MMX2010

Fine. I'll reply to what you said, then. -------------- "I'm smarter than you" is not adding anything to the conversation." My response, (1) "So what? It's true that, in some cases, "I'm Smarter Than You!" is a response to an argument that doesn't add to the conversation. Why single out "I'm Smarter Than You!"? (2) In the aesthetic opinion of the person who says, "I'm Smarter Than You", his response does add something to the conversation. Aesthetically speaking, you don't agree. So why do you need rules to make the entire community agree with your aesthetic reaction?) -------------- There. I responded to the most important thing you said, and I concluded it was the most important thing you said, because you bold-printed it. Would you like to refute my counter-argument? Would you like to add more to your argument?

I'm interpreting what you're saying, so don't pull the, "But I didn't say that!" objection. If you DO NOT have an argument, you're saying, "I was very upset when two people pulled the, "I'm Smarter Than You!" remark. That's not an argument, because it's just you relaying your emotional frustration with two events. If you DO have an argument, you're saying, "No one should ever be allowed to say anything like 'I'm Smarter Than You!". I don't agree with your argument because: (1) It's not true that 100% of the time, it is morally wrong to say that AND (2) It's factually true that it's much easier to change your own emotional reactions than to change other peoples' communication styles. So if you have an argument, I'm not convinced. And if you don't have an argument, I enjoyed this discussion, and I hope you did, too.

It's a nice idea, Kevin - but unless you name specific people and allow them to counter-argue, you're just allowing people to *wink, wink*, *nudge, nudge*, "Of course he's a troll; we all agree."

