MMX2010

Well, there you go, Ray H. I asked you a very simple question about an objectively true definition. It was a question so easy that it'd take you two seconds to answer. Did I call you names? (No.) Did I insult your personality? (No.) Did I condescend? (No.) But rather than giving me the honest answer, and then giving me the benefit of being right, you replied "I'm not biting." Why? Why, Ray? Why argue for "context" and "you can make a reasonable assumption" rather than avoiding the usages of words that seem personal and noticing that I take great pains to avoid using personal-language, always instead referring to YOUR ARGUMENT?

Objectively speaking, which is the clearer way of communicating that you're talking about the content of someone's posts? (1) You've simply read that into it, and then reframed the conversation as being about my shortcomings instead of your own. (2) You've simply read that into it, and then reframed the conversation as being about the shortcomings of my argument instead of the shortcomings of your own? Please pick one, and tell me which is objectively more clear.

I believe that you're not angry at me, but you speculated that I was being downvoted for rhetoric that was making other people angry. So, while you're absolving yourself of the notion that you are "angry, and not focused on truth/falsehood", you're also avoiding the question of whether others are "angry, and not focused on truth/falsehood". Why didn't you phrase the blue-words as, "reframed the conversation as being about the shortcomings of my argument, instead of on the shortcomings of your own argument"? Do you understand that saying words like "my shortcomings" and "your shortcomings" is personal-in-nature, whereas "my argument" and "your argument" is completely impersonal? I'm not concerned about harm to myself. I'm concerned about harm for FDR. The purpose of philosophy is to seek Truth over Falsehood, right? Downvoting for anything other than egregious moral violations harms the community by making it more difficult for its members to discover Truth. This is wdiaz's argument, "Simply disagreeing with a post should not trigger a downvote. This will drive away unpopular opinions since the member posts will be hidden. Stef has said that he welcomes opposite views and they go to the front of the queue. So down voting should only be use for abusive language etc." Do you think wdiaz is wrong? Why or why not?

Crucial question: Do you believe that men who find unicorns actually find unicorns OR do they find decent women with adequate skills and craft them into unicorns?

In my opinion, it is, because Roosh has become a philosopher. Will add more later.

@shirgall: Another reason the struggle isn't philosophical is that he's complaining about human stupidity as if it's a tragic problem that, if we don't overcome it, will doom the entire planet. But people have never been smarter, and stupidity has always been with us. And we're still here.

"People can do X." is not the same thing as saying, "People are doing X." I agree with you that they can primarily focus on the truth / falsehood of someone's argument and at the same time maintain their aesthetic preferences for how someone communicates to them. My argument is that the downvoters never (or almost never) do that. (Didn't you read my argument to Ray H showing how he didn't comment about the Truth / Falsehood of my argument, because he focused primarily on his negative emotional reactions to it?)

Being a racist is immoral, though. It is immoral to presume that an individual is inferior solely because of their race. No, Wastachman. Read me very carefully. In any conversation, people have two primary choices: (1) Primarily focus on Truth / Falsehood. (2) Primarily focus on their emotional reactions. I'm asking them to primarily focus on the Truth / Falsehood of my arguments. They're asking me to primarily focus on their negative emotional reactions. You cannot equate, "Please primarily focus on Truth / Falsehood." to "Please primarily focus on how negatively I feel right now." They are not the same; they are complete opposites. (Or, you can, based solely on the factor that "a request for change has occurred" - but that misses the major point of my argument.)

Absolutely not. I'm indicating two possible types of behaviors, and predicting the results of those behaviors. IF you downvote or ostracize for moral reasons, you will suffer absolutely no harm, but IF you downvote or ostracize for aesthetic reasons, you will absolutely suffer great harm. Do you think this statement is true or false? If it's true, we'll move on to something else. But if it's false, you have to tell me why. Your argument is not only non-convincing, but also supports my argument: IF you ostracize for moral reasons, you will suffer no harm; but IF you ostracize for aesthetic reasons, you will suffer great harm. "Tone" and "style" are aesthetic! And neither "tone" nor "style" reveal anything about Truth or Falsehood. Will you consider taking agency by asking, "How can I better manage my negative emotions so that I'm not annoyed by MMX2010's tone and style?" and "How do I better focus on the Truth or Falsehood of what he's saying, rather than upon my own emotional reactions to his words?" (Morally, I know that I can't "make" you (nor anyone else) do that, but morally I know that if you don't, then you don't prefer having a conversation primarily focused on Truth / Falsehood. You instead prefer conversations primarily focused on Sharing Your Authentic Emotional Experiences.) Has anyone ever made this argument to you before? I'll be concise here: The harm people suffer from ostracizing aesthetically is the inability to focus Truth / Falsehood when uttered by people of diverse backgrounds and communication styles. People who draw Truth from diverse types of people, whether diverse in life-experience, occupations, fields-of-study, or communication styles, consistently outperform people who can only draw Truth from one type of person.

