your supplier. By demanding exclusivity you're creating an all-or-nothing situation for yourself which will inevitably lead to nothing if you stick with it.

I complete agree with your main point and I think it's very good that you're writing about your traumatic childhood experiences. It must have been very difficult growing up with a sadistic dad like that. I also think it's good that you're sharing your experience on the board. Completely besides that main point though, I find putting living crabs into boiling water and cooking them until they die a very cruel thing to do.

They would try the hunter-gatherer thing, but because of their amnesia and the lack of other humans to learn from they would be the most poorly adapted humans to have ever lived, and they would probably die within days, well before they ever invented language, or anything else for that matter.

Okay, the first thing you need to do with regards to women is relabel the categories. There is a big, BIG, difference between attractive and pretty. You say that so many of the most attractive women are not interested in virtue, and that's simply not true. Because the women you're refering to are not attractive at all, they're pretty, but they're not attractive. They're actually really empty and boring. So don't mix that shit up. There are pretty girls and there are attractive girls. Pretty girls look like this: http://club-cx.ru/uploads/monthly_01_2013/post-588-0-94012900-1357655050_thumb.jpg and attractive girls look like this: http://kleyau.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/smile.jpg That particular girl might be a little too young, but I think you can see why I chose that picture. You want a girl who can smile like that. A girl who wakes up next to you in the morning, with her hair all messy and a smile like that on her face who says "come here, give me a tight hug djones42387!" So, forget the concept pretty, redefine the word attractive, and start ranking the girls in your life on how genuine their smiles are. Now, as for the goal setting. Don't make finding a woman or starting a family your main goal. You want your main goal to be something more solid than that, something that inspires you and keeps you stable. Let's use Stef as an example because we're all familiar with him. His main goal is making the world a better place by spreading philosophy. He's truly passionate about that and that's what makes him such an inspiration for so many people. This is what defines him as a man and the fact that he has a wonderful wife is partly a result of that, she is drawn to him because he is a man with a vision. Of course this is just an example and you don't have to become like Stef. But if you want a fulfilling relationship I strongly recommend you find out what you are most passionate about and start putting yourself out there. The more you show the world what you're passionate about and what you're capable of the more virtuous and like minded people you will attract, and some of these people will be women. But don't make that the main focus, make self expression the main focus.

I don't agree at all. The countries that are closest to anarchy are the ones where people don't like guns. Countries where normal people don't have guns and don't want them either. Countries where police officers rarely use their guns because they don't think it's necessary and don't enjoy pointing them at people. Countries with only a small millitary because nobody sees any reason in having a big one, and nobody wants to be a soldier anyway. The further you are from violence, the closer you are to anarchy. And every country still has some way to go, but the US is certainly not ahead.

Great work indeed.