This essay was posted on the Roosh V Forum. It takes awhile to read, and also takes a pro-Christian perspective, but it's quite interesting. ------------------------------- http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/03/the_myth_of_relativism_and_the.html The Myth of Relativism and the Cult of Tolerance By Larrey Anderson Introduction It has been twenty years since the late Allan Bloom shook the intellectual elite in this country with the opening line of The Closing of the American Mind: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student in America believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” In one sentence our dirty little secret -- we believe in the truth that there is no truth -- was out. Why do we believe this? Bloom had that pegged too: Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than fifty years has dedicated itself to inculcating. Openness -- and the relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the face of the various claims to truth and the various ways of life and kinds of human beings -- is the great insight of our times. But relativism is not a new idea. Ever since Protagoras declared, “Man is the measure of all things,” people have been attracted to relativism. Human beings are attracted to relativism -- not because it is true -- they are attracted to it because relativism is easy. I mean two things by “easy” and I mean to discuss those two things later in this essay. I will introduce them here. First, relativism is easy on the intellect. A person’s entire understanding of the entire workings of the entire universe can be stated in eight words: The truth is that there is no truth. Here is a truth, if it is true, simple enough for any simpleton. Next, relativism is easy on the conscience. If there is no truth out there then there are no values out there either; rather, the only values out there are the subjective ones that we create and put there. Thus, it is possible for us to agree to have this value as a shared value: if you let me make my values, I’ll let you make yours. The allowance by a society of the creation of conflicting values between one human being and another is, in our culture, called “tolerance.” As we will see, tolerance is one, but only one, possible moral outcome of relativism. But before we search the moral possibilities of relativism, let’s examine something a bit more basic. Let’s start with the truth. Part 1: The Myth of Relativism Relativism’s claim is that, with one exception, all things are relative. More accurately, the claim is that all things, events, and descriptions of things and events are based on the individual’s observation of those things and events. The exception to the assertion that nothing is absolute is the “fact” that all things are relative. Relativism is not just another thing or event or description; relativism claims to be the final word on the ultimate nature of every interaction of any human being with the world. If relativism is true then “truth” can no longer be defined, as it is in the dictionary, as “the true or actual state of a matter” or “conformity with fact or reality.” If relativism is true then every description of the world (except the description that all descriptions are relative) is subject to the time and location, and to the mood and bias, of the observer. Every description is subjective. If relativism is true then the only truth is that there is no truth. Until about two hundred years ago relativism was a little known corollary of the obscure theories of Epicureanism and Stoicism. Philosophers treated relativism like an iniquitous cousin -- one it was better not to be seen with -- especially in public. Relativism’s big chance came in the early part of the 19th century. Judeo-Christianity, the then prevailing philosophical explanation of human existence in Western culture, was being refuted by the application of the newly discovered scientific method. The new science proved that the world was more than a few thousand years old; it proved that man was not the center of the universe. The scientific method provided answers to some types of questions far more readily than others. It could, for example, explain how to aim and fire a cannon with amazing precision. Science could not, however, answer the much more difficult question of whether or not the firing of the cannon by one set of human beings at another set of human beings was justified.1 These abstract moral problems (e.g., when is killing a human being justified?) were the issues that relativism sought to resolve. Relativism has become popular because relativism claims to have the answers to questions like “What is justice?” Relativism has filled the gap left by the deterioration of faith in the truth of religion and the inability of science to provide quick and easy answers to the most pressing and the most difficult questions -- especially questions dealing with human interactions. To repeat, relativism is popular because it is easy. But is it true? The first difficulty we have in trying to answer that question is known in philosophy as the “problem of generality.” All of the arguments I know of which assert the truth of relativism are based on generalizations. (“All things are relative” is about as generalized as a generalization can be.) Generalizations try to say so much that they usually end up telling us very little -- or little worth knowing.2 Here is the important point: Not a single person that has ever existed has lived her life acting as if relativism were true. We live our lives by paying attention to the truth or falsity of particular statements. “You locked the keys in the car” is either true or false. We act upon the fact that it is one or the other. If it is true we call a locksmith; if it is false we look somewhere else for the keys. We do not live our lives by repeating over and over to ourselves that the world has no intrinsic characteristics, that anything and everything may be different tomorrow. We cannot live our lives acting as if all things are relative. There is another, somewhat related, problem with relativism. Once upon a time every first year philosophy student knew that relativism is self-referentially incoherent. Relativism claims that everything is relative -- but it leaves us wondering if that everything includes relativism, itself.3 The most difficult questions to answer -- not just for science, for anyone -- are questions about human interactions. In each and every mutual human exchange, the number of social, cultural, economic, behavioral, and moral variables is staggering. The social and the psychic sciences (which are the newest sciences, some of them less than a century old) have barely learned to accurately articulate such questions as, “What is justice?” or “Is there free will?” They may be centuries away from answering them. Here is the timetable so far: Human beings discovered numbers, the tools with which we make scientific predictions, over four thousand years ago. It took two thousand years before we could use those numbers to portray elementary geometric shapes like a triangle. It took two thousand more years before we could manipulate those same numbers to provide a useable, but still not totally accurate, description of gravity. Why, for heaven’s sake, would anyone think we should have a final answer to a monstrously difficult question like “What is justice?” when we don’t yet have a final reason for why our feet stick to the ground? Relativism asserts its own universality as it proclaims the relativity of all other assertions. Every other sentence ever uttered or ever to be uttered is relative to some one circumstance or another … but not this one. That’s an awful lot to swallow and an amazing number of people have swallowed it. A person may claim that relativism is true but he will never live his life as if it is true. In fact, he cannot live his life as if the truth is that there is no truth -- unless he wants to live a very short and very frustrating life. “You locked the keys in the car” is either true or false. If you want to go anywhere in your car you will figure out which one it is -- you will not argue that it is both or neither. Part II: The Cult of Tolerance It may be fun, at a Starbuck’s or in Philosophy 101, to argue that walls aren’t “really” solid or that tables might “really” be made of ice or that all things are “really” relative but as soon as we exit the café or the classroom we either immediately return to the reality of the really real world … or we die. The car speeding down the road at us might be an illusion or it might be made of marshmallows but no sane person acts as if it is. So, at least in terms of empirical truths, we leave the “truth” of relativism in the classroom or the coffee shop or we suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, the same thing cannot be so obviously stated for moral truths. Moral relativism not only follows us out of the classroom and café; it chases us around the block. In our day and age the form of moral relativism that most pursues us is tolerance. It has not always been so. The traditional moral relativist, beginning at least as early as Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic, was a proponent of the strongman or the dictator or, in Nietzsche’s refined phrase, “the will to power.” The traditional argument was simple: if there is no objective right and no objective wrong then might makes right and weakness is wrong. What is good is what the strongest proclaims to be the good -- what he wills to be the good. What is good is an “overman,” a dictator who knows how to use his will to and for power.4 Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all “supermen” who attempted to impose their “will to power” on the masses. In the middle of the 19th century the notion of tolerance, as an alternative to the traditional strongman approach to moral relativism, started to gain acceptance. Two things paved the way for this acceptance. (1) Democracy in the United States was proving to be politically viable and writers like Alexis de Tocqueville were spreading the word. America’s founding fathers appeared to have finally found a way for large numbers of people to govern themselves. These self-governing people could have cared less about a relativism that gave them another dictator or king.5 (2) But, these same self-governing people might have been interested in a moral relativism for the masses because, around this time, Darwin and other scientists were demolishing myths like creationism that had served as pillars of the Christian faith. At this critical juncture, belief in Christianity was shaky but still widespread. If there were a form of moral relativism that mimicked the central themes of Christianity (love thy neighbor, judge not, etc.), there would be a huge number of educated people waiting and willing to entertain the idea. If that same idea were both easy to understand and attractive to the masses … it could be a grand slam. History was ripe for the appearance of the cult of tolerance. The first use of “tolerance” in its current form, as diversity and openness to the life choices of others, was offered in 1859 (the same year that Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species) by John Stuart Mill in Chapter 3 of On Liberty: Such are the differences among human beings in their sources of pleasure, their susceptibilities of pain, and the operation on them of different physical and moral agencies, that unless there is a corresponding diversity in their modes of life, they neither obtain their fair share of happiness, nor grow up to the mental, moral and aesthetic stature of which their nature is capable. Why then should tolerance, as far as the public sentiment is concerned, extend only to tastes and modes of life which extort acquiescence by the multitude of their adherents. Sorry for the gobbledygook but I didn’t write it. Once you start reading explanations for and defenses of tolerance, you will find out, as I have, that almost all of them are illogical. Let’s look closely at this one because it was, essentially, the first one and is, probably, the most important one. Notice that the first sentence actually says exactly the opposite of what it seems to say. It seems to say that human happiness depends on a diversity of modes of life so that human nature may be fulfilled. Mill misleads us by using the plural form throughout the first clause of the first sentence. (“Such are [plural] the differences [plural] among human beings [plural] in their [plural] sources [plural, etc.]”) In the second half of the sentence “diversity” and “nature” are both written in the singular to make it appear as if “diversity” is the stabilizing and determining principle of human “nature.” But what the sentence must mean -- the only thing it can