MMX2010

UPB deals with moral violations, including but mostly limited to acts of aggression, like rape and murder. Your original statement, "We can't blame them, but we can make arguments about why this isn't the best course of action. Just like we can make arguments to women that making yourself up like a sex clown isn't the best course of action. One of the goals of philosophy is to determine what is objectively the optimal for truth, virtue, and happiness; especially in spite of our biological programming.", doesn't mention any acts of aggression or violence, so UPB doesn't apply.

The way you described trying to change your mood by listening to the music, as if changing your mood were the goal. But I said I was trying to change my personality, which isn't the same as changing my mood. Also, "To me listening to music that don't reflect my emotional state does nothing for me. I fully accept that I'm full of sadness and sorrow and don't try pretend otherwise." The fact that you called it "pretending", rather than "changing your emotional focus from sadness to something-else". I'm glad about that. One of the subtler benefits of falling in love is that you realize your emotions affect each other, for better or for worse. From there, you can develop a much stronger sense of "managing your emotions" or "changing your emotional focus from sadness/anger to something else". As I make more and more promises to more and more people, I have less time and energy with which to dwell on my anger or depression.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but I'm guessing you don't have many friends with whom you can either feel deeply emotional with or talk about really deep philosophical stuff. Am I right?

It works the other way around, too, dude. Whenever someone refuses to do an ambiguously immoral action, they also convince themselves of how to measure, judge, and justify their non-action. In fact, in the book Mistakes Are Made But Not By Me, there's a research study which indicates this (shouldn't be) surprising discovery: If a person had absolutely no inclination to perform an ambiguously immoral action, the person doesn't perform the action, and doesn't have a strong emotional reaction to this avoidance. BUT if the person had very strongly considered performing the ambiguously immoral action, then the person will have a very strong emotional reaction to this avoidance, which becomes both an extended internal monologue and a desire to condemn others who perform that immoral action. In short, the more strongly you almost yield to temptation, the more strongly you congratulate yourself for resisting AND the more strongly you want to punish others who yield to it. I tried a nice little joke to get you to understand, and now you're asking for a logical explanation? Okay, here goes. How would you feel if I "magically accused you" of being a misogynistic coward, someone who refuses to approach women because you secretly hate them - and, because of your hateful jealousy, you don't want anyone else to succeed with women either? Note, I'm not actually accusing you of being that way, I'm just asking how would you feel if I were? More importantly, what sorts of arguments could you make to refute my accusation? Why, none of course. Because everything you say will be held against you in the twisted kangaroo court that is my mind. Do you know how a woman feels whenever you say, "PUA is manipulation!"? (The exact same way you would feel if I accused you of being a cowardly, hateful, misogynist who doesn't want anyone to succeed with women.) No, but you should ask yourself how she would feel if you were to insert yourself into her life and try to "cleanse her" from the desire to be hit by that guy. How would she feel as you told her that you hope she doesn't get beaten again? How would she feel if you were to do that thirty times in thirty days? Interesting argument, but it has a gigantic problem with it. John uses PUA on Aimee. Aimee loves it and sleeps with John. Phil cries, "MANIPULATION!" How can it NOT be sophistry for Phil to yell, "MANIPULATION!"? ------------------ Notice, there's a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference between Phil saying, "Personally speaking, I find John's actions to be manipulation, so I never engage in them. But if John likes doing it, and Aimee likes receiving it, then they can voluntarily do whatever they want." and Phil saying, "MANIPULATION!" - (while either expecting or hoping that Aimee will dump John because of his accusation). Do you understand the difference? And do you understand how your first reply to this thread looks exactly like the second action, where Phil yells "MANIPULATION", while hoping every chick hears him and resists PUA? Not obvious, WastachMan. For example, when you say, "We can't blame them, but we can make arguments about why this isn't the best course of action. Just like we can make arguments to women that making yourself up like a sex clown isn't the best course of action. One of the goals of philosophy is to determine what is objectively the optimal for truth, virtue, and happiness; especially in spite of our biological programming.", you're assuming that males and females react to philosophy in the exact same ways. But just one click on the "Members List", followed by less than ten minutes of gender-identifying the members, leads to a very sobering point: Less than 5% of FDR is female. So, how can you assume that men and women react to philosophy in the exact same way, when the FDR membership is 95% male?

Because I'm trying to make large-scale, permanent changes to my personality, all of my music is high-energy and inspirational.

Yes, exactly. There's a concept called "The Hedonistic Treadmill", or "The Happiness Trap", or "The Set Point" - but they all mean that a person who moves to a new, happier environment very quickly stabilizes back to their original level of happiness. Now, if you moved from a really abusive environment to a non-abusive environment, then you probably won't revert back to your original level of happiness. But if you're moving from a non-abusive environment to another non-abusive environment, you probably will revert back. But once you know about "Set Point", you no longer assume that you're causing yourself to be unhappy; you just assume that the "Set Point" is resetting itself.

