MMX2010

I don't care whether it's possible for your interactions to improve the parenting of his daughter. I care whether they're the highest possible way of improving the parenting of his daughter.

You have to read Carl's first post, then TheFuzz's reply to Carl, then Carl's reply to TheFuzz, then TheFuzz's ultimate reply to Carl. Carl began with emotionally manipulative language and insults - (and I'm not the only one who called Carl out for these insults). Carl continued with the emotionally manipulative baiting by asking, "What do you do when someone threatens you? Smile at them? I sure don't!" And so TheFuzz replied, "Of course I smile at them. :D" He replied this way because: (1) he's a cop, and as a cop, he expects everyone to realize that he gets threatened all the time, and professional courtesy demands that he respond with amusement every single time, and (2) because amusedly smiling at people who use emotionally manipulative language is the most effective way to troll them, trigger them, and get them to either apologize or escalate. Carl chose escalation. ---------------------- The question, "If you don't like living in a country whose policeman can arrest you for taking drugs, why don't you just leave?", was twisted into, "If you don't like living in a country that has laws, then why don't you just leave?" The second interpretation, (the strawman), was used to accuse TheFuzz of "not really being a libertarian". But the simplest interpretation was that he was responding to Carl Bartelt's repeated concerns that he'd be arrested for drug possession.

I refused to acknowledge them because of your repeated pattern of pretending that what's true for you is true for everyone. Examples include, "As Blackout pointed out, having sex is an intimate act in which you develop emotional attachment to someone." (This is not true for everyone. They are not true for me, and it isn't automatically true that everyone who isn't like this is unhealthy.) And, "If you have a friend with benefits and you have sex on a consistent basis, you are training your body to prefer them over others. To know of them sleeping with someone else, even in the non-jealous type of person, STILL invokes a degree of jealousy." (Neither of these statements are true for everyone. They are not true for me, and it is not automatically true that everyone who doesn't feel this way is emotionally unhealthy.) And, "I could be wrong, but judging from the friends I've had, polyamory tends to require a great deal of mental gymnastics to be okay with enacting. Whereas my friends who are in functional healthy monogomous relationships, they don't have to justify themselves to anyone. They're just A COUPLE and don't have to worry about getting jealous of other people to be sharing their partner with because of the agreed monogomy and exclusivity." (When you use the dismissive word "mental gymnastics", you close yourself off to the possibility that people are smarter than you and that the evidence that they're smarter than you is that you don't get it.) And, "Mental gymnastics refers to constantly reinforcing the idea to ones self and others that "yeah we just have sex on the side. They're a cool friend too, but I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with them because x, y, and z," whereas (again only from my experience and what I've witnessed), monogomous relationships require less reason to justify." (Monogamous relationships require LESS reasons to justify? That is so utterly wrong, since monogamous relationships - particularly marriages in traditional societies have ALWAYS BEEN the most serious, most life-changing events that people, (especially women!), have ever experienced. To claim that non-monogamous relationships require more justification is completely off-base.) Finally, "As I mentioned in my response to MMX, you are desiring exclusivity and she's not willing to accept that. Therefore, it creates some ambivelance in you. How much do you have to reason yourself into thinking that it's okay to just have her on the side, while there is that possibility she does want to work on herself and become monogomous. Whatever it is that's causing her to think she can't handle the monogomy...does she not realize she's already acting in nature without defining it for what it already is?" It has never been true that I'm "desiring exclusivity and she's not willing to accept that." I've never indicated this. You just went into your head and made it up. From this assumption, you have this long-string of accusations, all of which paint me as "ignorant" of her desires - when it is you who are ignorant of the entire situation. (Kathryn, this is yet another example of the Abstract, Intellectual Distance approach that members of FDR take when "understanding" relationships. They think they can just go into their heads and, without asking clarifying questions, declare-with-100% confidence what you're really feeling, and what you really should do.) --------------------- Even something seemingly harmless as Patrick's words here are extremely callous and harmful. He says, "Women are much better manipulators than us men. Many of them will bide their time even. The moment you have to drop your guard (and it will come) she wont thank you for it. You sold her a lie she'll say. I thought you were the boldest, bravest and most gallant knight of the realm." He hasn't asked, but I'm currently involved in a two-months long romantic relationship with a mid-20s atheist, anarchist, highly intelligent chick, who also is trying to enter into the modeling industry. Yes, I used PUA tactics in the initial stages. Yes, she loved them oh-so-very much. And, yes, she knew what I was doing because she reads the same blogs that I do. If I follow his advice and drop the PUA tactics, seeking "emotional authenticity", what will PatrickC provide me if following his advice causes her to lose attraction for me? Why, nothing, of course. And if I ignore his advice, what will he say if ignoring his advice keeps her around? (Well, yes, you're keeping her around now, but I swear to the Old Gods and The New that e-v-e-n-t-u-a-l-l-y the mask will fade and she won't thank you for it.) Which basically means, 100% of any success that I derive from PUA is invalid, and that any future failure - including one that occurs 20 years from now - is evidence of "the risks and dangers of PUA". Anyone who argues along these lines is simply not being rational, not being helpful, and not actually wanting me to succeed.