mean if it is a rational statement -- is that there is no such thing as a shared human nature, that each human being has an absolutely specialized nature of his or her own. If Mill had been honest (and not trying to sucker wavering Christians) he would have written something like this: Such is the difference between me and everyone else in my pleasure, in my susceptibility of pain and in how I want different physical and moral agents to react to me, that unless I can live my life anyway that I want to, I will not be happy nor fulfill that nature which is uniquely mine. Read Mill’s original sentence again. The only way that it makes any sense at all is if it applies to each individual human being; it only makes sense if every human being is radically free and radically different from every other human being because each has had unique experiences of either pleasure or pain from similar sources. So the first step in understanding the cult of tolerance is grasping the fact that it is grounded in a very egocentric view of human existence. When I insist that others be free to pursue their goals and desires, I necessarily reserve that same privilege for myself. “Let all others be whatever they will be,” sounds vaguely Christian and quite progressive but it also, and necessarily so, means “Let me do whatever I want to do” -- which is exceedingly selfish and utterly immature. The second step in understanding the cult of tolerance is to see how it mimics Christianity by pretending to be non-judgmental. Christianity teaches that it is wrong to judge others. The cult of tolerance seems to teach the same thing. But the reasons each of them gives for not judging others are vastly different. Christianity teaches that there is one, and only one, way of living that is moral: the Christian life is the moral life. Christians acknowledge that a perfect Christian life is (depending upon the particular brand of Christianity) either very difficult or impossible (at least without God’s help). The Christian is commanded not to judge her brother -- not because there are no moral rules held by Christianity to be both universal and objective, there are plenty of them -- she is commanded not to judge her brother because it is highly unlikely that either she or her brother have reached the point of perfection in their lives when either of them would be able to judge the other. In other words, Christianity sees and acknowledges an important truth about moral judgments: objective and accurate moral judgments are hard to get right most of the time and impossible to get right all of the time. The Christian is told not to judge, not because there is nothing to judge, she is told not to judge because it is doubtful that she is qualified to judge. This is a vastly different moral position than those found in the cult of tolerance. Roughly speaking, the cult of tolerance has two kinds of adherents (1) the multiculturalists and (2) the politically correct. Each of these sects within the cult of tolerance offers its own reasons for why we should not judge others. These reasons conflict, not only with the Christian reason, they conflict with each other. One of these conflicting reasons is the raison d’être of the multicultural branch of the cult. The other reason, which we have already encountered and will get back to in a minute, is the explanation espoused by the politically correct sect. The multiculturalist claims that we should not judge others because moral values are culturally relative; i.e., what is right in one society may be wrong in another. This is what Mill seems to be hinting at in the second half of the quotation from On Liberty we saw above. Right and wrong are traditional values that change as societies change and that vary from one society or culture to another. The concept of right and wrong is, itself, parochial. The enlightened multiculturalist understands that his culture’s values are just as arbitrary as his neighbor’s. If pressed for an explanation for why he follows his culture’s mores, he will tell you he chooses to obey them as an obeisance to his tradition -- that and nothing else. Notice how condescending this person’s attitude is -- not just to his own culture -- to every culture. Every intelligent and committed Christian, Hindu, Moslem, or Jew (Buddhist’s are a slightly different story) that follows the moral teaching of her religion, not only believes that her values are objectively valid, she can offer arguments, with varying degrees of cogency, for their validity. (Notice also that many of these values and arguments are the same from religion to religion. This fact should tell us something.) The multiculturalist, in effect, pats the believer on the head and says, “Aren’t you a clever little girl! You claim you have reasons for your ‘right’ and your ‘wrong.’ ‘Objective reasons?’ You call them ‘objective reasons?’ That’s so nice. But I’m too busy to hear them right now. Now go run and play with those people with those other beliefs and those other ‘objective’ reasons; but be sure not to upset anybody.” Of the major religions, Christianity is the most susceptible to this rendition of the siren song of tolerance because it prides itself on not judging others. If the Christian does object, either to the argument of, or to her treatment by, the multiculturalist, she is likely to hear something like this, “You are judging me and judging your fellow human beings. And you call yourself a Christian?” Most Christians simply don’t have an answer for the multicultural branch of the cult of tolerance.6 The cult of tolerance is Christianity without the guilt, without the work; it is Christianity without the faith, the hope, and the love. The cult of tolerance is selfishness disguised as Christianity. Christianity commands, in effect, “Do not judge, least you err, and are then objectively judged by God for that error.” The politically correct branch of the cult of tolerance presents itself as a watered down version of Christian morality. The politically correct members of the cult of tolerance threaten, “Do not judge because there is no objective morality by which you can judge and if you do judge we have subjectively agreed to judge you for your judging.” In other words, political correctness goes beyond multiculturalism in as much as the politically correct sect demands that we abandon our traditions and accept a new social contract based upon the “fact” that there are no objective moral standards. Unlike traditional moral relativism where the strongman rules because “might makes right,” politically correct moral relativism claims to be democratic. In truth, it is far from it. Tolerance, in its politically correct guise, is the imposition of a standardless standard upon the masses. In a frightening way this standard is self-enforcing and self-reinforcing; i.e., the standardless standard of politically correct moral relativism asserts itself as both the strongman of traditional moral relativism and the strongman’s precept that “might makes right.” Political correctness reinforces itself by enforcing itself as the ultimate moral concept upon the masses. It does this by prohibiting the practice of any standard that challenges its legitimacy and its supremacy. Prayer in public school is a classic example. If moral standards were determined democratically (we voted on which principles were right and which were wrong), then, at least in the United States, a brief portion of every child’s school day would be spent in some kind of prayer. In surveys, Americans consistently and overwhelmingly approve of school prayer. Nevertheless, there is not a public school in the United States in which the administrators do not get highly nervous if a student so much as nods her head in a manner that might be construed as a prayer. Some conservative pundits blame this on “liberal judges” but a careful review of the legal decisions regarding prayer in school shows a hodge-podge approach by the courts. Prayer is not allowed in America’s schools for one reason: Not enough Americans want to expend the energy to challenge the reign of political correctness; and because they do not, the Christian command to “love thy neighbor” slowly deteriorates into the politically correct cop-out of “leave thy neighbor alone.” If some children pray then some other children might be offended. Therefore, nobody prays and nobody is offended. This is how political correctness reinforces itself as the standard of behavior by enforcing itself as the standardless standard of behavior. This is what happens when a society agrees to a social contract to have no social contract -- the society leaps into a cultural vortex which spins down and down into a moral black hole. This brings us to the fourth and final step in understanding the cult of tolerance; in some ways this is the most important step; it is also the most difficult step to explain: Members of the cult of tolerance defend and justify their position with emotional, as opposed to rational, arguments. There are members of the cult of tolerance who actually feel that tolerance is grounded in love and respect for others. They feel that toleration is equivalent to understanding. I know there are such people -- lots of them -- some of them capable of an impassioned defense of these feelings. And while they may believe that their defense of tolerance is some sort of rational construct, when you push them, as I have pushed them, you will discover that they are actually defending their feelings. They almost never offer a logical argument for their assertion that tolerating another person or another culture is the same as understanding that person or culture. They would be hard pressed to do so because toleration is not understanding. Here is an example: to “understand” Islam by “practicing” it for a few days (this is now a requirement in some of America’s public schools) is to understand very little. Instead it is to feel -- rather, it is to pretend to feel -- what a Moslem feels when he practices the ceremonies that make up his religion. If I want to understand Islam I do not pretend to be a Moslem for a few days, then stop the pretense, and then claim that I understand Islam because I have playacted the role of a Moslem. Such behavior cannot lead to understanding. Such behavior might make me feel a little better about myself -- without taking the much more difficult step of actually understanding either Islam or myself. Like it or not, a Moslem performs Islamic rituals because he believes that Islam is true and that the practice of the prescribed rituals will bring him closer to God and to the truth. If I want to understand Islam I must start by accepting the fact that the Moslem believes this. Remember, the keys are either in the car or they are not. This is the form that truth takes in real life. The difference between the examples of car keys and Islam is this: truths like car key locations are very simple and easily decided, whereas, truths of morality and religion are not. Most people just do not like moral complexity. Those who enter the cult of tolerance avoid the difficult process of making an actual choice and get to feel good about it. Moslems, like Mormons, Catholics, Moonies, and Jews, are what they are -- not because of what they wear or what they eat -- they are what they are because of what they believe to be true. They may be wrong in those beliefs; but unless we understand that they believe what they believe is true … we do not understand them at all. In short, those who claim that tolerance leads to understanding have not thought through what it means to understand. Those who have joined the cult of tolerance have opted, as human beings are inclined to do, for very simple answers to life’s most important and most complex questions. Almost all of us -- including, I believe, all but the most deluded members of the cult -- know what tolerance really is. We’ve known it most of our lives. We’ve known it ever since the moment our mothers told us we had to go outside and play with that pain in the rear of a little sister; we’ve known it ever since we wanted a bike for our birthday but got a little red wagon with which, we were told, we could haul that same sister; we’ve known it ever since that very same sister was always getting into our stuff when she had no reciprocal stuff worth getting into. That is tolerance -- which, by the way, comes from the Latin tolerãre -- a word that means “to suffer” or “to bear.” Real tolerance is never easy. It is not often fun. But it is real, as real as finding your car keys. It is just a lot harder ... to bear. Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. His latest award-winning novel is The Order of the Beloved. His memoir, Underground: Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market, has just been released.

