dsayers

Why? If this is true, and if alienation is a valid reason to do something, wouldn't this mean we'd also have to have a women's issues forum so as not to alienate them? And if we had separate men's women's issues forums, wouldn't this be perpetuating the division? I wasn't around at the time and am not terribly versed with it's origins, but didn't feminism get to be the monster that it is today because it was more focused on "making up for lost time" rather than equality? Don't we have empirical evidence that it is a dangerous foundation and why? I don't disagree. I read this as, "I can play my stereo as loud as I want and anybody that has a problem with it can wear earplugs." While a true statement, it dispenses with consistency in light of how others could compensate for our own inconsistency. Again, I don't feel this is a philosophical approach. It's not of terrible importance to me, but I do find it interesting that no case has been made as to why it should be men's issues instead of gender issues. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here. I honestly think my suggestion is a rational one.

Between "they should have," "because they didn't," and "possible lack of connection with your parents ON THEIR PART," I read Heron's post as placing blame 100% on the parents. If I said to you (whomever is reading this), "Gravity is the reason why you are brought back to Earth when you jump," I don't see how anybody could say I'm finding fault with you for gravity's effect on you. The only reference to you is to explain why something that effects you effects you, not placing blame. I'm really sorry that happened to you at all, especially given the effect it had on you. I hope that now you are able to label it as sexual abuse. I've let both my parents off the hook in the past because it wasn't as bad as it could have been. That doesn't make it not bad though.

Uh huh. What about the converse? What about the newcomer with the philosophical fortitude to see through the narrative, but wonders how we could drop the ball by naming a subforum about gender issues as if it's only focused on 50% of the genders? Men's rights, feminism, and gender reads as "all the best things about men, all the worst things about women, and (fine print) everything gender related." But everything gender related tells the whole story with less words and bias. Am I wrong?

I'm guessing points 1 and 2 are related. I'm guessing he's normalized any abuse he was exposed to, which is why he can't see it in his upbringing or the State. If he believes the State owns everything, go over to his house and take his lawnmower. It's all owned by the State anyways, so personal property isn't valid. Is Canada a monarchy? If not, then how does he explain how such a massive possession's ownership is transferred from one regime to the next? I mean, who voted him as the owner of his coffee mug? Sadly, these are not difficult fallacies to pierce.

Check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series if you haven't already. If your friend is convinced that legislation (commands backed by threats of violence up to and including death) is in place to protect people with no empirical evidence, then you'll need to understand WHY he believes this before you could hope to change his mind. Chances are he had controlling parents that inflicted conclusions upon him instead of negotiating with him and teaching him to think rationally. As a result, he's fully primed for allowing others in an illusory position of authority to do the same. I think the more important question is why you would be friends with somebody who promotes violence as if it were a valid approach to conflict resolution? It's not a valid conclusion. The reasons statists continue to believe it is because it's comfortable to do so. Few people will have nothing to do with a person based on their pro-violence position. If those of us who can see the gun in the room can't help somebody else to see it, depriving that person of the pleasure of our company is one way we can make a real difference. Something to think about.

I don't want rights because I'm a man. I want rights because I'm a human. I want female humans to have the same rights as me. And the trans-gendered, hermaphrodites... "Men's rights," while a perfectly fine general name for the counter-movement, makes for a bad subforum title in my opinion. I think this would be especially true of those who do not realize it's a thing, that might misinterpret it as a misogynistic cult instead of just a valid counter-movement. Would we vote to name a subforum about racial issues "white's rights"? How about amid a paradigm where an effort to give blacks equal rights had swung too far? I'd rather break the cycle than perpetuate the pendulum, but on this side of center for a change.

Maybe I suggest a change in the title? Gender encompasses men's issues and feminism without being biased. I understand that the pendulum was far too the other way for far too long, but that's no reason for a philosophical board to have an unphilosophical approach to the title.

Only you could know. You mentioned being wary, so I'm guessing you're as objective as one could be. I'm really happy to read about her listening to you and giving your experience a chance. As such, I wouldn't get too worried about the blaming on alcoholism just yet. Everybody's at different progress points in their lives (something I often lose sight of) and many people addicted to alcohol are brainwashed into thinking they are powerless against it. Perhaps in time, she can fulfill her espoused desire to do what she can by being honest with herself about herself. In the meantime, I hope you can be a shining example in that regard while not sacrificing yourself for the sake of managing her. Thanks for the update Good news I'd say.

Zoning and permits. Whose allowed to build what where. It's nothing new for those already succeeding to use State power to establish costly regulations that they can manage, but start-ups cannot. And licensing... The list is near endless and unfortunately, I'm no expert on the subject. All you really need to know is that where competition is absent, coercion is present. For as long as there are more than two people on Earth, this will be true.

No no, see, this is just an isolated incident. Every other cop is your friend. Signed, Every Statist I wonder how perverse the destruction has to get before more people say no more.

If I understand what you're saying, this is just a possibility, not a certainty. Another child of the same parents could work a lot following their example, another still might just work average despite that example. The only certainty in this quote is that parents that model dysfunction to their children will have dysfunctional children.