From my perspective, TheFuzz is saying: (1) that the overwhelming majority of Libertarians / NAP supporters have little direct experience with violence, but claim to know better than policemen on how to spot violent individuals. And (2) that Libertarians / NAP supporters will wrongfully interpret forward-looking police intervention as The Initiation Of Force. For example, I trust a police officer more than an average person when determining which drunk individual is about to imminently turn violent.

You didn't ask me, but my earlier post informs my answer here. Ostracizing someone for moral reasons doesn't harm the person doing the ostracism. Ostracizing someone for aesthetic reasons absolutely harms the person doing the ostracism, because no one who does this has the self-awareness to say, "You know what? I'm totally ostracizing that guy just because I dislike his communication style." Instead, they say, "I have great moral reasons for ostracizing him! I'm a moral person; he isn't!" And nothing sucks the joy out of your own life (and the lives of everyone you come into contact with) like moral pretension. It makes you believe that you're far more moral than you really are, far more empathetic than you really are, and far more wise than you really are. Because this particular pretense only "fools" people who already share it, you'll find yourself surrounded by equally Joyless people. From there, you'll try to regulate behaviors that you have neither the right nor power to regulate.

The amusing thing is that both Merrifield and TheFuzz have described, in great length, the extent to which they DO NOT enforce marijuana possession laws. In response, no one said, "Good on you, dude." nor "I'm glad about that!" Instead, they pretended TheFuzz was making the "If you don't love it, then leave!" argument. And when it was pointed out that they were wrong to do so, they just carried on the discussion as if they were never wrong in the first place. And they also instead accused TheFuzz of being wrong because "participation in the system strengthens the system". (So he's doing what you wish ALL COPS would do, but he's wrong because he's a cop?) In my opinion, you guys are ridiculously unfocused and unable to graciously admit your mistakes. (Except thebeardslastcall, who graciously admitted his mistakes.) And you're taking out your frustrations with ALL COPS on the one (or two) cops who voluntarily identified themselves as police officers and are mostly coherent with your goals and desires.

You can universalize, "I prefer the hear the truth over hearing lies." You cannot universalize, "I prefer a relationship that lacks ambiguous-flirtation, such as negs and shit tests." or "I prefer a relationship where people directly state their grievances, as opposed to a relationship where people indirectly hint at their grievances and expect you to intuit what they're complaining about." Nor can you universalize, "I prefer when people criticize me without raising their voice and using dismissive facial expressions." The last three examples, all of which were aesthetic violations, are not universal. (And they're aesthetic because they're not universal!) Downvoting someone's aesthetic violations, which dirties their reputation among an entire community - (subtly encouraging them not to be taken seriously just because you dislike what they're saying) - destroys the open-mindedness of a community.

The main issue is two-fold: (1) PUA contains dubious tactics that could be considered fraudulent and in violation of the NAP, but by whom? If a woman receives a specific PUA tactic, and she smiles, laughs, and hopes for more, isn't that obvious evidence that the NAP wasn't violated, because she didn't react as if she was violently aggressed upon? (2) Everyone wants to say, "PUA has dubious tactics that could be considered fraudulent and in violation of the NAP." - but no one wants to say, "MMX2010, the specific technique you used on Your Mistress, or on The Woman Who Loves You Violated The NAP Because..." And when I beg and plead for people to: (1) stop using metaphors, and/or (2) own up to the horrible way they communicated their metaphors (Kevin Beal's example of the cop), I get radio silence and downvotes. Unless you're going to declare that either All Women or All Rational Women will be reasonably upset when a man does X, then you're not discussing either NAP violations, aggressive actions, moral violations. You are simply pointing out, "Some women adore it, but some women don't like it." - as if we're discussing Thai food or rap music. Secondly, one of Roosh's most famous openers is called Pet Shop, where you pose as a newcomer to the city, ask where the nearest pet shop is, and get her phone number. He recounts the story of a girl who "fell for" the Pet Shop opener, and had been dating him for some time. She told her mother how they met, and she replied, "I don't think he was really looking for a kitten." She giggled, beamed, and replied, "I don't think he was, either." Finally, speaking personally, The Woman Who Loves Me responded very positively to the PUA tactics I used on her in our earliest meetings together, AND she was reading some PUA material while I was using them. (Naturally, I expect everyone to ignore this, because it's data-that-doesn't-fit-their-presumed-conclusions - but I'm glad I typed it.) Right. But look at it from my perspective. No one wants to discuss which specific actions I've taken to determine whether they're fraudulent. No one wants to explain why they as outside observers get to overrule the emotional reactions that the Women Receiving PUA have. Everyone wants to reference "aggression", "fraud", "manipulation" and other universally despised behaviors - but no one wants to admit, "Okay, these behaviors are not nearly as universally despised as I first thought." So, from my perspective, no one wants to directly criticize specific behaviors I'm doing. Instead, they want to lump me into a category of People They Dislike, without even enumerating what negative behaviors I'm conducting. (It's all just abstract, non-supported accusations alluded to as if they were "obvious", with no examples directly cited.) ------------------------- If you want to talk about being fair, Carl, you might recognize that I told Kathryn what she didn't do. She never cited an example of any logical fallacies I committed, and I simply asked her to bring up two examples. Furthermore, everything in the link describes what you said. It is never unfair to point out what you said, and what you didn't say (but could've). Lastly, Carl, if you'd like to discuss specific grievances of what happened in that thread, please do so in that thread. Dragging your objections into this thread is poor form.