This community is split into two groups, but doesn't realize it. One group is comprised of mostly K-selected personalities with highly competitive natures and few (if any) emotional needs. These people want the truth of any discussion to be discovered quickly and efficiently, and they're well-versed in science, psychology, and other fields. They understand their own childhood wounds, but don't focus on them; instead they focus on getting over them so that they can relate to a diverse field of people by helping them with their childhoods. The other group is comprised of mostly r-selected personalities with non-competitive natures and many, many emotional needs. These people DO NOT want the truth of any discussion to be discovered quickly and efficiently, because a speedy, efficient discussion requires an emotional detachment that these r-selected individuals DO NOT possess. They understand their childhood wounds as well as (or, perhaps, even better than) their K-selected counterparts - but they DO NOT have the skill to relate to diverse fields of people, preferring instead to relate to people exactly-like-them. The K-selected individuals prefer objective rules, (such as, "You must be physically fit to post on FDR." and "You must provide links to scientific articles if you make an argument.") - but the r-selected individuals prefer subjective rules, (such as, "Don't be an asshole." or "Empathy is required to post here.") ------------------------- Here's a crucial point about r-selected individuals. They never comment on the argument itself; they always focus on the potentially negative emotional impact of the argument. Koroviev, do you even know what my argument is? You should know it, because I explained it directly to you. But you didn't comment on it at all. Here's my argument, "Charity works because it identifies people who are truly struggling with every fiber of their being to better themselves and then gives these people money. The welfare state fails because it gives money to everyone who wants it." Notice that: (1) You never quoted my argument; you quoted around my argument. (2) You probably agree with the argument, because Stefan has made that argument multiple times! (3) But you focus on NOT whether the argument is true or false, and NOT on whether you agree with it, BUT on how the argument makes you feel and how that feeling (potentially) affects the community-as-a-whole. In your opinion, focused on your own emotional needs, it does not. But in the opinion of the person saying it, focused on his own emotional needs, it absolutely does. What should you do? Well, I know you have more than these two choices, but these two choices stand out to me: (1) Complain to the entire community so that the entire community will create a rule that you can use to change the posting style and emotional make up of certain individuals you disagree with OR (2) Decrease the amount of emotional need you possess. Now, I'm NOT saying you're morally obligated to pursue Option 2. But I *AM* saying that Option 2 is something you have 100% direct control over, whereas Option 1 is a Rube Goldberg machine that is much less likely to produce what you want. So, you're more likely to succeed by choosing Option 2. Work on your emotional needs by reducing the number of emotional needs you have. If that were true, then you'd equally prefer to listen to Stefan Molyneux discuss philosophy as you would prefer listening to a seven year old Down's syndrome individual discuss philosophy. Now, I'm not saying that seven year old Down's Syndrome individuals are worthless - but I am saying that they're much less equipped to discuss philosophy than is Stefan Molyneux. Stefan Molyneux is preferred because his skill-set competes with everyone else's skill-set - and Stefan wins that competition (almost) every time. When Stefan loses that competition, the listener chooses to pursue someone else's podcasts (or articles) in pursuit of the truth. Case in point, I don't follow Stefan's relationship advice. I much prefer Rollo Tomassi's and Roosh's. However, Rollo only has a shallow understanding of childhood wounds, and Roosh doesn't discuss that at all - so when I was to explore my childhood, I prefer Stefan Molyneux.

