MMX2010

Downvoted because you referenced the Nazis, and because I'm not sure whether you watched Stefan's video on the Eric Garner case. By the way, Chris Cantwell's video is really annoying because he's pretending that the Eric Garner incident occurred in a free market. But the Eric Garner incident occurred in a police state, and the favorable price of Eric Garner's cigarettes was created by government laws. So Garner didn't "produce a better product", nor did he "provide a better product at a cheaper price". He simply broke the law.

I think you, Nicholas Evans, and especially Chris Cantwell are misinterpreting the NAP. The Non-Aggression Principle does not mean that you're not supposed to be aggressive towards anyone, ever. It means that you're not supposed to Initiate aggression against anyone else. ------------------------- Also crucial, Chris Cantwell declares (and I both you and Nicholas Evans believe) that Eric Garner was arrested for selling loose cigarettes. But this isn't accurate. Eric Garner was arrested because we-the-people declared that selling loose cigarettes is illegal, but he decided to sell loose cigarettes anyway. Since you, and me, and Nicholas Evans, and Chris Cantwell are part of "we the people", then "we the people" initiated force against Eric Garner. The main problem with your (implied) defense of Eric Garner is that he didn't try to get his money back from "we-the-people". Instead, he tried to get it back from very specific store-owners. Basically, everyone who wants government to do anything is guilty. But punishing the less-than-five store owners who happened to be around Eric Garner for the sins of 300 million people is unjust.

Yes, this is true. But the thing you're avoiding is that it's partially your fault. You're not getting out of this situation blameless and innocent. Neither am I, but I'm willing to accept my own portion of the blame. Are you?

Everyone uses the force of the government. It's not as simple as, "If I don't call the police, I don't use the force of the government." It's as simple as, "If what you're doing exists because government makes it so, the you're using the force of the government."

I tried answering your question directly, but my response got all jumbled. So I'm going to discuss my negative experiences with a different tattoo'ed woman. She is the wife of a young man I've known for years. We met (online) when he was 17, posting on message boards. I would describe him (then) as exceptionally intelligent but also deeply lost. (Ironically, I think his being lost is stupid, because it's obvious what he is. When he was eighteen months old, he was able to hear a song on the radio (just once), and then play it on the piano. Thus, while many of us struggle to know ourselves, because we don't have an exceptional talent guiding us, he shouldn't be struggling with any identity issues - because he's a musician. Whether he, his wife, or anyone else, likes this or not - that's just what he is.) When he turned 18, his grandparents kicked him out of the house and forced him into the military because he "needed discipline". For the first six months, he essentially "half-assed" everything. But even his half-assedness was so much better than everyone else's efforts that he became an officer. He met her by sending a message to her myspace page. So the first nine months of their courtship was essentially text messages, chat rooms, and Skype calls. But she grew up less than ten miles from his hometown, so they met when he was on military leave. They had instant chemistry, but she was dating a drug-addicted person whom he (correctly) perceived as being no good for her. And he convinced himself that she could be so much more....if only she were provided adequate guidance and leadership. About six months later, he essentially stole her from him, (a long story whose details I'll omit to keep this post short), and they were married shortly after. During the first phase of their marriage, he was stationed in Korea for about a year, maybe longer. And during that time period, he was working out, regularly writing music, and (somewhat) advancing in the military. (His military advancement was the least important thing because: (1) he believes he is being watched over by what is best described as a "spirit guide" - (called the "daimon", if you know archetypal psychology) - which got mad whenever he advanced in the military, and (2) he's a musician, not a soldier.) He achieved the best shape of his life, thanks mostly to the Insanity workout plan, and was happy. As a couple, they, too, were happy. During the second phase of their marriage, he was stationed on American soil, which allowed them to live together. And during this second phase, I visited them twice - (with the intention of moving in with them) - and my two visits can be called "Pre-Stef" and "Post-Stef". My Pre-Stef visit revealed a couple that was emotionally happy with each other, but my Post-Stef visit revealed a lot of warning signs - most of which he is aware of, but doesn't know how to handle. In my opinion, the most obvious physical warning signs are her tattoos and her inability to sleep unless she smokes weed. And the less obvious (but more dangerous) ones are: (1) he no longer works out, nor writes music - so he has become significantly overweight, (2) she (almost) never mentions how sad she is about this, and when she does, it's extremely weak and easily dismissed, (3) she is what I silently call "half a whore".... (Which half? The worse half!) .... because she works as a CamGirl and moonlights as a legal prostitute but she only works six days a month, (sometimes fewer), and frames her work choices as "fine" because "she pays her own bills". (4) She has what I think is a very high ACE score (minimum 5, but I'd guess a 7 or 8), but she has only very recently begun therapy. (5) She is the first woman he has ever slept with, and he was (and still is) a soft-spoken, gentle individual. But she has "talked him into" performing BDSM on her and taking her to "swinging parties". He neither objects to this, nor is curious about whether he likes it or not. He merely entered into it with an open mind, and found that it was "fine". (6) He has, recently, begun a polygamous / three-person relationship with another woman, also a CamGirl. Second Girl majored in Woman's Studies, and is a much more successful CamGirl (mostly because she works longer hours). She also has what I perceive to be a high ACE score, and has never gone to therapy. He is fascinated by her emotional distance, which he perceives as intellectual objectivity, and he uses conversations with Second Girl to contrast with the emotional volatility of His Wife. But I perceive Second Girl's "intellectual objectivity" as extremely-sheltered non-intellectual, non-curiosity - which is a perfect match to His Wife's non-intellectual, non-curiosity; the only difference is one is emotionally cold when she's saying stupid things while the other person yells and throws things. "Post-Stef" is also "Post-Rollo Tomassi", so I know much more about Frame and Frame Control. This knowledge helps me perceive important things by wondering to myself, "When these two argue, how often does she do what he wants - even though she disagrees? When they argue, how often does he do what she wants - even though he disagrees?" And, "Dude, your initial attraction to Her is founded on the notion that she'd become a much better person, if only she were provided leadership and consistent guidance, but: (1) who defines what "better person" means and what accepted forms of "leadership" and "consistent guidance" are?, and how do you know your answer is true? (2) If they are your definitions, how eagerly does she follow your guidance in everyday life, but if they are her definitions, then how you do know they align with your best interests? (3) The most important question of all: 'what percent of your free thinking time - especially your free time at work where your mind can wander anywhere because you're not free to pursue your hobbies - centers around something-she-said, something-she-did, or something-she-didn't-do?" Those questions are supremely important because their answers establish who is Controlling the Frame. And Frame Control questions establish Who Is Really the Leader of This Relationship? I've never asked him these questions directly, because we no longer speak, but I know he'd swear that they're his terms. However, if she's not changing her behaviors because of his advice, OR if he's spending all of his free energy worrying about her, then they're NOT his terms and he's NOT the leader of their marriage. The souring of our friendship taught me many things, but the crucial thing is: You are never providing either leadership or Stewardship if you don't have Frame Control. Women are biologically designed to test your boundaries, and failing those tests means you'll be following her directions and her implied goals, all while swearing to everyone that she's following your directions and implied goals. ---------------------------- In my next post, I'll answer your questions. But I'd like to state three things I know. (1) Women are biologically programmed both to constantly test a man's philosophical strength and moral boundaries and to possess completely contradictory motives-for-having-sex, (which translates as being attracted to contradictory types-of-men). These contradictions are specially tuned to her menstrual cycle. (2) These contradictions, combined with the pussy pass that Stefan describes, means that the overwhelming majority of women have less-than-zero self-knowledge about men, themselves, and sexuality. (Zero knowledge would mean they're ignorant, but less-than-zero knowledge means that they think they know important things....but their knowledge is wrong.) (3) Items 1 and 2 mean that, in the vast majority of cases, the best part of a relationship is during the beginning stages when a woman is behaving better solely for the purpose of keeping you around. When she begins to feel disappointment towards who you are, she begins to behave less better - which sours the relationship. To what extent do you believe these three things to be absolutely true for all women, (with rare exceptions)?

