MMX2010

More than that, you're trying to alter other peoples' decisions to NOT ASSOCIATE with other people. For example, I prefer not to associate with transgendered individuals. But you want me to associate with transgendered individuals. I also prefer not to associate with obese women. But you want me to associate with obese women. And I also prefer not to associate with tattooed women. But you want me to associate with tattooed women. What really bothers me, though, is: (1) It's my life, not yours. And I've the right to avoid whomever I wish to avoid. (2) You're dropping bombs like "if you want to be morally inconsistent" all so that transgendered individuals, obese women, and tattooed women aren't avoided. (3) You're not only providing arguments that defy the scientific evidence (in the case of tattooed women and obese women), but you're also not providing me with any incentive, (such as, "I'll pay you $20,000 per person, per year, that you associate with.") (4) Lastly, you don't seem to grasp the "gambling with other peoples' lives" conundrum - which states that, "If you successfully change people's minds, and those people get hurt - which is what the scientific evidence says will happen - then you're responsible." So, seriously, if scientific evidence can't get you to back off, and if, "It's my life, and I'll avoid whom I want to avoid." can't get you to back off, then isn't your desire to change my association patterns immune to all criticism? And isn't this complete immunity to criticism, in itself, an excellent reason to not listen to you?

Dude, this is becoming annoying. Here's something I would never do: (1) Never get to know any Black people. (2) Make bold predictions of what Black people "Can't do", which are rendered stupid by the fact that they can do these things. But that's what you're doing when you say, "Followers of the NAP can't become soldiers." - only to not notice when it's pointed out to you that they can, indeed, become soldiers. In response, you mentioned three (or four) more things that followers of the NAP can't do. But guess what? They can do them. At some point, you're going to have to ask yourself: "Am I really interested in understanding those who follow the NAP?"

"A person adhering to the NAP/UPB" is not the same thing as "a person who will never become a soldier", nor "a person who doesn't think anyone else should ever become a soldier". Simple as that. You're basically saying, "The only people who use violence are sociopathic predators.", because you can't conceive of paladin/protectors.

The way I see it, JeanPaul is "questioning the use of peaceful parenting with his own children", because he's disappointed that no libertarians in this thread want to violently intervene in the Middle East. Now, if only he could prove that every libertarian who disagreed with him was raised by Peaceful Parents...

Again, you're assuming that pacifists are like lily-livered four year olds who have never heard of violence, without realizing that it's a stereotype. "The non-initiation of force" doesn't equate to "a complete disavowal of all forms of force, at all times".

You're applying the stereotype that all pacifists are lily-livered wimps, without realizing that it's a stereotype.

I asked you a simple question, "Are you merely illustrating how you plan to live your life, spend your time, and invest in people OR are you trying to influence/alter how other people are living their lives, spending their time, and investing in people?" And you've typed out three paragraphs which seemingly want to alter the way other people are living their lives, BUT you've never directly stated that this is what you're trying to do. So, please, directly answer that simple question. (And please realize how annoying/off-putting it is for me to have to ask that question a second time, just because you didn't answer it directly the first time.)

I'm confused. Are you merely giving your own personal opinion as to how you'll conduct your life and whom you'll invest in? Or are you trying to influence the way other people conduct their own lives and whom they'll invest in? Josh, I just posted an article with multiple links to scientific articles supporting my argument. In response, you basically replied, "But I know a tall Chinese guy, and another one, too!" Why? Are you merely giving your own personal opinion as to how you'll spend your life and invest your time OR are you trying to influence the way other people spend their lives and invest their time?

Nor dated anyone. Nor attended a college course. Nor cooked anything, because "what if it burns?" or "what if I don't like it?"

If you don't know what that even means, I suggest reading the scientific-article I linked earlier. http://www.returnofkings.com/45944/science-confirms-tattooed-women-are-indeed-broken The tl;dr summary is that tattooed women are more promiscuous, have sex earlier, and have sex more often. (Some men find this slutty.) Tattooed women are also more impulsive, more likely to be on drugs, and more likely to engage in risk-taking behavior. (Some men find this unreliable, non-feminine, non-maternal, or all-of-these.) Tattooed women are also more hostile, more prone to delinquent behavior, more likely to use violence, and more likely to suffer from Anti-Social Personality Disorder. Lastly, tattooed women are more likely to suffer from mental illnesses, such as depression, eating disorders, BPD, neuroticism, and increased risk of suicide. Someone with tattoos makes me feel cheated, because I see tattoos as ways of "earning" respect and admiration that do not at all involve the acquisition of talent, intelligence, nor caring/concern for others.