Temple Grandin has a beautifully simple quote which went something like, "Never leave to willpower (or self-discipline) what can be controlled by environment." If you believe the quote it doesn't matter whether those happy feelings come from events or from environment; you'll just maximizing your environment and stop caring about your question. As for, "What I am curious and skeptical of my own 'reasoning' is that it is endorphins which promotes happiness, so would that mean living like this provides a pretty constant flow of endorphins? I think its very possible." What usually happens is that you'll learn to achieve some form of regular happiness by yourself, but you'll realize that you'll need others to maximize your happiness. So the grand question will become, "Which types of people do I need to maximize my happiness, and how do I find them?" So you'll probably enjoy your new-found happiness for quite some time, and then you'll start looking for others. And your happiness will likely drop, until you find the right people.

No, a person born with female genitalia that is unable to self-lubricate and is unable to reproduce has a real, but non-functioning, vagina. Actually, according to Wikipedia.org, every woman who has a hysterectomy continues to have a real vagina. She just has her ovaries, womb, and cervix removed. All of this, of course, validates my claim that no transwoman possesses a real vagina after transsexual surgery.

Fine. I accept the correction. Not good enough. You will not merely apologize and revoke the accusation. You will do more than that. Since I don't like telling people how to make atonement, (because then I don't know whether their atonement is genuinely derived from a sense of justice and peaceful-living), it's up to you to decide what more you need to do.

So even though Alice directly said, (and let's quote her here), "The penis is not removed in surgery; it is inverted and used to create a vagina via vaginoplasty. However, the testicles are removed." you're interjecting that "She didn't really mean it that way!"? Okay, well, then if she didn't really mean it that way, then she'll have no problem saying, "You're right, MMX. I misspoke. The correct version is that the penis is inverted and used to create a faux-vagina, a pseudo-vagina, or a mimic-vagina." If she corrects her mistake, then I'll believe you when you say, "She doesn't really think that way." But if she refuses to correct her mistake, (which I predict will happen, because the prefixes faux- pseudo- and mimic- have negative emotional connotations, and Alice doesn't want to face any negative emotional connotations), then I won't accept your argument that "she didn't really mean it that way." Do you agree to these terms?

So you don't prefer to focus on whether your accusation that I violated the NAP was TRUE or FALSE?

So you don't prefer to clarify your nuanced post in order for the truth about PUA and manipulation to be revealed? You prefer instead to shelve your argument because of perceived passive-aggression?

Wow. Okay MMD and JamesP. I don't think you can ignore that accusation, can you? Is Liberalismus correct or incorrect when he says that?

So this is the part where I, for the fifth time, repeat the question that no one has answered: "GuzzyBone and utopian have stated that Alice Amell is delusional because she said, 'During male-to-female transgender surgery, the penis is cut off and re-shaped into a vagina.' This statement is delusional because the penis is cut off and re-shaped into the illusion of a vagina. A real vagina is self-lubricating, leads to a uterus, and aids in sexual reproduction. Is GuzzyBone's and utopian's argument TRUE OR FALSE?"