I'm grinning my ass off reading this loooooooooong, but insightful and deep essay. Best one-liner so far, "Liberal women want all the benefits of socialism and all the brand names that come with capitalism. When she can't have it, the problem is misogyny."

You're heaping up lots of red coins because you turned this thread, which is about Rainbow Jamz' techniques and motives for intervening in child abuse, into a you-focused discussion of your definitions. Starting your own thread would've been much better.

Two things before my reply. (1) The personality changes I'm advising are ones which I'm only beginning to undertake, and you may feel annoyance/snarkiness directed from me to you. Rest assured that such annoyance and snark is directed twenty-fold towards myself for failing to realize these personality changes are necessary. (2) You'll need to remember this analogy: An angry lion is fighting an unarmed man; after ten minutes of back-and-forth physical attacks, both parties leave exhausted and unhurt. Who won the fight? -------------------------------- Anyway, here are my rules for dealing with these sorts of discussions. Rule #1 - If this was a Facebook debate, I question why you'd even do that. We tell ourselves that "other people are watching", but that's a time wasting delusion. Rule #2 - If this was a face-to-face conversation with a feminist or a White Knight, do you know why this conversation was important? If your answers focus on either: (1) drawing a wider audience, or (2) helping the Feminist / White Knight self-improve, those are wrong reasons. Valid reasons focus on your entertainment and your self-improvement, not around anyone else. Rule #3 - This rule is highly important, but hard-to-grasp. Facts should only be discussed with people-who-already-agree. This allows you to both strengthen your perspective and to continually evaluate your commitment to your values. But a fact-focused discussion should never be used on Feminists / White Knights. Why? Because you're the lion! You've got the facts on your side. You listen to Stefan Molyneux. You are philosophically rigorous. So you're the lion. But when you get into a fact-focused discussion with a Feminist / White Knight, you always get stale-mated because: (1) They never agree with you, and they make you think their agreement is valuable to you. (2) When the conversation ends, you both walk away somewhat annoyed - BUT no better and no worse. Stale-mates are losses. Instead, your goal is to dominate the conversation by making her feel small, weak, and wrong. And it's harder to convince ourselves that this is right and good than it is to learn how to do it. Rule #4 - Ultimately, you dominate these discussions by being happy AND dismissive. (Ironically, they try to win these discussions by being unhappy and dismissive, which never works.) So the real Rule #1 is "never discuss this stuff unless you're happy with your life, your choices, and your future opportunities". She'll see your misery and self-doubt as a sign that she's right, which will make you lose. Instead, you have to subtly but firmly make her realize that YOU ARE BETTER THAN HER. ------------------------------------------ So, I'd like to imagine that your conversation took place in a bar. And I'm that invisible dude at the table, sitting next to you, minding his own business. But you're both talking loud enough for me to hear, and I'm not saying anything until your feminist friend says: "Just because men face problems too does not mean feminism is useless or that we think your problems don't matter. Male privilege doesn't mean everything is easy, it means overall, in general, you aren't systematically oppressed. There are places around the world where women aren't allowed to go out in public without being chaperoned by a man, where if a man cheats his wife is blamed, where little girls are forced to marry, where women are gang raped as punishment for "crimes," etc. Women in America have it easy compared to those women, but we still face problems because of our gender." The moment she finishes her final sentence, your hear this dismissive and fakely-long belly laugh. It's a laugh that makes everyone go silent and look at me. Is he reading a book? (No.) Browsing the internet? (No.) Over-hearing the conversation? (Yes.) And then he looks directly at your Feminist friend, shakes his head regretfully and says, "You're right. Women in America face problems because of their gender." - but the confusing thing is that I'm agreeing with her in words but disagreeing with her in my voice and body-language. It doesn't matter what she says / does next, because I'm going to say, "Women in America faces problems because of their gender." Only this time, I'm going to draw out that word "because" really long and slow - with very solemn overtones. And then I'm quickly going to say, "Thanks for buying my meal (or coffee)..." - and act like I'm leaving. When she says, "But I didn't agree to pay for that!", I'm going to reply, "Well, shit. You complain about gender discrimination in places you've never lived in, but you don't have the balls to grab either a gun or a microphone to protest those injustices. Meanwhile, when men decided they didn't like the fucking Nazis, they grabbed their guns and beat them back. Now, I assumed (again, long....and....slow to make her feel small and weak) that you'd be so grateful to the men who make your life better than those of the women you complain about that you'd be willing to buy my meal. Guess you're just one of those 'feminists' (finger quotes in air, super long and slow....mocking voice tone...extremely dismissive BUT happy) who don't know how to say 'thank you'." Then I'm going to turn to you, smile warmly, and say, "The most important thing we can do is be happy. How does hanging around with....that (points thumb to your feminist friend, doesn't look at her, ignores anything she has to say at this point) enhance your happiness?" *pauses, smiles* "You have a nice day now." ------------------------ And that's it. You don't convert the Feminist / White Knight. You just score an over-arching point, and then leave. Ideally, she resorts to very angry insults (which I win by happily ignoring). Or she doesn't challenge me, which also means I won. And you leave with a better appreciation for the value of your time, effort, and personal happiness. *********************************** If you prefer one-liners, "Women blame male society, even though they mean government, and even though women are the majority of voters." "Women loudly claim that they don't need a man, but government is the biggest man around. Soon, he'll be the biggest deadbeat." "A woman's curse is to derive the majority of her power from her youth and good-looks, and a man's curse is to derive the majority of his power from his wealth and experience. A man who marries the wrong woman becomes a self-blaming harmless fool, but a woman who marries the wrong man (or doesn't marry at all, or chooses the wrong career) blames everyone but herself and wants the government to rescue her." "The only problem that women face because of their gender is their unwillingness to self-improve. Sadly, that only problem is a huge, huge one." "The best of men face every challenge with bravery, stoicism, and healthy self-blame. (Self-blame is required for self-improvement.) These men call this FREEDOM and LIFE. Women loathe these men because they're a constant reminder of what they'll never be: FREE and HAPPY." "Men gather their power from their own decisions and values. Women gather power from their men, and they use it against them." "Have you noticed how the better American society gets, the more women are depressed and the more idiotic their complaints are? Eighty years ago, she complained that she didn't have enough to eat. Today, she complains that women in countries she's never been to are suffering problems she'll never, herself, experience." "Do women complain about sufferings in third world countries because they want to fix those problems, or because they want to make men fix those problems for them?"