For the two of you who downvoted my question, it's important both because I study body language and because I'm a fan of VoxDay's socio-sexual classification system. And I can't determine whether the OP's father is using Gamma/Omega destructive snark, or Alpha/Sigma dismissive/challenging snark.

Citing UPB (the book, not the concept), there are two types of behaviors that cause angst: Moral Violations and Aesthetic Violations. Moral Violations deserve ostracism, because of UPB. But Aesthetic Violations don't deserve ostracism because they're not UPB. The two man differences between Moral Violations and Aesthetic Violations are: (1) Aesthetic Violations are not universally preferred behavior, and (2) Aesthetic violations do not prevent you from voluntarily leaving the conversation. Hence, downvoting is for moral violations - (which I assert I've never done, because I have zero warning points and no contact from the mods) - whereas Ignoring Someone's Posts is for Aesthetic Violations. (Note, also, that Ignoring Someone's Posts is only Ignoring Someone's Posts; you don't get to antagonize them just because you feel antagonized and then ignore their posts.)

What does your father look like, physically? Is he muscular or the opposite? Can he grow a beard, and what does it look like? And do you think he could win a fight against the average man?

Two of my threads have been heavily down-voted. Before I started this thread, my reputation was around positive 105. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43454-is-fdr-wrong-about-empathy-and-therapy/?hl=empathy And before I started commenting in this thread, my reputation was around positive 40. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/ My current reputation is negative 23. I welcome anyone who has an outside perspective to both: (1) tell me what negative things I've done to deserve such reputation hits and/or (2) draw their own conclusions about downvoting using my particular example. Whether in this thread, through PM's, or through Skype, I'll do my best to address any suggestions. Also, I have zero warning points from the moderators, and have received zero PMs from moderators indicating what (if any) offenses I've committed.

Could you please summarize a specific series of interactions that leads to your spanking your daughter? I'm not a parent, but I have a sixteen year old niece whom I've lived with for most of her life - (including now). In her interactions with her mother, I estimate that 60% of the time, she's wrong. And that 60% figure has remained steady every year of her life. I think I'm quite good at noticing the precise moment where a conversation could've been handled peacefully, but was handled non-peacefully instead. You're not the only one who has noticed this. I've only recently noticed this and have taken personal steps to correct this. First off, I've been working out steadily for about four months. And I've noticed a vast improvement in my outlook, my personal convictions, and my self-confidence - especially my optimism and desire to work. Secondly, I've decided to take up boxing and then Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu in about a year from now. My ultimate goal is to get physically fit, have my first couple of boxing matches - (where I don't care whether I win or lose, but I do want to be a competent representative of the sport) - and then release a picture of myself in boxing gear, and probably bruised, with the caption, "THIS IS WHAT A FUTURE PEACEFUL PARENT LOOKS LIKE!" (I told this to a female FDR member who giggled when she heard it, because she gets it. Libertarians and proponents of the NAP have a branding / marketing problem, and these insidious problems tend to destroy a movement's credibility and popularity until they're corrected. And, YES, boxing is a 100%-conducive to Peaceful Parenting!) Overall, approximately 25% of men have significantly low-Testosterone. And I estimate that among Libertarians / NAP-supporters, the percentage is about 50.