It's not fair of you to mention "logical fallacies" without citing a single example. It's also not fair of you to assume that everyone who is getting angry at my questions is acting rationally. One of my funniest mottos is, "When someone else is angry, we naturally assume that they're not thinking clearly. But when we are angry, we naturally assume we have access to such clarity-of-thinking that the other person is too stupid to understand. Ironic, no?" Based on my motto, it would be more rational to assume that all angered parties are behaving irrationally, because they're angry. Secondly, I mention "the authority of PUA" to make a distinction between: (1) those who don't want to study PUA, but want to believe they supremely understand it, and (2) those who are at least willing to try to understand PUA before giving their strong opinions about it. Matt D. and PatrickC get props for accepting my offer to read Roosh's book. Kevin Beal and Rainbow Jamz get anti-props. In another thread, I spoke about a form of art that incorporates the Privileged Position. Basically, when you look at an artwork from any random spot, the artwork makes no sense. But when you stand in just the right spot, the Privileged Position, then the artwork suddenly makes sense. Many people imply that the Privileged Position with PUA (and relationships) is Abstract, Intellectual Distance, meaning, "I don't need to study it up close, nor to I need to personally get involved, to actually get it." Others, including myself, imply that the Privileged Position is Emotional Closeness, meaning, "I need to get up close to something, and get personally involved with it, in order to actually get it." Not only have I never done this, but it has been repeatedly done to me. Telling me I'm acting out of fear, when I'm not, is ad hominem. Telling me that I've no interest in self-knowledge, when I do, is ad hominem. Telling me I'm acting out of domination, when I'm not, is ad hominem. As you said, you're willing to give examples, so give me the two best ones and I'll counter-argue. No, there is a correct way to approach relationships. The wrong way is speaking from Abstract, Intellectual Distance - pretending to know what someone feels and assuming (based on nothing but those pretenses) that the person you dislike is going to crash and burn. The right way is speaking from Emotional Closeness. You mentioned that you suddenly want to have a baby? A man worthy of being your husband must act from Emotional Closeness. An Abstract, Intellectual Distance reaction would be something like, "Well, she wants a baby. Mothers want resources. So let me go to college to study something I'm suddenly interested in, even though that field requires seven years of school to master and about ten years of experience to make money." From his Abstract, Intellectual perspective, he's trying to give you resources, right? But from the Emotional Closeness perspective, he's completely clueness - because Mothers don't just want resources; they want a steady stream of resources, NOW. And so any man who pulls the "studying a new field" approach is going to be dismissed as "not really trying". So I appreciate your feedback and hope you'll follow with examples. But I think you're dead wrong here.

Barbarossa: A guy who has never embraced PUA, has never extensively lived it, but hates it anyway. You think he's the one best qualified to discuss its merits and demerits? When you claim the blue-colored sentences to be true, are you saying: (1) they're true for all men, period, (2) they're true for most men, including me, (3) they're true for some men, including me, or (4) they're true for some men, including me, or (5) they're true for some men, not including me? It will "fall on deaf ears" because you are comparing the PUA of old, (Neil Strauss and Mystery) with the PUA of Roosh. And I keep claiming that Roosh's perspective is extremely different from those two. I've even offered to give people free copies of Roosh's book, so that they'll see how Roosh has changed the perspective. To use an analogy, it's like someone refusing to study Stefan because he's a philosopher, based on his negative experiences with Plato and Aristotle. While it's wonderful to have grounding in the originators of a perspective, assuming that the perspective hasn't changed - especially when I keep telling you that it has changed - is closed-minded. Stefan, himself, repeatedly (and correctly) claims that he has revolutionized philosophy, and it's a shame whenever people refuse to give Stefan a full chance to back up his claim of revolutionizing the field.

http://wakeup-world.com/2013/06/04/autistic-boy-discovers-gift-after-removal-from-state-run-therapy/