Article about 17 year old transgender who commits suicide by jumping in front of an 18-wheeler. http://www.11alive.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/12/30/transgender-teen-death-means-something/21059923/ Transgender teen: 'My death needs to mean something' Why we wrote about this: "As the mother of teenagers, my heart breaks for this family," said Enquirer Editor Carolyn Washburn. "But this suicide took place in a very public place and manner; we needed to explain what happened. And it raises important issues we hope will prompt conversations in families throughout our region." In life, Leelah Alcorn felt alone. Born male, she feared she would never be the woman she felt like inside. In death, the transgender 17-year-old - born Josh Alcorn - wanted to make sure others never felt that way she did. "The only way I will rest in peace is if one day transgender people aren't treated the way I was, they're treated like humans, with valid feelings and human rights," Alcorn wrote in a post on the social media blog site Tumblr. "My death needs to mean something," she wrote in the post, which she scheduled to appear the day after her death. That plea marked her final public words. On Sunday, just before 2:30 a.m., Alcorn walked 4 miles from her middle-class Kings Mills neighborhood with its views of Kings Island to Interstate 71. There, she was struck and killed by a tractor-trailer. The highway was closed for more than a hour. By Tuesday evening, Leelah's story had become a worldwide story - one of how transgender teens often feel alone and afraid. The hashtag #LeelahAlcorn was topping Twitter; news sites worldwide had picked up the story; and someone had even created a Wikipedia page for Alcorn. The State Highway Patrol continues to investigate; no charges have been filed. Her body was sent to the Montgomery County coroner for an autopsy, which will take several weeks. Alcorn's family declined to comment to The Enquirer. In a statement via the Kings Local School District, the family requested privacy. Alcorn's mother, Carla Wood Alcorn, wrote on Facebook Sunday, "My sweet 16-year-old son, Joshua Ryan Alcorn, went home to Heaven this morning. He was out for an early morning walk and was hit by a truck. Thank you for the messages and kindness and concern you have sent our way. Please continue to keep us in your prayers." The post has since been taken down. According to the school statement, Alcorn attended Kings schools and was most recently enrolled as an 11th grader at the Ohio Virtual Academy, an online school. "Joshua Alcorn was a sweet, talented, tender-hearted 17-year-old," the statement from Kings read. Counselors will be available when students return from winter break. Before her death, Alcorn scheduled her note to post on her Tumblr blog at 5:30 p.m. the day of her death. A note titled "Sorry" came later. In it she told her younger brother and sisters she loved them. She thanked her friend Abby Jones for "dealing with my pathetic problems." And she told her mom and dad, "You just can't control other people like that." Forty-eight hours after the first note was posted on Tumblr, it had 82,272 views. There are no national statistics about how many transgender people commit suicide, partly because it's not always known. In 2010, the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force reported 41 percent of 7,000 transgender people surveyed had attempted suicide. An analysis of the survey responses by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and UCLA Law School's Williams Institute last January showed transgenders who experienced rejection by family and friends, discrimination, victimization or violence have a higher risk of attempting suicide. Cincinnati City Councilman Chris Seelbach, the city's first openly gay councilman, has taken on Alcorn's cause. In a post on Facebook - shared more than 4,700 times - Seelbach said Alcorn's death shows just how hard it is to be a transgender today in the U.S. "By reading her letter, Leelah makes it clear she wants her death to, in some ways, help 'trans civil rights movements,'" he wrote. A Kings Island caricaturist Jones met Alcorn last spring when Alcorn, a talented artist, applied to work as a caricaturist at Kings Island. Alcorn's work was the best of any new employee. They drew caricatures of each other and a friendship took root. "She was super bubbly and upbeat, with a really brash sense of humor; she could make anyone laugh," said Jones, 17, of Milford. Jones drew Alcorn as Elsa from "Frozen." "It was her favorite thing ever," Jones said. Living far from each other, they would get together before and after work. They saw "Fault in Our Stars." They got ice cream. They texted. A lot. During late-night texting in July, Alcorn wrote, "I have something to tell you." She came out as transgender. The whole story spilled. Jones recounted Alcorn's story, much the way Alcorn herself talked in her online note. Freshman year of high school, Alcorn came out as gay as a way to transition. Her friends were kind. She wrote her family "wanted me to be their perfect little straight Christian boy, and that's obviously not what I wanted." She had never really understood what she was feeling. At 14, she finally understood. But, she said, her family didn't understand. "She would get really down, there was just no talking her out of it," Jones said. "She always said, 'Nothing is going to get better, I am never going to transition successfully, I am never going to be the pretty girl I want to be.' " Shane Morgan, founder and chair of TransOhio, which provides education and advocacy, said 2014 has been a year filled with progress for transgender people. "If we look back at 2014 there have been really incredible changes and liberation for trans people across the world," Morgan said. "There were prominent faces on TV and on the cover of Time and that is all fantastic. But there have been a lot of murders of trans people this year; trans people are still being victimized and still being disrespected. "Nobody should commit suicide because of who they are," Morgan said. "With as much change as there has been, there is still much to do." Help for the transgendered or those considering suicide ---------------------------------- I almost posted in the comments section, "Today, I'm going to imagine an alternate version of America where, in 1946, a 17 year old man whom no one in 2015 has ever heard of committed suicide by jumping in front of a train. The next day, his suicide note was found, which read, 'The only way I can rest in peace is if the mistreatment of Blacks stops. I need my death to mean something! Fix society, please!' Signed, Martin Luther King, Jr." Decided to post the article in this thread instead.