Gotcha. About your situation, I hate making people read articles and watch long videos when I'm insecure about my advice, but I've no choice here. This article summarizes Roosh V's experiences with the Doctor Oz show: http://www.rooshv.com/how-i-was-backstabbed-by-dr-oz-and-his-female-producers And this video clip is Roosh's appearance on the show. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2oc1as You don't have to watch the entire video, nor do you have to agree with Roosh's message, but witness his controlled body posture, eternal calmness of voice, dispassionate delivery of his beliefs, and refusal to be riled into an emotional frenzy. (These concepts should be deeply familiar to you as a police officer, though they may have different names.) ------------------- My advice is for you to always record your sessions with all children at all times. I don't know what the laws / customs are for video-taping them, but video would be ideal. If not, always record everything you say - no exceptions. Then, whenever a child voices that his parents threaten to put him in jail, reply, "I'm really sad that your mother says that to you. You should tell her that when you go home tonight, and tell her that Officer Merrifield is here if she wants to talk about it." (DO NOT use moralistic language, like "wrong", "deserve", "evil", "good", or "bad" - just use emotional words like "happy" and "sad".) There's a significant chance that the mother will get super-angry and complain to your supervisors. If that happens, happily agree to discuss it, evenly voice your concerns, and dispassionately correct the mother whenever she says, "You told me I was wrong to say that!" Also, you should make it a habit to dispassionately charm every supervisor you'll meet. Tell them happy stories about being a cop. Tell them about the good things you've done, and why you think being a good policeman is your unique calling. This way, whenever someone complains, you'll have already planted the seed of calmness, professionalism, and courtesy. And when you display those same traits during a parent-complaint, you'll get the benefit of the doubt. Above all else, you don't have to intervene this way in order for you to be a Good Cop. You're already a Good Cop, who's dispassionately deciding whether the risk of punishment is worth trying to do this particular brand of Good. (When I look inside of myself and ask whether I could risk my career, my family, and my salary to intervene in a six-year old's life, I'm not sure whether I could. So I will not pretend that what I'm asking you to do is either necessary nor easy.) Keep us posted.