I'm also a member of the Roosh V Forum, where I got this humorous idea. Walmart is a form of Welfare for the working poor. College loans are a form of welfare for the middle class, especially the unemployable feminists among them. And there's no bigger form of welfare than the army. So while Carl Bartelt complains about police-officers being on the dole, he doesn't see just how many people are on the dole. I'll post more about your situation soon. It requires a lot of thought, and I can only blast short posts right now. No doubt participation in the system strengthens it, but everyone participates in the system. By paying taxes, you participate in the system. By being alive, you count as a statistic that justifies the system. You always participate in the system, until you're dead. So I always view as extremely hypocritical and/or short-sighted every "you shouldn't strengthen the system" argument. So while I do appreciate both your clarification and the way you voiced it without snark or downvoting, you're still suffering from the problem I described. (1) You think that "the system" actually exists, even though it does not. (2) You think that abstract intellectual discussion of theoretical principles is the supreme lever of this discussion. (Aside: I don't know if you study art, and my knowledge of art is extremely limited, but I know that there used to be artwork that encapsulated the notion of the Privileged Position. Basically, if you looked at the artwork from any random place, the artwork didn't make any sense. But if you stood in the Privileged Position, the artwork instantly made sense. You, jpahmad, Carl Bartelt, and some others believe that Abstract Intellectual Distance / Knowledge of Libertarianism is the Privileged Position, but the true Priviledged Position is Interpersonal Relationship Knowledge / Practical Relationship-Based Advice.) Hopefully, he'll answer those questions. Or maybe the downvoting will drive him away. Wouldn't it be sad if the downvotes drove him away, especially when his daughter needs him to be a much more peaceful parent? (And do my questions here make you understand why I was so incredibly put off by both Carl Bartelt's line of questioning and jpahmad's dismissive reaction in this post?) https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44180-yes-im-a-cop/page-2#entry403531 Secondly, I also appreciate the emotionally vulnerable statement, "I must admit it got harder for me to be empathetic with talking to him once his nature became more apparent." But I also think that, whenever a child is in need, your emotions don't matter all that much. I'm not saying that people should have a suicidal approach to intervening when children are in need, but I am saying that the focus on your own feelings of hurt are the last thing that any needy child wants or deserves. Thirdly, there was no "flip in TheFuzz's nature". (1) Carl Bartelt used emotionally-driven hyperbole to defend his desire to smoke weed, by saying, "I can tell you one thing, I wouldn't give two flying fucks what you thought about liberty if you had me in the back of your squad car for cannabis possession. You'd be exactly like the rest of the cops, "just doing what i see is right". Taking away someone's freedom is taking away someone's freedom." (2) TheFuzz replied with a rational argument. (3) Carl Bartelt escalated by asking Merrifield, "How do you respond when someone threatens you? Do you smile at them? I sure don't." (4) TheFuzz replied, "I don't feel as if I'm improving the world. I feel that I have improved individual's situations in many cases. Actually, I do smile at people when they threaten me." Did you notice the TheFuzz is a cop? Haven't you realized that idiots threaten police officers all the time, and that professional courtesy demands that police officers laugh off these very threats? Haven't you also realized that police officers - by virtue of their weapons training, physical training, and constant realization that they could die on the job - function best when they laugh off these threats? Meanwhile, Carl Bartelt has never physically built himself up, has never faced danger in a boxing ring, and has never subdued a drug-addled threat-to-society. So what else was TheFuzz to do other than laugh off Carl Bartelt - (well, besides adding a rational argument to his dismissive laughter? Oh crap, TheFuzz did that - but his argument was flagrantly misinterpreted by the no-longer-participating jpahmad.) I'm glad that you tried. I've already covered that there was no "flip in attitude", so I won't repeat myself. But the short answer is that police officers put themselves into these "impossible situations" because if they don't, someone else will. And that someone else will be much more dangerous. I get a lot of heat on this board for having a Mistress, but my position on that has always been: (1) The philosophical arguments against having a Mistress are exceptionally weak and emotionally-driven. (2) If a woman wants to cheat on her fiancée, she's going to cheat on her fiancée, so she's better off being with me - someone who can approach the situation with more empathy, self-control, and tactical efficiency than the overwhelming majority of men. (3) If the people who shout me down as "immoral" would ask me pertinent questions about my experience, I can pass on knowledge related to "How will I know when my wife is having an affair?" and "What particular qualities do you possess that her fiancée doesn't possess?" My position on police is the exact same, except creating and encouraging non-dangerous police officers is infinitely more beneficial than my having a Mistress.