I don't think you were merely arguing for the privatization of the police. I think you were advocating for both the privatization of the police AND assigning moral responsibility to police for (supposedly) racist behaviors. So you basically want the police to both enforce the law and produce racial equality. In my opinion, it's impossible to produce racial equality because either: (1) the races are genetically unequal, (2) the cultural ideas that races adopt are unequal, and some of those ideas are automatically, objectively, and universally better than others, or (3) a combination of both. So is the research which shows that there are no genetic disparities in intelligence, meaning that all differences between races are "social", implying that all racial differences could be eliminated if we just "educated everyone correctly". I'm stuck not knowing whether you want the police to ensure racial equality or not. Which is it?

Wonderful. Even if this were true, you're using information from employer/employee relationships on parent/child relationships. Because there are so many differences between the two relationship-types, it's foolish to assume that "If it works in employer/employee relationships, then it must work in parent/child relationships." Again, you're using the host/parasite word carelessly. Do you use the word because the child is dependent upon the parent? If so, does that mean every relationship involving "dependence" is host/parasitical - including (1) walking across the desert, as a naïve tourist, with a survival expert, (2) being sick and seeing a doctor, (3) being a highly intelligent teacher and working with a student? The italicized-red-bold print is precisely the goal and the point. Hence, you're telling us that either because: (1) you think we don't realize it - which is wrong, because we do, or (2) because you object to it for reasons you haven't explained. Altering the parent's behavior isn't "the goal"; it's "a goal". The major goal is either to: (1) stand up against the action of child abuse, solely for the purpose of standing up to the action of child abuse, (2) to let the child know that what's happening is child abuse, so he can stand up to his mother later on in life, (3) to let the child know that what's happening is child abuse, and nothing more, or (4) to practice standing up to child abuse so that one can get better at doing so in the future. To use a crude analogy, you're like a guy who can only have sex when he's deeply in love and feels a meaningful connection with a woman criticizing other men who can simply have sex without emotionality. You're predicting a whole of negative consequences and failures on to that men, which (naturally!) either never come to pass OR come to pass in extremely muted form. And you're doing this because you're projecting YOUR values, assumptions, and goals onto others, AS IF they were universal. (They're not; they're just limited to you and whomever-agrees-with-you.)