No doubt. But you rejected my explanation (in another thread) for why this is so. Stefan unites sexuality and reproduction into r-selection and K-selection - (which makes sense when there's no such thing as birth control). But this modern society has birth control and so sexuality and reproduction are separate. So there are four possibilities: (1) Double r-selected: Black ghettos, trailer parks, poor neighborhood. (2) Double K-selected: Highly religious and conservative environments. (3) r-sexual, K-reproduction: Modern society. (4) K-sexual, r-reproductive: Does not exist, but it looks like Gattaca, 1984, and Brave New World - wherein the largest number of highly genetically fit individuals are mandated to mate by a tyrannical government BUT you can have sex with anyone you want (so long as you use birth control). "Working out for you" - compared to what? On a completely related note, I noticed you didn't answer my earlier question: "Does the wants-to-be-polyamorous woman you're dating have regular menstrual periods *AND* tries to go out without you during the four days before she's scheduled to menstruate?"

Which issue do you want to debate about? Is it best to pursue the truth about this issue through personal experience, scientific research, or a combination of the above? Are we assuming that the crowd of FDR readers gets to vote on whose argument is best - or are we assuming that he crowd of FDR listeners is ignorant of the subject and, therefore, should not be allowed to vote? These questions are necessarily competitive in nature, because they always ask, "Which of these is best?" "You're fat, therefore you're wrong!" is the fastest way to achieve the point, the fastest way to get the fat person to explode in rage / anger (alienating him from the discussion), OR to get the fat person to meekly leave the conversation, OR get the fat person to self-reflect, swallow his pride, and start working out. I can give an excellent example from real-life. There's this guy I know with a very large, very round figure, who also cannot hold eye contact whenever I calmly stare at him. He believes that government and the welfare state are necessary to ensure that poor people are provided for. If/when he makes that argument in my presence, I'm going to look him dead in the eye and coldly say, "A man with your body has no right to comment on the welfare state." That should be enough, but if he persists, I'll escalate with, "Charity works because it identifies people who are truly struggling with every fiber of their being to better themselves and then gives these people money. The welfare state fails because it gives money to everyone who wants it. Your body tells me that you've never truly struggled for anything in your life, so of course you support the welfare state." My friends are used to me making such arguments, so they'll smirk or smile silently - and the fat person will feel deep shame. And he'll either explode in anger, silently leave, or work out and seek vengeance later. (But if he does the latter, he'll have become a better person due to my argument.) ---------------------------- Well, that's jaw-dropping, but not surprising. It is predictable that because you don't care about the speed with which truth is discovered, you would start a thread outside of the thread in which you were frustrated that focuses upon your frustration. To my knowledge, you didn't directly confront the two individuals who used the "I'm smarter than you!" argument. Rather, you tried to get the entire community to support your emotional frustration with this individual. Worse, you tried to get the community to make a universal rule so that you wouldn't have to experience this frustration again. So it's not surprising that someone who doesn't care about the efficiency of truth-discovery would form a highly-inefficient thread that distracts from the truth you were debating about. ------------------------ You're lying about what happened. Let me repeat what I said earlier: There are no FDR topics which read like this. Post #1 - Does anyone have any insight into this particular issue I'm having. Post #2 - I'm smarter than you! Post #3 - What a jerk! Instead, the "I'm smarter than you!" occurs after at least one argument is made. That argument is either correct or incorrect, but an argument was made. The "I'm smarter than you!" happens after someone reacts with at least one counter-argument. That counter-argument is either correct or incorrect. So you need to go back into the threads that annoyed you and directly confront the person who annoyed you.

Agree with you here. In my case, my knowledge is a combination of evolutionary psychology, normal psychology, pick-up artistry, Stefan's approach to peaceful parenting, Vox Day's socio-sexual hierarchies, r/K selection (large scale that Stefan has been discussing), r/K selection's influence on personality types (small scale that Stefan is ignorant about), and the psychology and merits of trolling - (along with the specific types of trolling that are most effective, and why to use them). All of these sub-sets of knowledge took me a minimum of three months of consisting reading to acquire. Can I explain any single one of them in less than 200 words and explain how it applies to this topic? (Sometimes.) Can I explain how the union of all those sub-sets produces my arguments in less than 200 words? (Absolutely not.) Definitely. The people who disagree with me strongest tend to expect every argument to be simply explained, and to dismiss my requests that they study specific sub-fields of knowledge. Such people don't realize that their choices cause the disagreement, not any lack of intelligence or empathy on my part.