So when are you, Kevin, and Matt D. going to start doing that? When Kevin Beal first claims that I both (1) "must be" feeling fear whenever I feign emotional disinterest, and (2) "must be" "admitting that I believe that I have no value to her", and subsequently ignores my objections that I don't feel that way, he's refusing to examine the evidence for the pros and cons of certain actions that don't violate UPB and act on that information accordingly. When Matt D. first claims that I "must be" either feeling "domination" or desiring to "dominate", and subsequently ignores my explanation that I don't feel that way, he's refusing to examine the evidence for the pros and cons of certain actions that don't violate UPB and act on that information accordingly. And when you claimed that women react to the (perceived) emotional manipulations of PUA by "finding no harm in it", you were also refusing to examine the evidence for the pros and cons of certain actions that don't violate UPB and act on that information accordingly. (You also didn't acknowledge my more accurate description of how they feel about the emotional manipulations of PUA: happiness, shock, anticipation, and joy.) So while you (collectively) claim to be open-mindedly examining the pros and cons of PUA, you're doing the exact opposite; you're making up evidence by going into your heads and wrongfully accusing others of feeling what they do not feel. This has the overall effect of shouting down the real evidence of the pros and cons of PUA, (which explains the downvotes). The funniest part is that you're not even a majority opinion. The majority of women respond positively to PUA. Don't their emotional reactions matter much more than yours, since they are the recipients of PUA behavior? Logically speaking, this is obvious - but neither you, Matt, RJ, nor Kevin want to follow this logic. Morally speaking, this is obvious, because women are free to choose whomever they want to sleep with, for whatever reasons they please - but neither of you want to follow this moral premise. However, the saddest part of all is that you (collectively) don't realize that the absolute worst emotional experience that a woman seeks from a potential male suitor is He Who Tells Me That My Feelings Are Wrong, Without Good Evidence. It is the biggest turn-off to women, but this never factors into your evaluation of the question, "Where have all the virtuous women gone?"

Your original words don't say, "dressing up as a police officer". They say, "If I present myself as a police officer, wear the uniform and a badge, does that make me a cop?" If you had said, dressing up like a police officer, I wouldn't have had any problems with what you said. Worst of all, I like talking to cops on message boards. And they will all agree that presenting yourself as a police officer means directly telling someone, "Police! Can I see your driver's license." or "Police! Freeze!" So your use of word choice was very poor, and you're representing your words as completely different from what you actually said. ----------------- Furthermore, I gave multiple examples: (1) You directly told me, "By slipping in insults under the pretense of a compliment, you aren't trying to actually become a dick. You only do it because you believe it will get you women's affections." (2) You directly told me, "You want to be with a woman you find interesting (at the very least), and you said that you care about them (and I assume don't want them to feel insecure, generally). You just want to pretend you don't feel those things so that she will like you. That's not the same thing as pretending to be more confident than you really are." (3) You directly told me, "She becomes interested in the image of yourself you project which betrays your actual feelings for her, meaning she doesn't like you, but who you're pretending to be. Your actual feelings are bottled up inside out of fear that she won't find you attractive." (4) You directly told me, "I am not an expert on PUA, but it's my understanding the these men are pretending to be something that they are not so that they can be with women who like them for being something other than what they really are. I don't feel as sorry for the women in that arrangement as I do the men. I've pretended to be someone else enough for one lifetime. And any satisfaction I got by bedding a woman who thought I was something other than what I am, would be a very fleeting satisfaction." (5) You directly told me, "It's not the women that I'm concerned about so much as it is the fact that PUA's are lying to themselves in order to get women. It is a confession that you don't think you are valuable enough for her. I can't respect a woman who operates so primitively, as described by PUA's. Why would anyone want to be with someone that they don't respect? In our very first Skype conversation, you reminded me of Stefan's brilliant analogy about the man trapped in the invisible cage: "He's responsible for his refusal to discuss certain topics." That you seize on the "dressing up as a police officer" example - in a way that completely changes what you actually said - while refusing to address the other examples of your poor behavior of "telling me what I, and all PUA's, must really be feeling - and refusing to believe us when we say we don't feel that way" - reminds me of the man trapped in the invisible cage.