I've three objections to your argument. (1) The comparison between yourself teaching martial arts and police trying to arrest citizens is invalid. Unless you were just leading into your point that police officers need to be better trained to use non-lethal force holds, which I agree with. (2) Your desire to assign moral responsibility to the police is misguided, because in this current system police ARE NOT DESIGNED to make moral decisions. So if you want to give the police more power to make moral decisions, or if you want to hold police officers criminally responsible for moral infractions, then you'll need to design a completely different system of policing. (3) Here's a short video. Before you read any further, watch it and determine who, in your opinion, is most responsible for the boy's death. (I will also add that a second video, which I couldn't find, indicated that the dispatcher failed to notify police that the caller said the boy's weapon was probably fake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0xEIEXk4Nc In my opinion, the caller is, by far the most responsible. If he was certain that the gun was probably fake, then he shouldn't have called the police. He should've either ignored the situation or called upon himself and his neighbors to handle it. What percentage of people do you think agree with my position? I like it's less than 10% of people. Everyone else just doesn't understand that: (1) Pointing a fake gun at people and scaring them either is not or ought not to be a criminal offense, and (2) the police aren't designed to intelligently and compassionately enforce moral violations. (4) The Eric Garner case revealed two very important, (and rarely mentioned), truths about the American people. The first is that the majority of them are not police, have never been police, and have no interest in being police. The second is that the majority of them are not lawyers, have never been lawyers, and have no interest in being lawyers. But despite this double-ignorance, the majority of people are 100% confident in their opinions about police conduct and legal verdicts, and it's nearly impossible to get them to slow down and examine their opinions philosophically. As far as the police use-of-force is concerned, I use three four simple categorizations. Using words is much less forceful than using your hands. Using your hands is much less forceful than using your fists. And using your fists is much less forceful than using weapons. Once Eric Garner resisted following the officers' words, the officers resorted to using their hands. No fists were used; no weapons were drawn. So, in my mind, the police did well - but the majority of citizens, (who themselves don't study martial arts, either), feel 100% confident in their assessments of what a "choke" is and how "dangerous" it is. As far as the Eric Garner case went, I use one simple definition: the purpose of the court is to determine whose behavior was criminally illegal. It is not to determine whose behavior was morally wrong. However, the majority of citizens, (who, again, don't study law and have no interest in studying law), presume based on nothing-but-wishful-thinking that the police and the courts are designed to enforce moral violations. From this wishful thinking alone, the majority of citizens act as if a moral outrage occurred whenever a police officer fails to be criminally indicted. It is this ignorance and wishful thinking which is almost solely responsible for their outrage. (5) The word "racism" is irresponsible every time someone uses it. During the call-in show, Stefan indicted that he couldn't be 100% sure that genetics doesn't play some role in the disproportionate use of aggressive behavior from Blacks. When the caller heard this, he became visibly shaken and said, "I don't know how you could say that, given your knowledge of how parenting influences future behavior...especially in early childhood." Meanwhile, if there's a genetic component to the disproportionally aggressive behavior of Black people, the ONLY truth that would emerge would be that, "On a large-scale social level, Black people would suffer a disproportionally larger portion of the negative consequences of aggressive behavior." Other fearful consequences are either based in falsehood, such as, "We should automatically disassociate with all Black people, because they're more aggressive." and "We should automatically discriminate against all Black people, because they're more aggressive." OR completely impossible to solve, "Some people will either refuse to associate with Black people or commit violent acts against Blacks, when hearing that Black people are disproportionally aggressive." So, to me, the caller let his own personal fear of what would happen IF Black people were proven to be genetically more aggressive close his mind against what Stef was saying. Lastly, some people believe that Blacks are inferior to Whites. Some say it's genetic inferiority, and others say it's cultural inferiority. This belief causes them to voluntarily refuse to associate with Blacks, unless they're close friends of people within their social group. The same Liberals who swear that the Eric Garner case was a race-motivated tragedy will swear that this attitude is racist. Meanwhile, the people who refuse to associate with Blacks will counter-argue that the Liberals' desire to use laws and police to create racial equality is also racist. So two groups of people, with extremely opposite viewpoints, are both guilty of "racism". This is just one of many examples of this phenomenon. Collectively, these examples mean that the word "racism" is irresponsible every time someone uses it.

So, let's get this straight. One - You use an imprecise definition of the word "parasite". Two - I kindly point out that you're using an imprecise definition of the word "parasite". Three - As a counter-argument, you say: (1) "The definition I used is an etymological root" AND (2) "When you look up a word in the dictionary, you will find many, sometimes dozens, different usages of the word with different connotations." The second part of your counter-argument agrees with my argument that you're using an imprecise definition, but you apparently didn't notice.

That's a very imprecise definition, so if you use that definition in any argument, you'll create an imprecise position. A better definition would be, "One whose personal opinions wrongfully impose a moral obligation on someone else, combined with the unwillingness to provide even exchange - (either now or in the future) - for the fulfillment of that moral obligation." Under this definition, it's impossible for most children to be parasites, because their future behaviors could provide more benefit than their earlier neediness created.

When I spoke to my sister, (who gave birth to my niece), about Peaceful Parenting, she immediately assumed I was talking about Neglectful Parenting. She used phrases like "letting her do whatever she wants" and "letting her get away with everything". If my sister's assumption is true for all mothers, we should expect to bump into that hurdle whenever we discuss Peaceful Parenting.

Better question: which of those can Rainbow Jamz, (or anyone else), control or influence in their day-to-day lives? Best question: does focusing on what we cannot change or influence deprive us of the power to change or influence what we can?

The Bad Lip Reading videos keep getting better and better. This video, the newest, incorporates hand gestures that were not in the original film - but they're so well-done and so perfectly overlain that you may not have realized. "Never hock a loogie in my cup" is my favorite line.

The White Knight is powerful in that one.

I didn't read prolix's post in depth, nor did I read the study he posted. My initial thought was, "Non-spanking is a necessary but non-sufficient ingredient in peaceful parenting." And I speculated that the majority of children who were never spanked are being raised Neglectfully rather than Peacefully.

1. Helping Rainbow Jamz evaluate the effectiveness of his choices in this specific situation. 2. Giving Rainbow Jamz both specific words to say and mantras he can use to psychologically prepare himself to perform better. (I, for example, want him to see himself as "above" abusive parents. Others imply that they want him to see himself as "equal to (in stature) even though he's not abusive". We disagree, but as long as I'm not downvoted without explanation, our disagreement is crucial to this discussion because it gives RJ multiple perspectives to consider.)