I love TLP. I credit his blog with enabling me to make instantaneous, long-lasting lifestyle changes. This article on parenting is particularly good. ---------------------- http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/05/four_things_not_to_do_to_your.html Four Things Not To Do To Your Kids Apart from letting them watch Japanese horror movies. John Gottman, from the University of Washington, has a "marriage lab" in which he videotaped/s married couples disagreeing about something minor, in order to study predictors of divorce. He came up with four. You might think they're obvious, but if you actually try to avoid them during an argument, it's harder than you think. Try it. It then occurred to me that these often some of the same reasons why some kids "hate" their parents. Again, you'll think it's obvious; but again, try to avoid it when talking to your kids. Disclaimer for the sensitive: the below are inflated examples; these are done to varying degrees, of course, sometimes it's unavoidable, etc, etc. Criticism: The most difficult to avoid. Parents may not realize how a majority of their interactions with their kids are comprised entirely of criticisms. "Did you put away your backpack?" means "I know you didn't put away the backpack." It's worse when mom doesn't even bother to check, she just knows it. That drives kids bananas. "What is it about me that you just assume I don't do anything right?" What it is, of course, is history-- he hasn't done it the past 20 times. Kids are empiricists though not statisticians. Past doesn't count: if you don't check now, then you can't know now. The kid thinks, mom just assumes I do things wrong. Ultimately, this means he stops trying. It teaches one other awesome message: it doesn't actually matter what I do, only what people think of me. Stonewalling: Stonewalling means: "I am not going to discuss this with you." It means the kid has no say, no voice, there's no one to appeal to, even logic. When a kid doesn't feel people will seriously consider their position, they'll go find someone else who will. That person will have weed. Stonewalling teaches kids that those who have more power simply don't care to hear you. So they avoid the attempts at dialogue and try... alternative means of communication, e.g. not through words, but actions or the creation of emotions. And weed. Defensiveness: NB: this is done by the parent. In a marriage, defensiveness takes the form, "hey, don't blame me, you're the one who told me to do this." But you can't look at that defense and deduce who is actually at fault. But when a parent does it to a kid: 1. the kid is criticizing the parent. 2..the parent is actually in the wrong, caught by the kid; 3. the kid has latched on to this single instance of parental wrongdoing to unload all of their pent up hostility, in the form of criticism about this single issue. And so, the parent, defensively, tries to flip it: "the only reason I did that is because you...." That's disaster. Kid: you always break your promises! Parent: no I don't, but if you would just give me a moment to myself, I would have been able to... Kid: you lied to me! Parent: I didn't lie, but you were going to X, so I had to Y-- if you hadn't done X, I wouldn't have had to Y. The kid understands that even when he is right, no one will care. He realizes he'll be used as a scapegoat, forever, by those more powerful than he. Now where's that weed? Contempt: It is said (by me) that rolling the eyes is a more reliable way to divorce than recording yourself cheating and then asking your wife to pull some highlights clips. Seriously, this is true. Anyone want to fund a clinical trial? Why is the toy store a reliable place to hear a parent screaming at a kid? It's a toy store, what did you expect he'd want to do there? I sense your frustration. It's the same frustration you have with the toll booth operator who can't count the money correctly, you think, "what an idiot!" but you don't think it through: you expect the toll booth guy to function at the same intellectual level as an engineer. Is that reasonable? If he was smarter, he wouldn't be working in a toll booth. Yet frustration is released on the kid as contempt: the speaking with disgust, the sneering. "Jesus Christ, what is the matter with you? Are you retarded? Is this what you do in school, too? No wonder you can't read." You don't see you do it, because you think it's a brief interaction out of your day. But the kid feels the full force of it, and it represents a significant minority of the interactions he has with you. "I'm going to beat the crap out of you!" even though you've never actually done it. The kid knows you're not actually going to hit him, so he figures, "this nut hates me." If you roll your lips inwards while you yell at your kid, you're pissed at him. If you find yourself jutting out your bottom jaw, you hate him. I know, I'm sure you don't hate your kid, but like I've said a thousand times, you don't get to decide who you are, your actions decide. If the kid, most of the time, hears contempt, then you hate your kid. Go ahead. Write on a piece of paper the tone of every interaction you have with your kid for one day, and tally it up at the end of the day. Have a good night. Sweet dreams. I'm going to add one more of my own: Ultimatum/Consequences: You can't say to a four year old, "if you don't put that down, you're not going to watch TV later tonight." That cannot possibly work, ever-- do you really think the kid can process this consideration of the future, especially since you're not really rigorous about applying it after all? In truth, you want them to do something only because you want them to-- which is fine. So say it that way: "Put that down." That's it. Teach them they have to do what you say because you said it, period. Don't subsume your authority to some other power in a reflexive attempt to make things happen: "If you do that again, you're going to your room!" Now the room has more authority than you do. And it gives him the opportunity to test: "I'm not afraid of my room." Instead, say only: "Don't do that again." And if he does, then send him to his room. Some things are wrong, regardless of consequences. The sooner a kid learns he has to behave certain ways not because of anything, but just because, the sooner he'll be able to develop his own superego strength.

So this guy I know, who doesn't play manipulation games, concludes that the only purpose of these manipulation games is sex. He can't possibly know through experience that this is so, because, like I said, he doesn't play manipulation games. Since he doesn't know through experience, he must know through having been told somewhere - whether through books, articles, podcasts, media-watching...something. It doesn't occur to him to ask, "If the majority of people in a group use manipulation for Specific Purpose A, does this mean that manipulation cannot possibly be used to accomplish Specific Purposes B through Z?" Nor, "If manipulation can indeed be used for Specific Purposes B through Z, does it automatically follow that every one of those specific purposes is immoral and/or undesirable?"

Change your mind from, "PUA is manipulation, because the dictionary definition of manipulation is this, and PUA fits the definition.", to "I dunno whether PUA is manipulation. So the women should chime in with their emotional experiences of PUA; and, if I disagree with them, then I am wrong."

Am I correct to assume that the application matches you with people who share your interests?