That depends on the subject matter. If we're discussing strictly logical and objective things, such as the best way to place a bullet into a target, then that's just mostly just a matter of physics, weather, and target observation. But if we're discussing things like the importance of physical exercise, the importance of going to therapy, the positive and negative aspects of pick-up artistry, or the definition of a virtuous woman (as well as the best way to attract her), this is always a competition between people and personalities. If you know, for example, that a 30-year old man cannot do twenty-five push-ups, was bullied as a child, has slept with less than five women, and loathes Pick-Up Artistry as manipulation - then his dismissal of Pick-Up Artistry as manipulation is rooted in his childhood trauma and his current life-long inability to build himself up by working out. You can, absolutely, dismiss his argument about Pick-Up Artistry because of who he is - regardless of his argument. A conversation between Person A and Person B that attempts to discover the truth will also be about Persons C, D, and E - (people who read the discussion but do not post). I appreciate your pointing out that Person B will be offended whenever Person A says, "I'm smarter than you!" - however, (1) Person B doesn't have to be offended; he chooses to be offended and (2) Person B's annoyance is just one hyper-small consideration in any discussion that attempts to discover the truth. The speed and efficiency with which truth is discovered is, (and ought to be), by far, the most important consideration.

But it is. Do you want people to embrace the truth of philosophy quickly or slowly? Do you want people to embrace the truth about male/female relationships efficiently or inefficiently? Do you want the women you date to embrace the truth about who you are happily or grudgingly? Truth is always a competition. To say that it isn't is r-selected egalitarianism. And to participate in the pursuit of truth as if it's NOT a competition is to inject many r-selected expectations into the discussion, such as, "Everyone has to be polite to everyone else at all times." and "If one person gets emotionally upset because of something someone else said, then the entire discussion shifts away from the pursuit of Truth as we deeply explore the Genuine Emotional Experiences of the offended party."

Were you married to her before listening to FDR or after?

You're misinterpreting me. I didn't argue that "It's impossible for anyone who says, 'I'm Smarter Than You!' to get the recipient to self-reflect." - but I did argue that the primary motivation for saying, "I'm Smarter Than You!" is not to get the recipient to self-reflect. (I also argue that no one either morally or aesthetically obligated to get someone else to self-reflect.) There are quite a few arguments that are so stupid that they cannot be rebutted. And smarter people have neither the moral obligation, aesthetic obligation, nor personal talent required to rebut these terrible arguments.

That's not true because the person saying "I'm smarter than you!" isn't necessarily leaving the conversation permanently, but the recipient who becomes so annoyed by this statement that he vows never to return to the conversation is leaving the conversation permanently. So it may be that: (1) They've both left the conversation at the same time. (2) The person saying "I'm smarter than you!" has not left the conversation, but the recipient has left the conversation. In this case, the recipient is responsible for stopping the conversation and leaving no room for further discussion. (3) The person saying "I'm smarter than you!" has decided to permanently leave the conversation, but the recipient has decided to remain. In this case, the speaker is responsible for stopping the conversation, leaving no further room for discussion. (4) Neither party has permanently left the conversation, even though they're not going to post today. As you can see, this topic is much more nuanced than you think. And I've noticed that you're trying to throw all of the responsibility on those who say, "I'm smarter than you!" So the only way to settle this is for you to provide links of people saying, "I'm smarter than you".

No, I claimed that you use Black and White thinking. There's a very subtle difference between the two. The first statement, "You're a Black and White thinking guy." is a personal attack against your entire mode-of-thinking and/or your entire personality. But the second statement, "You use Black and White thinking." is an impersonal attack against a specific thing (or two), (or three) things you did. People who create the first statement out of thin air, when the person (me) actually said the second statement are Gammas. Their constant habit of doing this turns every thread in which they participate in into a "woe is me" focus on their own negative emotional state. Non-Gammas don't have this problem, because they don't twist what people said into personal attacks. Unfortunately, most people aren't well-versed in pointing out when a Gamma does what a Gamma does, so Gammas are allowed to persist that way for months, even years, never improving themselves. First off, the "but" is amusing, because you're placing your own subjective emotional reactions ahead of the fact that I'm exceptionally more knowledgeable about r/K than you (or anyone else) is. That is precisely what Gammas do, needing every discussion to make them feel emotionally uplifted - or else they cannot focus on the knowledge-aspect of the discussion. Secondly, the green argument is simply not true. Gammas will refuse it and make a big emotional stink about it. Deltas will get annoyed by it and either instantly adopt it or instantly reject it, but they'll keep their rejection absolutely silent. Betas will calmly and open-mindedly ask for evidence without lacing their questions with personal attacks. Alphas and Sigmas will either instantly accept it (if the argument is accurate) or amusingly scoff (if the argument is inaccurate).

There is also REBT (Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy) which is both scientifically-supported and endorsed by members of the Roosh V Forum. But Slavik, do you disagree with any of the following: (1) Finding the right therapist is a long, arduous process that often isn't covered by medical insurance. (2) Finding the wrong therapist and experiencing bad therapy can produce negative setbacks that take months or years to prepare. (3) Improving your wardrobe and starting an exercise program is both something that POXER can do today (right now!) and something that carries absolutely no negative risks associated with bad therapy? If you disagree with any of the following, please say so and explain why. If you agree with all of the following, then please explain why you're leading POXER on a much more expensive and risky path than the one I propose. Forgot to mention, the book that best explains Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy is called "The Guide to Rational Living" by Albert Ellis.