Because everyone is under some mount of stress all the time, no matter what. Saying, "Acute stress in the moment caused this!" is akin to saying, "Breathing caused this!" ------------------- Furthermore, the mother volunteered to place herself in that stressful situation in the first place. She explains, "We have been shopping for hours", even though her child was in no position to authoritatively contribute to the decision.

I don't know how you meant this. If "either polygamous or monogamous" means "in a life-long way, never wavering between the two", then I don't agree. But if you meant "either polygamous or monogamous in the moment", then I agree.

Not at all, because r and K don't predict the values of specific individuals. They instead predict the relative distribution of those values within a large population. So statements like, "The overwhelming majority of the people in that country are K-focused, because there's a lot of poverty in that society." can either be true or false. But statements like, "John is r-focused because his culture has a lot of wealth." can never be true.

It's one thing to discuss equality in the abstract, but quite another to discuss gender equality in the concrete with scientific research in your holster. The following is the latest post from Rollo Tomassi. It should be considered Chapter One of the MGTOW Bible. First the link. Then a copy-paste of the article, using the quote feature to separate other people's words from Rollo's. Finally, my tl;dr summary with questions / implications. ------------------------------ http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/17/estrus/ Last week saw the publication of the latest paper by Dr. Steven W. Gangestad and Dr. Martie Hasselton titled Human Estrus: Implications for Relationship Science. Anyone who’s read the Rational Male for more than a year is probably familiar with my citing Dr. Hasselton in various posts (her catalog of research has been part of my sidebar links since I began RM), but both she and Dr. Gangstad are among the foremost notable researchers in the areas of human sexuality and applied evolutionary psychology. For this week’s post I’ll be riffing on what this paper proposes with regard to a condition of estrus in women. In the introduction section of The Rational Male I relate a story of how in my Red Pill formative years I came to be a connector of dots so to speak. While I was studying behavioral psychology and personality studies a great many issues jumped out at me with regards to how many of the principle of behavioral psychology could be (and were already being) applied to intersexual relations. For instance, the basic concepts of intermittent reinforcement and behavioral modification seemed to me an obvious and learned practice of women in achieving some behavioral effect on men by periodically rewarding (reinforcing) them with sex ‘intermittently’. Operant conditioning and establishing operations also dovetailed seamlessly into the Red Pill concepts and awareness I’d been developing for several years prior to finishing my degree. Since then the ideas I formed have naturally become more complex than these simple foundations, but what I only learned by error was how thoroughly disconnected both students and my teachers were with what I saw as obvious connections. I met obstinate resistance to flat denial when I wrote papers or gave a dissertation about the interplay between the foundations of behaviorism and interpersonal relationships. It was one thing to propose that men would use various aspects to their own advantage, but it was offensive to suggest that women would commonly use behavioral modification techniques to achieve their Hypergamous ends. This peer resistance was especially adamant when I would suggest that women had a subconscious pre-knowledge (based on collective female experience) of these techniques. I never thought I had brass balls for broaching uncomfortable considerations like this – I honestly, and probably naively, assumed that what I was proposing had already been considered by academia long before I’d come to it. I was actually introduced to the work of Dr. Hasselton during this time, and along with Dr. Warren Farrell, she’s gone on to become one of my go-to sources in respect to the connection between contemporary behavioral ‘dots’ with theories of practical evolved function in intersexual dynamics. I owe much of what I propose on Rational Male to this interplay, and while I doubt Hasselton would agree with all of what I or the manosphere propose, I have to credit her and her colleague’s work for providing me many of the dots I connect. I understand that there are still evo-psych skeptics in the manosphere, but I find that much of what passes for their piecemeal “skepticism” is generally rooted in a desire to stubbornly cling to comforting Blue Pill idealisms. That said, I’d never ask any reader to take what I propose here on faith, but personally I’ve found that the questions proposed by evo-psych reflect many of the observations I had in my college days. Hypergamous Duplicity For the social theater of the Feminine Imperative, one of the more galling developments in psychological studies to come out of the past fifteen years has been the rise of evolutionary psychology. The natural pivot for the Imperative in dealing with evo-psych has been to write off any concept unflattering to the feminine as being speculative or proving a biased positive (by “misogynistic” researchers of course), while gladly endorsing and cherry-picking any and all evo-psych premises that reinforce the feminine or confirm a positive feminine-primacy. Up until the past two years or so, there was a staunch resistance to the concept of Hypergamy (know as sexual pluralism in evo-psych) and the dual natures of women’s sexual strategy. Before then the idea of Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks was dismissed as biased, sociologically based and any biological implications or incentives for Hypergamy were downplayed as inconclusive by a feminine-centric media. However the recent embrace of Open Hypergamy and “Sandbergism” of the last two years has set this narrative on its head, and the empowered women who found the idea of their own sexual pluralism so distasteful are now openly endorsing, if not proudly relishing, their roles in a new empowerment of Hypergamous duplicity. Your Beta qualities are officially worthless to today’s women: I thought this The Red Pill subthread was an interesting contrast to the Estrus theory proposed in the Gangstad-Hasselton paper (comments were good too). Yes, the woman is more than a bit gender-egotistical, and yes her triumphalism about the state of women in college and their earning is built on a foundation of sand, but lets strip this away for a moment. The greater importance to her in relating this, and every woman embracing open Hypergamy, is the prospect of better optimizing the dual nature of her sexual strategy. In many a prior post I’ve detailed the rationales women will apply to their sexual pluralism and the social conventions they rely upon to keep men ignorant of them until such a time (or not) that they can best consolidate on that dualism. Where before that strategy was one of subtle manipulation and pretty lies to keep Betas-In-Waiting ready to be providers after the Alpha Fucks decline at 30, the strategy now is one of such utter ego-confidence in feminine social primacy that women gleefully declare “I’m not just gonna have my cake and eat it too, I’m getting mine with sprinkles and chocolate syrup” with regard to Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. The Estrus Connection For all of the ubiquitous handwringing the manosphere imparts to the social implications of today’s Open Hypergamy, it’s important to consider the biological underpinnings that motivate this self-interested conceit. From Human Estrus: Implications for Relationship Science: Much of what’s explored here I laid out in Game terms in Your Friend Menstruation over two years ago, but the implications of the behaviors prompted by women’s menstrual cycle and biochemistry strongly imply an estrus-like predictability. This estrous state is a foundational keystone, not just to developing Game, but a keystone to understanding the dynamics behind Hypergamy, women’s dualistic sexual strategy, Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks, and can even be extrapolated into the drive for ensuring feminine social dominance in both overt and covert contexts. When women embrace a social order founded upon a feminine state of openly revealed Hypergamy they confirm and expose the reality of this estrous state. Whereas before, in a social order based on concealed Hypergamy, this state could be dismissed as a social construct (and a masculine biased one at that), or one that had only marginal influence to reasoning women with a “higher” human potential. No longer – the confirmation of a true estrus in women via open Hypergamy literally confirms virtually every elementary principle Game has asserted for the past 13 years. I found