So have you talked yourself into agreeing with me (and quite possibly Alan Chapman) that people who choose inferior ways of processing trauma are going to be looked down upon as long-term investments, compared to people who choose superior ways of processing trauma? That's a half-truth, Josh. Beating up women is BOTH a sign of childhood trauma (because the overwhelming majority of men who beat up women were traumatized as children) AND a traumatizing. Those are half-truths, too. SOME people engage in internet debates without going to therapy. Those people are inferior long-term investments. OTHERS manage to both engage in internet debates AND go to therapy, (although not simultaneously). These other people are superior long-term investments. SOME people play sad songs on the guitar while refusing therapy. Those people are inferior long-term investments. OTHERS manage to both play sad songs on their guitars AND go to therapy, (although not simultaneously). These other people are superior long-term investments. Finally, SOME people only get tattoos while refusing / downplaying the usefulness of therapy. Those people are inferior long-term investments. OTHERS manage to both get tattoos and engage in therapy, (although not simultaneously). These other people are superior long-term investments. Some people have observed, but cannot prove, that tattoo-covered individuals are much more likely (of those three groups) to refuse / downplay therapy, and have therefore concluded that "It's a more efficient use of my time to refuse to talk to people with tattoos." They have every right to make such a conclusion, since their time is precious to them and since they've no loyalty to tattoo-covered individuals.

You're fogging. So I'll answer your fogging with even more fogging. "Let's say that beating up women is a sign of childhood trauma, and that it's a method of coping with that trauma....what's the problem with that?" (The problem, Josh, is that beating up women is an inferior way of processing that trauma. The same thing can be said for tattooing, relative to therapy.)

Shoot. When you explained that triple espresso charge that happened right as your uncle asked you for help, I knew that you had at least one parent (the dominant one of the pair) who required your emotional help on a consistent basis. This parent is usually the mother, whom you see as a constant victim of your father's emotional bullying, general stupidity, and uncaring nature. Deep down, you've learned that, "If I can only be there for my parent, then (and only then) will my parent be able to love me for who I am." http://therawness.com/the-reader-letters-1-series/ http://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-1/ http://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-2/ At bare minimum, you should read all three of those articles. But be warned, they're long. And if you want to get the most out of them, you'll need to read them in installments, because one paragraph will have you thinking about your parents, and then another paragraph will have you thinking about someone you used to date, and then another paragraph will have you thinking about someone your best friend is dating now. T routinely explains that grandiosity is the worst defense mechanism, because it leads to narcissism. But when you said, "That's why I've been sitting on my hands, because I don't want to go charging into other peoples lives like a bull in a china shop - under the auspisces of 'saving the day.'" - you displayed fear of being grandiose. So you're not grandiose/narcissistic, but you're almost certainly surrendering/codependent. (If you weren't, then you wouldn't feel the triple espresso charge.) And, by the way, the only reason that T's analysis struck me so strongly is that I, too, am surrendering/codependent - but I'm working on it.

When you say, "Aesthetics are never objective by definition.", you're implying that the scientific study of aesthetics can never yield either large clusters of agreement or highly predictive characterizations of people who prefer certain aesthetics. So what happens to your argument when the scientific study of aesthetics routinely does both?

I recently read (don't remember where) that plastic bottles contain chemicals that mimic estrogen, so no plastic bottles and no plastic Tupperware.

It's funnier than that, because people engage in serious considerations of aesthetic perspectives all the time. On this message board, I remember serious discussions of aesthetic perspectives such as: (1) To what extent is transgender a biologically real phenomenon, and if it's to a low extent, should we ignore all of their demands for better treatment? (2) To what extent is being a carnivore an expression of violence against innocent beings? (3) To what extent is being a sports fan both a waste of time and a support of state violence? (4) To what extent can psychoactive drugs (like hallucinogens) either fast-track an already existing therapeutic approach OR substitute for therapy entirely? (5) What types of journaling produce the quickest improvements in self-knowledge? (6) What types of cognitive practices most quickly enhance one's motivation? Insinuating that anyone who takes a specific aesthetic issue seriously lacks a sense of humor is to protect oneself from criticism (as you've said). But that tactic becomes less and less effective as the same person applies it to more and more aesthetic issues.