There's no such thing as no competition. What your friend is referring to is artificial culling of would be competition. Something that can only be accomplished by the very entity he claims is protecting him with legislation. It's a difficult topic because in a way, he is right. But this doesn't change the fact that the origin of the problem is State coercion.

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing the depression you speak of is rooted in unrealistic expectations. If you haven't already, I'd strongly recommend based on your post that you check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. It's important to understand how and why people think what they think before trying to change that. I've taken to trying to determine if somebody is of integrity (values truth above falsehood) up front. If they indicate that it's not the truth that they seek but rather bias confirmation, then I move along. I won't let them taint me or waste my time. It's triage. You have to leave the lost ones behind in order to help those who are curious. Then, before long, there will be so many people that see through the propaganda that it will be uncomfortable for those who support the institutionalized initiation of the use of force. And never forget that the lost souls you're dealing with are victims of their parents. I hope this is of some help to you.

Depends on WHY it occurs. In my case, my abusive father tends to cut me off just a few words in, which puts a pressure on me to be quick. Also, he's full of inconsistencies and contradictions, so I have to think quick to try and maintain balance in the moment during those times. Between the two, I can sometimes stutter or otherwise not communicate coherently. Once I realized these things (and that he's a petty tyrant in general), it was easier to be calm when communicating. At least in terms of external expression. I still feel hearth-pounding (literally) anxiety over the fact that if I step over his imaginary lines too far, he can and will threaten me with my home.

The initiation of the use of force is highly inefficient. We all benefit from a system NOT being in place that is predicated on just that.

If you'd like to look into it more, I'd recommend checking out Alison Gopnik's The Philosophical Baby. Understanding that we are one way by default helps to understand how we could possibly end up the other way.

It's too bad I'm not licensed to perform those duties in Michigan or else I'd donate my time.

It's funny how the only legitimate cautions for Bitcoin are the same cautions for other currencies. But "don't leave your wallet in a public restaurant" won't scare people into supporting increased State power.

How do you know? While it may come across as overly simplistic, Wuzzums said exactly what I would have. While your theory of a coercive society is a good one, it's not going to change a person like such things would during their formative years. It's like suggesting a car's engine might crap out due to wind resistance.

While mechanically identical, what you're seeing is not compliance. How not humans interact has little bearing on how humans interact. Violence is only easy for psychopaths. Without reason, they're not different from the beasts you reference. Even still, if you can develop trust, confidence, rationale, etc, you will achieve the desired results with little to no further input. Compared to constantly trying to manage another human being, it is almost infinitely more easy.

This was my initial take as well. However, countries do not exist. Commandments backed by threats of violence are not laws. So by this logic, I would say statists since they are within arm's reach of testing for the ghosts they pray to.

Absolutely. 100%. Obedience denotes choice while coercion removes choice. Manners involve the consideration of others while consequence avoidance considers only the self. Finally, nothing could be described as easily controlled if it first requires violence and second requires increasing amounts of violence. Not to mention all three of your claims beg the question by presuming the value of obedience, manners, and control-ability.

Are you saying that morality is impractical? How can something be practical if it is immoral? Let us assume for a moment that the two can be established independently; How do you know that practicality supersedes morality? I'm sorry, but you have been lied to. The rapists have told you that their rape is so monumental that you cannot stop it outright and you've accepted this fallacy. And no, sir, you are the one ignoring your agreement with me. You claim to grasp that the initiation of the use of force is immoral, but prescribe initiating the use of force to (pretend to) address it. This is inconsistent.

You don't get that this is paradoxical, do you? To snap your fingers and eradicate the initiation of the use of force would be initiating the use of force. You're 3 for 3 in making posts that speak of people as if they're pawns and not people. I think this is how you're able to 3 for 3 ignore the moral consideration altogether. And how you're able to miss that this quote is paradoxical. I first noticed this when you spoke of "governance with maximum liberty." I also noticed that you continue to speak of reality as a reason to reject morality as the primary consideration. However, this fails to acknowledge that morality is the acceptance of reality! If I own myself, then you own yourself and to initiate the use of force would be immoral. Reality is how we know that government is immoral on any scale. Government is immoral. Rape is immoral. They are therefore morally identical. This is important because "government" is a pseudonym for violence used to conceal the violence in order to pass vice off as virtue. Substituting a word that is morally identical (such as rape) shatters any obfuscation so that we can talk about the same thing. You say you support incremental reduction (that doesn't occur) of the State but would not support incremental reduction of rape, but you do not realize that these positions are conflicting. I don't get to go out and rob a liquor store and then tell the jury that I'm not that guy over there that held up an entire bank, so it's okay. And if you're saying that immorality is tolerable so long as you like its specific application, we have nothing further to discuss. I will not waste more time if the person I'm speaking with has no interest in the truth.

Welcome to FDR! When I first read this, I was curious if you've taken responsibility for what you view as your shortcomings or if you attribute them to your parents. Then as I read on, I cringed at verbiage such as man up, being a pussy, and being a bitch. Have you investigated these ideas that to be a man is to be strong, to be a woman is to be weak, to express yourself is weak, etc? I don't think any of those are true. And if they're not, where did they come from?