Right, so let's talk about drunk driving (which no one here is doing) in comparison with withholding emotional expressions of interest from a woman during the early stages of dating (which is the focus of our disagreement). Secondly, the phrase "consequences similar to violating UPB" is important, but you didn't apply it to "withholding emotional expressions of interest from a woman during the early stages of dating" because doing so invalidates your argument. Violating UPB produces consequences that no rational, reasonable human being would voluntarily choose: being murdered when you want to live, being raped when you'd rather not be raped. But violating Kevin Beal's, Rainbow Jamz's, and Matt D's exhortations to "share 100% of your emotional experiences with a woman" makes the majority of women HAPPY. No, Patrick. They smile whenever it happens. They come back for more. They eagerly look forward to it happening again. That's NOT "seeing no harm in it"; that's "making them happy". The problem with your argument is that you've shifted from UPB to just PB. If your argument describes behaviors that are universally seen as virtuous, then you've got a very strong argument. But those behaviors are not even close to being universally seen as virtuous. The men who disagree with Rainbow Jamz, Kevin Beal, and Matt D. have wonderful sexual experiences with women who look forward to seeing them. The women who aesthetically prefer to disagree with their position experience joy by following their biology in a way which oppresses no one and violates zero universally preferred moral perspectives. ---------------------------- Overall, it appears that certain people cannot bear that other people are happy despite disagreeing with them. To combat seeing that these people are happy, they use language like "see no harm in it" to describe a woman who's obviously (to the non-agenda-driven) smiling in joy. And they repeatedly tell men like me what I "must be feeling" without asking me what I'm feeling, and without accepting my self-reported emotions. When called out on this behavior, they double down, triple down, and use evasive snark (like Kevin Beal's, "Honestly, I had no idea that dressing up as a police officer was illegal, and I certainly don't think that it's immoral (even if other people do). I would have used a different example if I knew he was going to hang on to it for dear life." And, yes, they downvote rather than address my criticisms of their objectively observable behaviors. Compare that to their utterly pretentious way of asserting that I feel what I don't feel, and you'll see who's really interested in debating the facts surrounding male/female sexuality.

That's not what I said. The pronoun "these" refers to our aesthetic-preferences to (1) in your case, handle the first question without considering the second, and (2) in my case, to handle both questions simultaneously.

Jpahmad, if you're going to accuse anyone of being non-empathetic, you should start with Carl Bartelt. Not only did he never attempt to discern why TheFuzz spanks his daughter, but he is also impervious to arguments that his drug habit negatively affects his community. In a world where people try (often unsuccessfully) to ensure that their purchases of legal consumer items like cars, clothes, and food doesn't either damage the environment nor place workers into exploitive slave-like conditions, Carl Bartelt buys illegal drugs, which are maintained through obvious violent means that often result in the deaths of children through gun violence. TheFuzz, being a cop, has to directly deal with the violent results of Carl Bartelt's choices. Dead teenagers battling over drugs. Dead toddlers hit by stray bullets. Non-empathetic angry protestors who can name the last three individuals killed by police, but can't name one of the last twenty homicide victims killed through drug-related violence. And what does Carl Bartelt have to say for himself? "My goal of clarifying who here's actually for personal liberty has been accomplished." Notice the lack of responsibility for anyone other than himself? Notice the lack of focus on meeting anyone's needs but his own need to smoke weed? -------------------------------- Again, that wasn't his argument. Carl Bartelt doesn't protect anyone else, so he has no idea how to be a protector. Because Carl doesn't know how to protect himself, he needs to be protected BUT his constant desires to "do whatever he wants" damages his community by letting violent elements proliferate. TheFuzz wasn't asking, "Why don't you leave?" in order to promote the "Love it, or leave it!" argument. He was asking, "Why don't you leave?" so that Carl Bartelt would consider moving to another place where drugs are legal so that Carl's desire to use drugs wouldn't endanger everyone else around him. That you don't grasp this is sad. That Carl Bartelt's position is more strongly upvoted than downvoted is depressing - because it indicates that more people in FDR want to use their personal freedom to pursue hedonistic pleasure at the expense of their communities, rather than using their personal freedom to create a peaceful, coherent community. Stefan speaks of creating universities devoted to FDR-principles. But his dream will never be reached when the balance of this community pursues hedonism rather than community-building. ------------------- That's the funniest line of all! CARL BARTELT is the someone who tells TheFuzz to put people in jail! So are you. So am I! There is no system, there is only us, and we (collectively) tell TheFuzz to put people in jail. What we want (which is ridiculous) is to simultaneously make decisions that endanger the community, empower TheFuzz to use his discretion to fix the negative results of our decisions, and then complain when we end up in jail. Carl could just as easily move, but moving requires a lot of effort - and he doesn't want to move. Hence, his only position is to selfishly yell at law enforcement, hoping that they'll change to support his drug habit.