this part particularly interesting when you contrast this dynamic with the social resistance that standardized paternity testing has been met with. In a feminine-primary social order based on open Hypergamy, the Feminine Imperative can’t afford not to legislate a mandated cuckoldry. If Beta provider males will not comply with the insurance of a woman’s long-term security (as a result of being made aware of his place in Open Hypergamy) then he must be forced to comply either legally, socially or both. The old order exchange of resources for sexual access and a reasonable assurance of his paternity is replaced by a socialized form of cuckoldry. Initiating sex or being receptive to a primary partner’s sexual interest during the luteal phase (the Beta swing of the cycle) follows when we consider that a woman being sexual during this phase poses the least potential of becoming pregnant while simultaneously (rewarding) reinforcing that primary partner’s continued investment in the pairing with sex (intermittent reinforcement). This is a very important dynamic because it mirrors a larger theme in women’s socio-sexual pluralism – it’s Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks on a biological scale. Compare this intra-relationship predisposition for Beta sex and contrast it with the larger dynamic of open Hypergamy Alpha Fucks during a woman’s prime fertility window in her peak SMV years, and her post Epiphany Phase necessity to retain a comforting (but decidedly less sexually exciting) Beta provider. Women’s sexual strategy on a social scale, mirrors her instinctual, estrous sexual strategy on an individual scale. Usually after first-time readers have a chance to digest the material I propose in Your Friend Menstruation the first frustration they have is figuring out just how they can ever reliably detect when a woman is in this estrous state. On an instinctual level, most men are already sensitive to these socio-sexual cues, but this presumptuousness of sexual availability is rigorously conditioned out of men by social influence. In other words, most guys are Beta-taught to be ashamed of presuming a woman might be down to fuck as the result of picking up on visual, vocal or body posture cues. Beyond this perceptiveness, there are also pheromonal triggers as well as behavioral cues during estrus that prompt a mate guarding response in men. I would however propose that the evolved concealment of an estrus-like state and all of the attendant behaviors that coincide with it are a behavioral mechanic with the purpose of filtering for men with a dominant Alpha capacity to “Just Get It” that a woman is in estrus and thus qualify for her sexual access either proceptively or receptively. Women’s concealed estrus is an evolved aspect of filtering for Alpha Fucks. In addition, this concealment also aids in determining Beta Bucks for the men she needs (needed) to exchange her sexual access for. A guy who “doesn’t get it” is still useful (or used to be) precisely because he doesn’t understand the dynamics of her cyclic and dualistic sexual strategy. Her seemingly erratic and self-controlled sexual availability becomes the Beta Bucks interest’s intermittent reinforcement for the desired behavior of his parental investment in children that are only indeterminately of his genetic heritage. Evidence of this intermittent reinforcement can also be observed in what Athol Kay from Married Man Sex Life has described as wives “drip feeding” sex to their husbands. The confines of a committed monogamy in no way preclude the psycho-sexual influences of estrus. Thus placating a less ‘sexy’, but parentally invested man with the reinforcer of infrequent (but not entirely absent) sex becomes a necessity to facilitate the prospect of a future sexual experience with an Alpha while ensuring the security of her Beta. In closing here I think the importance of how this estrous state influences women on both an individual and social level can’t be stressed enough in contrast to the social embrace of open Hypergamy. The Hypergamy genie is not only out of the bottle, but women are, perhaps against their own interests, embracing the genie with gusto. Just today Vox posted a quick hit article about how men are discovering that pornography is now preferable to relating with the average woman. In an era of open Hypergamy I don’t believe this is a rationalized preference so much as it’s simply a pragmatic one. Men are rapidly awakening to a Red Pill awareness, even without a formal Red Pill education, and seeing the rewards (the intermittent reinforcement) simply aren’t worth the investment with women who blithely express their expectations of them to assume the role they would have them play in their sexual strategies. ------------------------------------ The tl;dr summary is this, with facts correctly labeled FACTS and speculations correctly labeled SPECULATIONS. FACT #1: Every woman is biologically programmed disloyalty for men AND programmed with a brain that deliberately hides from herself the disloyalty she had towards men. SPECULATION #1: The purpose of this deceptive brain is to help her lie more convincingly to men and society around her, which enables her to commit disloyalty and get away with it. FACT #2: A woman who reaches her thirties after a string of bad relationships and then emerges with a new-found understanding of the importance of loyalty-to-men is not rejecting female bad behavior. She is, instead, displaying it - because her new-found support of male loyalty develops right when she's least capable of deceiving men with her looks. FACT #3: A woman who reaches her early twenties after no major relationship gaffes, and who possesses strong support for male loyalty is actually rejecting bad female behavior. This is because she has the power to behave poorly, but actively decides not to. (Such woman are rare in modern America, and some speculate that no such woman exists.) SPECULATION #2: Men who fully realize the truth behind this article inevitably question whether women should have voting rights. Good arguments can be made for either case. (1) "No, women should never get voting rights, because they will inevitably vote to confiscate the wealth of productive families. And removing this incentive to rob will provide a strong incentive for women to support male-loyalty." (2) "Yes, women should be allowed to vote, because preventing them from voting makes them extremely vulnerable to male predatory behavior. I accept your argument that women have no loyalty to men, but this argument doesn't prove that men have loyalty to women." SPECULATION #3: Men who fully realize the truth behind this article also inevitably question what positive qualities, if any, a woman is capable of possessing. There are two major conclusions, both of which are interesting and (perhaps) reasonable. (1) I call this the "Every woman is really six years old!" argument. It goes something like, "Government inevitably increases whenever women have been allowed to vote. There is literally no example wherein this doesn't happen. The increased size of the government inevitably sides with women on every issue, which means that it inevitably sides against men on every issue. As the government grows larger and larger, the problem gets worse and worse, until the society itself becomes bankrupt. Sadly and hilariously, the root cause of this societal collapse is that not every woman is good enough, (however you define "good enough" is up to you), to attract the lifelong, loyal support of a wealthy, considerate man. So, rather than either self-improving or facing the world bravely and alone, women grow the government at the expense of society. Hence, there are no strong women, no independent women, and no self-sufficient women. Every woman is six years old." (2) I call this the "Every woman is really seventeen years old!" argument. It goes something like, "I agree that the root cause of government growth is a woman's inability to attract life-long male support. However, I think every woman is capable of bravery, self-sufficiency, and independence. So it's our job, as a society, to merely warn women about her natural fearfulness, and then shield her from this fearfulness by not growing the government. A stoic, male-centric government that does NOT give in to every female desire will provide sufficient incentive by which women can learn to face the world independently and bravely. So every woman is really seventeen years old. She just needs to be gently booted into the real world and reminded of what bravery and independence really are. Withtime, she'll learn to appreciate the boot-in-the-butt." FACT #4: You can tell everything about a woman based on both whom she has sex with and when, in her ovulatory cycle, she engages in sex. (In fact, the when is most important!) The paragraphs where Rollo describes women having sex with their husbands during the phase of her ovulatory cycle when she's least likely to get pregnant is bone-chilling but ultimately true. Nothing says, "I'm only pretending to love you!", more strongly than this.