I wasn't paying 100% attention to your comments, and I disconnected from the chat window about ten minutes into the call-in with "not an argument" guy. But my impression was that you thought his question was beneath Stef's time and intelligence, and that you were mad with the caller for making it. You were annoyed because he was too much of a "noob" and Stefan wasn't "brave enough" to talk to someone else. (Again, just my impression. Does that help?)

If you want to bring laughter to a large group of people, you DON'T say something that the majority of people in that group would find not-funny.

Recently, prolix PM'ed me and said, Extremely poor communication in that thread on your part. I have to disengage. Best wishes and all that... If people engaging with prolix agree that my communication in this thread has been "extremely poor", please disregard my post. But if you disagree that my communication was "extremely poor", then use his PM to me to reconsider engaging with him.

I'm taking him at his word and calling him a liar. He has said, "Thank you, my intent was to share laughter, but I knew that anything insulting Stefan may cause an uprising. I was hoping that it would be more balanced." His words mean, "The absolute best I could've realistically expected was that less-than-half of the board would find it funny, while more-than-half of the board would find it not funny / enraging." Therefore, it was impossible for him to have a realistic intention of "sharing laughter". ------------------------ First, you said, "Now look down at all the negative reps I got for expressing my experience. Case and point. I really urge this community to really think about the way they interact with unpopular ideas here and criticisms of FDR subjects in general." So your first post is a loud criticism of the entire FDR community. But your second post sets conditions on providing evidence to support your accusation of the FDR community. It's really difficult to portray yourself as a "good communicator with virtuous intention" when you refuse to openly provide evidence AFTER you've loudly called out the community.

If he really knew that the majority of this board cannot process comedy, then he wouldn't have used comedy as either the sole or primary means of communicating with us. To do this is like first knowing that a guy doesn't speak English, and then speaking to him in English about something important in front of a large crowd of people. I could easily see someone doing that to make fun of, or look down upon, the non-English speaker - but I could never see someone doing that to enlighten the non-English speaker. I'm confused. WHO are the good communicators with virtuous intent who being rejected?" Give specific dates and times, please. Because otherwise, you're not being a good communicator, nor are you communicating the virtue of your intent.

Don't you get it, Kevin? He's so concerned that we take everything way too seriously all the time, and he's just here to help us lighten up. Because he's, you know, concerned for us. ---------------------- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll "A concern troll visits sites of an opposing ideology and offers advice on how they could "improve" things, either in their tactical use of rhetoric, site rules, or with more philosophical consistency."

I approach this question from two different mindsets. (1) If you're 100% dedicated to finding a stable, lifelong partner with whom to have children, then Stefan's advice is 100% accurate. (You are a rocket ship, burning up large amounts of fuel headed towards a specific destination.) (2) If you're less than 100% dedicated that way, and instead want to have a series of short-term relationships, then Stefan's advice is 100% accurate - but with a caveat. One of my favorite Rollo Tomassi (therationalmale.com) aphorisms is, "Women always want honesty, but they never want full disclosure." To be straightforward with such a woman IS NOT saying, "I have very high standards for whom I wish to have long-term stable relationships with, and you don't quite measure up, but I'm totally cool with allowing you to be my short-term girlfriend." It's instead saying, "I'm open to long-term relationships, but I do not currently seek exclusivity. I may seek exclusivity in the future." http://therationalmale.com/2011/08/25/imagination/ (If you google "rollo tomassi" "never want full disclosure", you'll get dozes of results - because he says that ALL the time. But that article is the best summary.) --------------------- The most important thing, though, is that YOU need to be straight-forward for your own sake. You're not a jerk. You're not comfortable with lying and exploitation. BUT you know that short-term women won't be aroused by your 100% full disclosure, so their nature compels your actions. If short-term women were aroused by your 100% full disclosure, you would neither be single nor conflicted right now. Heck, if practically every woman was aroused by your 100% full disclosure, then neither you nor I would be single right now, because we would've stumbled upon (so long ago) a respectable woman we could commit to.

I wasn't involved, but I noticed your phrasing, "I have been struggling to understand what compelled me to have certain expectations, and understand my reaction when those expectations were not met." Could you outline what expectations you had, and which responses caused you frustration?

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. I think Heartiste was saying that if the women who made the "harassment" video understood certain cultural differences, she wouldn't have been shocked by what happened in her video. Nor would she have chosen to walk in that neighborhood, at that time, surrounded by that specific sub-group of people. Heartiste is also saying that people who've tried to spin this as an "All men harass women!" campaign are blatantly denying facts, particularly facts surrounding cultural differences.