I agree with your perspective, but don't think it's "the government agenda" that's creating the opposite. It's the subconscious question asked when both men and women look at pretty, happy young women, "Can't she be intelligent, too?" (Or the FDR version, "Can't she be virtuous and philosophically rigorous, too?") This issue is rather personal for me, because my father is what I call a 30th percentile man: someone whose overall value-to-women (and the world) is generously higher than that of only 30% of men. He repeatedly tells me that my mother was very sweet and kind when he married her but he "doesn't know what happened over the years." (Hint: He's what happened over the years.) But I also remember a Pick-Up artist advising a young man who was angry that a dumb, pretty woman chose a strong, moderately smart, older man over him: "Did you ever stop to consider that she wants to combine his strength and life experience with her happiness and looks to create the perfect child?" So my answer to, "Can't she be intelligent, too?" is "Why should she be; can't she just be who she is, and you be happy with that?" Whereas my answer to, "Can't she be virtuous and philosophically rigorous, too?" is "Not without your constant, steady influence. Virtuous and philosophical women don't develop in the absence of long-term relationships with virtuous and consistent men. So if your strategy is to avoid women until you find a virtuous one, you've abandoned all the virtuous women to the unscrupulous men - and all because you didn't want to risk breaking your own heart by attracting what you wrongfully thought was a virtuous woman."

You can do whatever you want. Don't give up now. When you look at those two questions: (1) What is the definition of moral behavior? (2) How can we best spread moral truths to everyone? - you like to analyze them separately. But when I look at those two questions, I like to analyze them at the same time - refusing to separate them. These are both opinion-based, aesthetic-preferences - NOT moral ones. Most importantly, differentiating between truths and opinions (aesthetic preferences) frees you to pursue your aesthetic preferences without wrongfully believing that either you or the people who disagree with you are being immoral. When you accept this, you can find people who share your aesthetic preferences and go on enjoyable adventures together.

Those two questions are why I referenced my earlier thought-experiment. It is definitionally correct to tell a three-year old child the unfiltered truth about death, but it is not emotionally correct, nor ethically correct - because she is three years old. Once you admit that there's a fundamental and immutable difference between children and adults, you open yourself up to admitting that there's a fundamental and immutable difference between adults and adults. Some adults can handle the unfiltered delivery of moral truths - (like you advocate) - while others simply cannot. Whenever you are challenged by this easily-observed series of differences, you reply that "you're not interested in a pragmatic discussion". So my overall answer is that the ethical definitions are not relative, but an individual's ability to handle any set of ethical truths is relative. And though you try very hard to frame this discussion in terms of truths, you're really broadcasting the opinion that unfiltered delivery of moral truths is the best way to create an ethical Earth. My suggestion that you actually talk to people was meant to get you to test your opinion by actually applying it. I predict that you'll quickly run into insurmountable problems within one month of devotedly testing your opinion.

Did you watch the second Stop A Douchebag video, where the guy pulled a gun on six different Anti-Douchebaggers, threatened to kill them all, and they all laughed? That is the Amused Mastery and Frame Control that all Pick-Up Artists and masculine men instantly recognize and hope to develop in themselves. The way you describe the spanking situation with your daughter, I don't think you're the one who can't laugh off the petulant disrespect of a silly little girl. So I'm guessing it's your wife. Hard question time: Why can't she smile whenever your daughter disrespects her the same way that you] smile whenever someone threatens you? What do you have that she doesn't, and how do you give it to her?

In my opinion, you, thebeardslastcall, and Carl Bartelt are all making the same error. You think: (1) that there really is such a thing as "the system" that TheFuzz must change, and (2) that you think philosophical argument based on rational, logical principles is the fastest way for TheFuzz to change that system. The truth is that there IS NO System; there is only the sum total of the reactions of billions of people. And you can only control your own reactions. The other truth is that the most important way to get TheFuzz to "change the system" (to use your metaphor) is to empathize with his desire to be a good patriarch, good protector, and a good father by ultra-carefully and ultra-empathetically focusing on why he spanks his children. But noooooooooo, everyone wants to talk about marijuana, the government, anarchy, and other unrelated nonsense - even though Stefan constantly admonishes libertarians for talking about these issues RATHER THAN talking about peaceful parenting. And Merrifield gave an utterly heart-breaking story about his interactions with children who openly admit that their parents say, "If you don't behave, we'll call the cops to put you in jail. Does Merrifield have to get on his knees and beg you all to give him practical advice on how to handle this heart-breaking situation, or is the welfare of the children under his limited-but-direct influence really less important to you than Carl's desire to smoke weed, the existence of the government, and anarchy? Selfishly, I'm concerned that I'll be downvoted x10 for pointing out how horribly non-empathetic your collective behavior is. Unselfishly, you're all way out of line and need to focus on what's really important. @Merrifield - I do have some practical advice for you, but I'm tired and annoyed - and I need to mull it over some more. Tomorrow.