My initial reaction based on the first two paragraphs is this: (1) Philosophy is difficult; platitudes are easy. (2) Acknowledging the validity of uncomfortable scientific research is difficult; denial is easy. (3) I've heard, more times than I can count, the notion that "Empathy is the core of morality." And I think it's bullshit, because Psychopaths have exceptionally high empathy, but they're exceptionally immoral. (4) Whenever I point this out, very few people are interested in a deep discussion of what empathy is and whether what-psychopaths-do qualifies. Instead, they either fall silent or get angry. So I think it's awesome that this dude is againat empathy. --------------------------- Continuing.... I loved the definitional distinction between "cognitive empathy" and "emotional empathy", and feel that it's very important. The argument, "Empathy is the core of morality." goes something like this, "If I, personally, show that I get extremely uncomfortable when I notice someone experiencing great pain, then that clearly signals that I would never inflict great pain upon someone else, because I know what that feels like." There are two obvious flaws in this argument: (1) If I hate your guts, particularly when I feel like my hatred is justified, then I can use my emotional empathy to hurt you where it hurts deepest. And if my hatred is not justified, then I've behaved immorally. (2) If I'm personally uncomfortable with inflicting great pain, that doesn't mean I'm uncomfortable either getting someone else to do it for me, ("Just wait till your father gets home!"), or looking the other way when you happen to suffer pain. Another flaw is that there's no rational reason to say "Emotional empathy is the core of morality, but cognitive empathy isn't good enough." Ironically, the same two flaws that I described above are often used to criticize cognitive empathy. As in, "Just because you intellectually understand how much this hurts, doesn't mean you'll refrain from hurting someone." Or, "Because your empathy is cognitively based, it's much easier for you to find irrational reasons to justify when you hurt others." Not surprisingly, I think this is an off-shoot of feminism / gender politics. "Emotional empathy" is feminine, so it's automatically praised as good. Whereas "cognitive empathy" is masculine, so it's automatically demonized. --------------------- Continuing.... I also loved the paragraphs explaining how statistical data is better than empathetic attachment to the one. I feel vindicated reading this article. I'm also reminded of a quote by Dr. Gregory House, "I take risks, and sometimes people die. But when I don't take risks, more people die. So I guess my biggest problem is that I'm cursed with the ability to do math." ---------------------- Loved this part, too. I've been reading a lot of conservative blogs lately, as well as the work of AnonymousConservative which focuses on amygdala size. A large amount of those blogs suggests that there are two conflicting reasons to help someone: (1) Because you genuinely understand their situation, and want to uplift them. (2) Because you're extremely discomforted by their suffering, and want them to get better so that you'll no longer feel uncomfortable. Hannah probably experiences the second motivation, and the chief negative consequence of this is that you dwell upon solutions to these problems while your brain is exhausted, anxious, and unfocused. So most of your proposed solutions don't really work, and worse....you don't really care. Because he proposed solution was designed to alleviate your anxiety, the failure of that solution can be dismissed / ignored by scapegoating someone else....whether the people you're trying to help ("blaming the victim") or the perceived oppressors of the people you're trying to help (patriarchy, Whites, wealthy, government, and so on). ------------------------------- Continuing.... This description reinforces what I said earlier about gender politics. The older relative is describing old-school masculinity, a type of stoicism in the face of suffering and death which allows you to behave better. -------------------------- Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed it, and felt vindicated.