"Just assuming" is well-poisoning. Have you posted a topic within the last year with the phrase "my girlfriend" or "my wife" included in it? (Not to my knowledge.) Has Kevin Beal? (Not to my knowledge.) Has Lians? (No, but he doesn't post very much.) Now, you're correct that the entire male populace of this message board are happily married but are choosing to keep those happy marriages on the down-low. However, given Stefan's repeated insistence that Peaceful Parenting is the key to undermining the power of the state, I'm assuming that long-time FDR members who have wonderful marriages with virtuous women would fail to at least mention these marriages. ------------------------ Given Stefan's insistence on Peaceful Parenting being the key to undermining the power of the state, I don't view "have recently had relationships with the opposite sex on this board" as equally meaningful as "marrying a virtuous woman, having a child with her, and then raising that child Peacefully". To my knowledge, only Stefan and Shirgall are married with children they're attempting to raise peacefully. But I think, in Shirgall's case, he was married to her and had children with her long before joining FDR. (He wasn't single first, then philosophy, then marriage, then children, then peaceful parenting the way Stefan was.) I know jpahmad is married, but I don't think his wife is an FDR member. And I also think he was dating her long before he discovered FDR. I also know that jpahmad doesn't have any children. ----------------- Yes, you asked that rude snarky question, and I chose not to reply with a rude snarky question of my own. I pointed out that your rude snarkiness has no place on this message board and was double downvoted. This time, I will point out that you're older than me and have been on this board three times longer than I have, so your life is much more of a testament of what FDR is supposed to accomplish than mine. So I can understand your wish to defend your life with snark, but it's not called Snarky Parenting; it's called Peaceful Parenting.

Gotcha. You know what's amusing, though? When I talk about sexuality based on r-selected behavior, I'm talking about large swaths of the human population. And when Stefan talks about r-selected and K-selected behavior, he, too, is discussing large swaths of the human population. So when you say, "It's funny how you acccuse me of black and white thinking but you yourself claim that you can determine the sexual behavior of people based on their posting style.", you're not even referencing which posters I was (supposedly) discussing. And worse for you, when I search/find "poster", that word doesn't appear in any of my posts to this point. And when I search/find "member", that word doesn't appear in any of my posts to this point, either. And I know I've never referred to any poster by name. So why should I respond to your accusation, if you can't even formulate it properly? Who, besides you, is offended by my assertion that I can determine the sexual behavior of people based on their posting style? I am quite able to do that. And I'm quite able to do that in real life, as well. You are bothered by that, but guess what? I don't care. I didn't learn this skill to please you, to provide you with empathy, nor to cater to your expectations. I learned this skill to please myself, carve a better life for myself, and to lend this skill to those who can appreciate it. As a member of the Best FDR NYC Meet-Up Group, I routinely pass along my knowledge in this area to the delight of the crowd. One of the members is a film student graduate, and he can describe a movie that I haven't seen - and I will rapidly interrupt him with predictions about how he's dressed, how she's dressed, how he carries himself, how she carriers himself, what age they met, and most importantly how the plot will develop. I will then make inferences about the character of the person most responsible for the movie, (whether writer, producer, or director). I am dead on roughly 75% of the time, which is quite impressive when you consider the depth of my predictions. So ask me if I'm going to change my behavior, which routinely helps five close friends whom I see every week, to appease you. Ask.

I've the opposite impression. There are only two (maximum four) wonderful romantic relationships that have come from this community. Stefan and MMD are the most obvious two, and I literally cannot think of any others. (You'll note that none of the long-time, triple-digit green members mention girlfriends or wives.) So the group-performance seems to indicate that, "The longer you stay in FDR, and the more you post on the FDR Message boards, the less likely you are to find a romantic relationships with anyone, let alone a virtuous woman." Anecdotally, I'm part of the Best FDR NYC Meet-Up. There are six regular members (all male), and three are in long-term romantic relationships with women who are NOT FDR listeners or members. Also anecdotally, I used to be part of the "other" FDR NYC Meet-Up. It contains six long-time, regular members: two homosexual males (who, when I last met them, were not involved in any long-term relationships), one heterosexual female (who, when I last met her, wasn't involved in an LTR), and three heterosexual males (who, when I last met them, were not involved in any long-term relationships). One of these men described himself as "having been to therapy for years", and I learned from another member that he also hadn't dated a woman in years. It is quite possible that all six of those members have found romantic relationships in my absence, but my absence came five months ago, so they would all be classified as short-term romances (for now).

A society in which more people are raised by more people isn't necessarily non-monogamous. Just imagine a monogamous society with groups of extended families living in close proximity.

Here's what would've happened if you cut-and-pasted where I (supposedly) commented on your preferred sexual behaviors. My quotation that you cut-and-pasted would not have directly commented on your sexual behaviors. So the only way you could accuse me of commenting on your sexual behaviors is by inferring what I meant. Inferring what I meant, and saying that I meant X and no other possible thing is Black and White thinking. ------------------- Furthermore, you're equally emotionally annoyed by the phrase "Black and White thinking" as you're annoyed by the notion of commenting on someone's sexual behavior. (And I know that you're bothered by the phrase "Black and White thinking", because you're trying to made a trade, "You show me Black and White thinking and then I'll cut-and-paste examples where you're commenting on my sexual behaviors.") Most people, and all normal people, do not get at all bothered when someone suggests they're using Black and White thinking - but they may (or may not) get bothered when someone comments on their sexual behaviors. Gammas always get annoyed by things that don't at all bother non-Gammas.