That's not what he's doing. I'll use a metaphor. There are two types of people who claim to want to run a marathon: Hard Trainers and Couch Potatoes. When he asks Carl about his own behaviors, he's metaphorically pinching Carl's stomach to see how much fat is there. If there's a large amount of fat, TheFuzz rejects Carl's complaints because he doesn't experience those complaints as empathetic nor honest.

I know, and I find that interesting. Because, at the end of the day, philosophy is supposed to influence people - not space aliens, not robots, not vacuum cleaners - people. Refusing to consider how your philosophical opinions affects people strikes me as an extreme contradiction at the heart of the definition of philosophy. As a pragmatic person, let me ask a pragmatic question: There are 168 hours in a week, of which approximately 56 hours are spent sleeping, and another 56 hours are spent working. That leaves about 56 hours of free time. How many of those hours are spent talking to people in real life for longer than ten minutes at a clip? I ask because someone who doesn't care that his philosophical opinions might incite 2 billion people to despair-induced violence doesn't strike me as someone who spends a lot of time talking to people.

As I pointed out to both Rainbow Jamz and Kevin Beal, the three of you have a habit of predicting what I "must be feeling" - and then vociferously denying my self-descriptions of my own feelings. I haven't read your responses and proclaimed, "When you have sex with a woman, you must be feeling X, Y, and Z. And BECAUSE you're feeling X, Y, and Z, you're not experiencing Real Confidence. (or are "fearful" - as Kevin Beal has hinted), (or are "sociopathic" and "not really interested in self-knowledge" and "not emotionally healthy" - as Rainbow Jamz has hinted.) And I haven't done this, because I recognize that such behavior ranges from: (1) At bare minimum - emotionally driven and sorely misguided, (2) At medium - extremely rude and aggressive and (3) At Worst - deliberately abusive and manipulative. In an alternative universe, you could have asked, "I noticed you got offended when Kevin Beal said your approach was dishonest. Why do you feel offended? But in this universe, you refuse to ask me why I feel offended, and then tell me why I feel offended. And it never dawns on you, Kevin Beal, Rainbow Jamz, nor the downvoters that such behavior is highly offensive. And that's where you're mistaken. Aesthetically Preferable Actions ARE NOT ethics. Stefan has repeatedly said this in UPB, and you're completely wrong. So you've provided strong evidence of my earlier post: that the three of your share the same confusion of assuming that your aesthetic preferences are ethical when they are not. It's why all of you both: (1) inject highly moralistic language into your descriptions and (2) tell me what I'm feeling, without asking me what I'm feeling, and then refuse to believe me when I tell you that I don't feel that way.

Does every reasonable person in the world prefer being "emotionally healthy" or "emotionally unhealthy"? Since the answer is, "Every reasonable person in the world prefers being emotionally healthy.", then you're attempting to universalize your emotional reactions to certain stimuli by using the phrase "emotionally healthy". In UPB, Stefan repeatedly distinguishes between UPB (Universally Preferable Behavior) and aesthetics. He defines aesthetics as non-enforceable preferences, while ethics and morality are defined as enforceable-preferences. ------------------------ Notice that you, Matt D., and Kevin Beal are: (1) Claiming that everyone who acts differently than you must feel certain specific emotions - ("fear", in Kevin Beal's case, "domination", in Matt D's case, "sociopathy" and "not a real interest in self-knowledge", in your case, and then (2) Ignoring all denials of your claims. I told Kevin Beal I feel the complete opposite of "fear" whenever I'm feigning disinterest in women - but he hasn't replied. I told Matt D. that I feel the complete opposite of "desire to dominate" - but he ignored my statements by focusing on his annoyance that I compared him to a feminist. And I told you that I feel the complete opposite of "sociopathy" and a "lack of real interest in self-knowledge" - but you ignored that. Not only do you ignore my claims that I feel differently, but you also never realize how rude it is to tell someone what they must be feeling - particularly when you're wrong. Why do you all use these tactics? Simple. You are not acknowledging the difference between ethics - (enforceable preferences) - and aesthetics - (non-enforceable preferences). You do not realize that your shared desires to maximally express your emotional experiences with women are nothing more than your personal, non-universally applicable, non-enforceable aesthetic preference. Kevin Beal won't admit that his desire for unbridled emotional expression is aesthetic. Matt D. won't admit that his desire to "share the authentic emotional experience of his interactions with women" is aesthetic. And you won't admit that your desire to openly express interest when you feel like expressing interest is aesthetic. Criticizing someone's aesthetic preferences always produces interest statements. For example, Kevin Beal said, "I don't respect women who act primitively the way PUA describes." But he never asked himself, "If I don't respect a woman's natural sexual responses, why should a woman prefer to be with me over a man who simultaneously respects a woman's natural sexual responses AND knows how to evoke and work with those responses?" (Isn't it obvious that the majority of women aesthetically prefer to be with men who know how to evoke and work with her so-called "primitive" sexual response?) For another example, both you and Matt D. strongly imply that, "Men should always express interest whenever they want to express interest!" But Roosh's book makes clear that the overwhelming majority of men are doing just that, and the majority of women respond to this by WITHHOLDING joyful, fully abandoned, passionate sex. Isn't this evidence that women don't aesthetically prefer emotionally expressive men?" If Reason + Virtue = Happiness, then isn't criticizing other peoples' aesthetics the fastest way to achieve Joylessness?