(1) I find it offensive that you're asking me a question without addressing that you claimed that I "must be" feeling "dominance" whenever I have sex with a woman, and then doubled-down on your assessment when I told you that I don't feel that way. (2) Answering your question, people confuse R and K sexual strategies with R and K reproductive strategies. (R and K sexual strategies involve Getting Members of the Opposite Sex To Have Sex With You; R and K reproductive strategies involve Getting Members of the Opposite Sex to Agree to Reproduce With You.) My personal opinion is that it's best to combine R-Sexual Strategies with K-Reproductive Strategies. Stefan's advice is very K-Sexual, but these are sex-positive (R-Sexual) times, and so his assumptions, particularly about women, are out-of-date. For example, in FDR 2954, timestamp 1-hour, Stefan says (paraphrasing), "If a woman is pretty, you need to be careful. *skipping* I like to think that for the women listening to my show, that listening makes them more attractive. And, in order to do that, I need to promote the K-reproductive Strategy. I want my daughter to grow up in a world where the K-reproductive strategies are not lost. *skipping* I want to live in a world that's civilized, and to do that, I want to scrub away the female beauty-addiction from the world. *skipping* Doesn't that sound serious for you, 'You could murder civilization with your penis!' *skipping*" "If a woman withholds sex from you, it's like a man not getting a woman drunk. *skipping* If a drug existed that does to women's brains what sexual access did to men's brains, then all sex would be considered rape. *skipping* A woman who is saying, 'I don't want to have sex with you, for at least a couple of months.' is really saying, 'I don't want you to be drugged when we have sex.' *skipping* 'I'm going to withhold the drug called vagina. I'm going to withhold the frontal lobotomy called 'I have a hole in me' so that you can evaluate me as a human being.*skipping*" "So any woman who dangles sexual access is spiking your drink. It is not playing fair. And it is because she does not want you to see who she really is! *skipping*" "A woman who presents sex front-and-center, who parades her hotness; that is a woman who has nothing to offer but eggs! She is the direct equivalent of a man who goes to pick up a woman on a date with his Lamborgini." "*skipping* Any woman who needs you to be so addled with lust, in order for you to spend time with her, has such ridiculously low self-esteem. ------------------- Everything in blue is K-Sexual Strategy, but that advice and the assumptions that inform it both no longer apply. The correct interpretation can be discovered by comparing divorce then with divorce now, or getting a tattoo then with getting a tattoo now. When both behaviors were comparably rare AND done in direct defiance of society, they were significant indicators of character-deficiency. But, as more and more people engage in those behaviors AND NOT in order to defy society, they become much less indicative of anything. Thus, women dress hypersexually because media encourages them to do so, and because culture gives them zero good arguments as to why not to. Hypersexual dressing is primarily both a statement of "empowerment" and a "shit test". When a low-value man leers at a woman, he fails. But it's more important that leering indicates low value. When a low-value man hyper-ventilates or amygdala-freezes when he sees a beautiful woman, he fails. But it's more important that hyper-ventilating indicates low value. When a low-value man makes horrible assumptions about her character, he fails. But it's more important that making these assumptions indicates low value, even when those assumptions are not verbally communicated; you can communicate your disgust with an eye-roll, a sneer, a serious (non-playful) skeptical squint, or a dozen other facial expressions. When a low-value man tells her she's pretty, he fails! But it's more important that telling a woman that she's pretty indicates low value. The proper play is to calmly look at her, always in the eyes, and then "Act Like You've Had Better". A playful skeptical sneer that communicates, "I'll reject you if you introduce yourself to me." wins the game, because it indicates High-Value (that you're used to having multiple beautiful women adore you). ------------------- R-Sexual strategy combined with K-reproductive strategy says: (1) All sexual experience is positive, unless it gives you an STD, because sexual talent is a learned skill - and low-notch individuals are bad in bed. (2) All women want to primarily know that you won't freak out, become too attached, become needy, become a creep, become a stalker, call her a slut, or various other low-value behaviors after you sleep with her - and the primary way she can find out is by sleeping with you. The earlier she sleeps with you, the earlier you display horrible behaviors, and so the earlier she dumps you. This is beneficial for her; have some empathy! (3) All women want to find the best man possible right now - and the only way she can do so is by experiencing a wide range of men. (4) As soon as a woman wants a baby, the rules are entirely different. She'll withhold sex from interested men as a way to ensure that they're financially committed to the relationship before she has sex with him. Rollo Tomassi, of The Rational Male, warns that there are two kinds of sex for women: Validational - (the passionate, loud-screaming, recklessly abandoned, can't-get-enough-of-you sex that she has when she's not interested in having children with you) and Transactional - (the not-at-all passionate, quiet, you've-done-the-chores-so-I-guess-you-deserve-nookie sex that she has with her boring, stable, financially-invested primary partner). If you've never had sex with a Mistress, a woman who loves her primary partner but has sex with you when she's steaming mad at him, you've never experienced Validational Sex. It is intoxicating if you're not used to it, and the biggest mistake men make is to assume that the Validational Sex will continue once a committed relationship is established. (What instead happens is that the commitment itself causes all sex to become Transactional.) If you are used to Validational Sex, you have instanteous feedback about how a woman really feels about you, whenever you have sex with her. When the sex is Transactional, you'll know. ------------------ The ultimate result of combining K-sexual strategies with K-reproductive strategies is an immense distrust of women just because they are pretty or dressed really sexy. That immense distrust of women abandons them to the unscrupulous, non-virtuous men who'll bang them instead. Then, when young men interested in virtue come to places that claim to be crawling with virtuous people and notice that there aren't any pretty women around, they'll leave for greener pastures. My solution is to work with beautiful women, knowing that my heart could be crushed, because I refuse to abandon these women to Asshole Men in this Narcissistic, Hedonistic, Non-Empathetic Asshole Culture. Quitting the game, and then complaining that you're losing, isn't good strategy (no matter what letter you call it).

Bullies and protectors share so many identical traits that the differences between bullies and protectors is often only Whose Side They Are On. The colloquial expression for this is, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." You may agree or disagree with this, but that was Merrifield's point.

I understand. The main thing to remember is that there are certain things you never say, for fear (and respect) that there's a 1% chance your words could be misconstrued. The 1% risk just isn't worth it. I also hope TheFuzz comes back.

It is absolutely unfair to assume that TheFuzz's departure from this discussion would be caused primarily by his non-love for his children. Saying that kind of thing in person to a father or mother is likely to get you physically assaulted, and it has no place in an anonymous message board where you don't face the threat of serious retaliation for making such comments. It is far more likely that TheFuzz's departure from this discussion would be primarily caused by his frustration with either the downvotes, the moderated posts (which interrupt the flow of discussion), the fact that he's limited to two posts per day, or all of the above. I'm disappointed enough that members of FDR are upvoted for avoiding a discussion of peaceful parenting, but you tremendously added to my disappointment by wielding TheFuzz's (supposed) lack-of-love for his daughter against him.

Anyone who upvotes your comments, but downvotes mine has a major problem on their hands. You said, "As long as the NAP applies, it's probably "healthy" by any reasonable definition." Thus, anyone who thinks PUA is unhealthy, or friends with benefits is unhealthy, had better refer to NAP violations in their arguments. However, no one who has downvoted me has pointed out any NAP violations, preferring instead to refer to (so-called) aesthetic violations.