No. I'm observing that there are no females in this discussion. Then I'm observing that the discussion is happening in spite of this. She doesn't need to put herself into a guy's shoes to make a guess as to how guys would react. But she does need to put in the breast implants and then observe how men react to determine whether her guess was correct. When she does this, she'll realize: some guys like the implants, some guys loathe the implants, and some guys don't care about the implants. She was partially right, but mostly wrong. What's missing from this thread is the part where females chime in, and allow us to determine whether our conjectures were correct. (And yet, despite their absence, you persist in arguing your point.) No! If you were observing penguin behavior, you can first hypothesize that, "Behavior X is bad because it's manipulation, and the female penguins will see through it." But if you observe that Behavior X is highly favored by females, what do you do next? (1) Declare the penguins stupid, because you're smarter than them, and say, "It's still manipulation!" or (2) Declare your prediction to be wrong, because the penguins weren't upset by the behavior? Do you finally understand the joke about the penguins? By noticing what they're not doing and not saying. If they understood the joke about the penguins, they would understand how to observe penguin behavior without pre-conceived biases. Then they'd realize they had pre-conceived biases about female behavior. Then they'd apologize. And then they'd stop arguing. Are you still arguing your point? Yes? Then you don't get the joke about the penguins! Right. So if you begin the discussion with pre-conceived biases, and I agree to use the language matching your pre-conceived biases, do the biases-themselves become true? Or are they still biases? At this point, I think you totally get the joke about the penguins, but you don't want to change your mind. Which is fine. No one's forcing you. But I've had discussions about this very topic with women, and can you predict how they reacted to my argument?

So the most important thing I posted on FDR was a joke, but practically no one understood either the joke or its importance. The joke went: "If OmegaHero09 were to ask, 'What behaviors should male penguins do to make themselves more sexually attractive to female penguins?' absolutely no one would first imagine themselves to be a penguin and then, based on those imaginings declare, 'These behaviors must be done! These behaviors will work!' But when OmegaHero09 asked, 'Is PUA manipulation?' practically everyone first imagined themselves as a woman and then, based on these imaginings, declared, 'YES! PUA is manipulation!'" As I said, practically no one understood the joke, which means they didn't realize the joke was at their expense. Which means that they couldn't alter their behavior. You need to study the joke about the penguins.

Just continuing off of your thoughts. The most important part of my post was the Expanding Social Circle versus Contracting Social Circle.

@skibum: If that hyper-long article on evolution was too long, here's a lovely (hah!) 3.5 minute song explaining the phenomenon. Can you stomach Demi Lovato?

Just pointing out that you're ignoring me after I (three times) asked you to answer a very simple Yes/No question. Moreover, I pointed out that one symptom of borderline personality disorder is "idealized relationships, wherein everyone is either idealized or devalued" - and refusing to answer a simple Yes/No question - (especially one which objectively points out blatant blind spots in your argument) - looks exactly like an "idealized relationship". Moreover, I'll point out something that happened in my call-in show with Stefan. Way towards the end, I mentioned that I had been dumped only a week ago by the best woman I've ever been with. And he immediately replied, "If she was truly the best woman you've ever been with, I'm very sorry." We weren't doing video, so he couldn't see the small, appreciative smile that formed across my face - but that smile happened because his reaction was immediate and empathetic. Meanwhile, I told the story of a ten year old male child who was forced to wear tutus and respond to "Danielle", even though he was not transgender. AND I told the story after pointing out that a leading medical expert insists that male-to-female transgenders are largely indifferent to children, (which really creeps out normal, heterosexual people). And, in response to that story, not one of the transgender individuals said, "I'm really saddened that this boy went through that." So we all listen to Stefan, whom I deem masterful at empathy - which means you'd expect his admiring listeners to know how to at least fake having basic empathy. But none of the transgender individuals expressed basic empathy. *shrug*

No. Sorry. I quick-read the question and focused only on the Masculine King part of it. If WastachMan wants to imply that a Masculine King must save women from themselves, he's free to do so. But I'm not looking to save a woman from herself. She doesn't need saving from herself. She needs saving from both this culture, and from the possessive men who don't understand nor empathize with her.

I'll spell it out more clearly for you, then. It's quite possible to become so attached to your therapist that you wrongfully assert, "The world would be so much happier if everyone acted like my therapist!" Unfortunately, (1) No it wouldn't, because (2) You're not paying anonymous acquaintances over the internet the same money and respect that you're paying your therapist. Thus, pointing out that GuzzyBone isn't a licensed therapist is manipulative. And questioning the degree to which he's "trying tp be helpful" is manipulative. And ignoring my question to you, "When Alice Amell says the remnant of the penis is shaped into a vagina, GuzzyBone and utopian both insist that this is delusional. Is their argument true or false?" is manipulative. So you are just as manipulative, if not more so, than you accuse GuzzyBone of being. So please, answer the simple Yes/No question with a simple Yes/No and an explanation. Or don't. But if you don't you'll just be seen as manipulative by anyone who agrees with me.