It's frightening and not-at-all surprising that you've all concluded that "the real problem" is that super-smart people get frustrated and then lash out by saying, "I'm smarter than you!" But the real problem may very well be (and often is) that ignorant people expect to be taken as seriously as intelligent, well-informed people. Kevin Beal says, "And it's not unimportant that there is such a thing as the Dunning-Kruger effect which causes people to over estimate their competence in something with the degree that they are ignorant of it. Knowledge makes humility." as a way of lampooning anyone who says, "I'm smarter than you", but he doesn't use it to lampoon the recipient of those words. Troubador's excellent post says, "The issues stem from people wanting to appear to be the smartest person in the room, and use smoke and mirrors to bully and silence people." as a way of lampooning anyone who says, "I'm smarter than you!" - but he doesn't use his words to lampoon the recipient of "I'm smarter than you!" (Haven't you figured out that ignorant people who want to be seen as equally intelligent as well-informed people will deliberately provoke a frustrated response from a superior intellect, and then complain about that frustrated response in order to gain sympathy from the masses?) Frosty adds, "If you've made a valid claim which has valid premises and valid inferences and thus must have a valid conclusion and someone rejects it then you focus on what they've rejected as a means to settle the debate." as a way of lampooning anyone who says, "I'm smarter than you!" - but that tactic only works when the ignorant person is open-minded enough to rationally and reasonably consider any argument. The bottom line is that you're all emotionally preferring an egalitarian, non-hierarchical debate structure, but that doesn't necessarily work. Worse, egalitarian, non-hierarchical debate structures are always preferred by r-selected individuals, some of whom will be simultaneously ignorant, closed-minded AND highly skilled in emotionally manipulating crowds of people through complaints of being bullied and oppressed. The most effective way to counteract r-selected bad behavior is through K-selected rules, but very few people in modern societies are familiar with K-selected rules, (and most people in FDR actively oppose K-selected rules). K-selected rules inevitably produce non-egalitarian, dominance hierarchies, which are precisely the point - because Truth/Falsehood is a dominance hierarchy, and Best Truth / Less Best Truth is also a dominance hierarchy. The best K-selected dominance hierarchy I'm familiar with is the Roosh V Forum, which separates "Likes" - (which are equivalent to FDR's upvoting/downvoting system) - from "Reputation" - (which does not exist in FDR). Anyone can give or receive infinite "Likes" for any post, but each RVF member can only give or receive one precious Reputation-Point from each individual RVF member. "Likes" are given for anything ranging from a silly joke or meme, to a quick and correct answer to a trivial question, to a relevant link to a scientific study, to the most awe-inspiring, life-changing post you'll ever read. But Reputation Points are the platinum currency of the Roosh V Forum, and they're only given for serious reasons - and you must explain why you're repping that poster. The most esteemed RVF members have triple digit Rep Points, and enjoy a well-deserved status bump - which allows them to argue more passionately and reach out to help others more freely. Kevin Beal is dead wrong. Knowledge doesn't create humility. Competing in a dominance-hierarchy, losing badly, and having the decency to apologize without self-attacking creates humility. Saying, "I'm smarter than you!" is one of many ways - (not necessarily the most effective) - to assert one's superior position in a dominance hierarchy. And without a dominance hierarchy, you just get a free-for-all wherein everyone participates, but few people (if any!) are adequately recognized for their superior contributions. This creates a "Why bother?" effect, wherein the best people leave for greener pastures.

It won't help. Poxer's life-story clearly indicates the typical r-selected path, "I only do what I'm exceptionally good at. If I'm not exceptionally good at it, then I won't even bother." As well as, "I only do what is exceptionally stimulating and fun. If it's not exceptionally stimulating and fun, then I won't bother." Talk therapy is excellent at telling you why you've gotten to where you've arrived - (bad parents, lack of social support, lack of empathetic support) - but it's horribly inefficient at telling you Now what? And it's even worse at driving home the point, "Look, man. You're a guy. And as a guy you're surrounded by people who will never emotionally support you, because you're a guy! So you'd better learn to emotionally support yourself through the process of daily, boring, scary, and essential work."

If you could cut-and-paste exactly where I claimed that, I'd appreciate it.

That's only true if the topic itself is purely logical, such as the trajectory of a projectile. Topics such as parenting and monogamy inevitably involve sexuality, which is inevitably personal, and are always best understood on personal grounds. (For example, once I know that a man doesn't exercise AND opposes Pick-Up Artistry, I know exactly what he is and why he opposes Pick-Up Artistry.) Have you noticed that your every argument involves, "Either A or B" propositions, and that my responses always involve "A, B, C, and D" propositions? Vox Day and The Anonymous Conservative have very much helped me identify this line-of-thinking and make excellent predictions of people who think along those lines. Vox Day calls it Black/White thinking, and he classifies everyone who routinely uses it as Gamma individuals. You can check out alphagameplan.BlogSpot.com to determine what Gammas are, but be warned, Vox has nothing nice to say about them.

There's no such thing as "the discussion as a whole" - (just like there's no such thing as "society") - so you can't appeal to it to make your arguments. I get that it's annoying to be on the receiving end of "I'm smarter than you!", but I know what it's like to be well-researched in a subject only to have some uninformed fool with a very strong opinion expect me to logically walk him through what took me months to understand. And subjects that take me months to understand cannot be condensed into 100-word essays that uninformed people can instantly grasp; they have to be studied slowly and humbly. I'm not saying everyone who has said, "I'm smarter than you!" was going through what I go through. They could very well be a jerk. But you'd be better served providing them empathy, even if that empathy isn't designed to change their behaviors. In other words, you can empathetically walk away.