Contrast Carl Bartelt's request that Merrifield empathize with him AND the following statement to TheFuzz, also by Carl Bartelt. Contrast his blue-colored statement to Merrifield, a request for empathy with the following exchange between TheFuzz and Carl Bartelt. First, TheFuzz states, "Now if I had you in the car for cannabis possession, you would've had to do something else as well." - implying that he has enough discretion, provided a supervisor isn't looking, to give warnings rather than automatic jail time." Then Carl Bartelt replies, "(Absolutely not, If I pull out a bag of weed and show it to a cop, I'm "going to jail" as you so casually put it, as if that's not someones freedom being raped from them simply for your opinion or your blind devotion to a concept)." It's amazing that Carl Bartelt wants everyone else to empathize with him, when he shows no ability to empathize with anyone else. He accuses TheFuzz of being "blindly devoted to a concept", when he cannot see that TheFuzz views the drug war dramatically different from most cops by using his discretion to be softer on drug possessors like Carl. And what is Carl defending? His assumed right to use cannabis - NOT his assumed right to use cannabis in a way that most of us find extremely valuable, such as, "My use of cannabis makes me personally intervene in twenty children-being-spanked scenarios every day!" But just his assumed right to use cannabis. Carl, I'm also against the drug war - as is TheFuzz - but your non-empathetic behavior isn't helping your cause.

I know. But neither can we universalize your "I don't want to call want to call the better behaviors of Christians either Ethical or Moral." perspective. Worse, if we did universalize your perspective, Christians would be much more likely to behave much, much worse out of spite, annoyance, or despair. Not true. I firmly believe that less than 95% of people are capable of handling truth, but I also know that those 95% of people have autonomy because it's impossible to violently remove their autonomy. There's an important difference between accounting for a lack of virtue and assuming a lack of virtue. I'm accounting for the fact that 95% of people simply cannot handle philosophy, not assuming that 95% of people cannot. (Yes, I know that my 95% is an estimate, but if you'd like to argue that my estimate should be 75% of lower, I'm all ears.)

What parts do you think are most important?

A brief thought experiment for you, WastachMan. A scientist with a 250 IQ and a 19 hours-a-day work ethic has discovered a way to make people live 25% longer and be 25% happier. It also reduces depression by a full 50%, and has a boatload of extraordinarily positive effects, with no negative side effects. He publishes his paper to explain his discovery, and it's full of extremely esoteric vocabulary and confusing metaphors. Grammatically, it's fine - but no one can accurately read it because of its prose-style. Fundamentally, the problem is: (1) that he's far too intelligent to communicate his discoveries in a way that average people can understand, and (2) that humanity would greatly benefit if only he could communicate better. Naturally, this is a sad situation, but who do you blame? The scientist? The audience? No one? -------------------- What percentage of people do you think are smart enough AND sufficiently non-traumatized to genuinely understand morality? My estimate is about 5%. I've no idea whether my 5% estimate is valid, but if it is, I can ask a very simple question with an obvious answer. Would I rather that the 95% of people who don't understand morality: (1) behave as if they did - with the caveat that they'll only "come close" to behaving as if they actually did, since they actually don't OR (2) behave like dangerous, violent, psychopaths because they don't? Religion is nothing more than a way to make People Who Can't Understand Morality approximate (but never reach) The Virtuous Behaviors Of A Man Who Really Does Understand Morality. Hence, I appreciate religion for what it is, without expecting it to be more than it is.