dsayers

There is a difference between libertarian and Libertarian. The latter is a proper name. Anybody can apply any proper name they like. Democrats aren't necessarily for democracy and Rebuplicans aren't necessarily for the republic. I try to avoid labels for the most part. It's too easy for people to not have identical ideas of what the label means. There's only one way to meaningfully divide people: Those who initiate the use of force and those who will not.

The only condition I would allow for is if the abusers SUCCESSFULLY completed therapy, gained self-knowledge, did everything they could to make restitution to their victims, including providing them with therapy, etc. Based on the hypothetical, I have to assume that this is not the case or else a break of contact wouldn't have been necessary. Though that is at the discretion of the abused of course. For person X to subject their children to ANYBODY who is a POTENTIAL abuser is to abuse the child, if "only" by way of neglect. To do so with a KNOWN abuser is downright sinister. Of course my anger on the subject is aimed at the society that tells people that a title based on biological function is more important than such considerations.

The leap from holding hands to rape is so enormous, that I find it jarring to read about as a third party. Correct me if I am wrong, but this doesn't strike me as a normal concept association. I don't think that establishing your own incapacity for rape is as important as expressing curiosity as to how she came to make that connection. Depending on why that is, to express one's own incapacity for rape might not even matter or be received. Assuming I'm correct on how abnormal and substantial that is, it could be indicative of pretty serious trauma. I don't think her claim of not being sexually abused is necessarily helpful. If you ask her if she's ever been stolen from, she might say no, but she's paid sales tax and the like. It could be that what she's experienced is something she's normalized in an attempt to avoid processing it. Expressing curiosity as to how she made that connection might help you to help her, or to realize that it might be better to save yourself by getting away from somebody who is damaged. You would know this better than me of course, so only take my perspective with a grain of salt. I think you appear to have a strong self-knowledge foundation, but may have waived some of it in exchange for access to somebody that requires you to put them above you. Also, when I mentioned my perspective of priority of studies versus relationships, that's not a common one. Certainly not one that can be easily sold to others. There have been a lot of women who have sold their own potential short in favor of relationships. It would be very easy to accidentally appear to be "that guy" if you tried to convince her of that. Especially since it sounds as if her lack of commitment is rooted in something that has nothing to do with you or her studies.

*how OTHER relationships SOMETIMES work. If she's still spending time with you, it sounds like the relationship is working for her. I'm not saying that what works for her should supersede what works for you, but your quote here sort of takes her out of an equation that she's a part of. So the next thought across my mind is why would somebody take somebody out of an equation that they're a part of? It strikes me as a way of dealing with insecurity. Is a relationship with her okay with you if it doesn't involve hand holding or doesn't involve it as soon, as often, or as initiated by her as you'd like? If not, then admit this to yourself and talk to her about it. The only other reason I can think of somebody would remove somebody from an equation they're a part of is from blaming them, as if it is a fault. And it certainly could be that she was harmed in a way that she has an aversion to holding hands/physical affection. You won't know unless you talk to her about it. Please don't take this as condescension. It seems that you mean well and have a healthy approach. Sometimes it's hard to pick up on these subtle nuances when you're in the middle of it. It's easy for me to see (assuming I'm in the ballpark) because I used to be very controlling. I know all too well what inflicting expectations on others looks like as well as punishing them for not meeting those unspoken expectations. I'm not saying this describes you since what I'm talking about in myself was far worse and was not borne out of caring for the person at all. For what it's worth, I personally don't think studies, which can just as easily be done anytime, are higher priority than developing a relationship with somebody. Even if you're not destined to get married, meaningful relationships aren't something you can just go and sign up for, pay tuition, and get. Nor are they as trivial. I hope the two of you are able to talk about all of this and figure out something that works for both of you. Thanks for sharing.

Where do evil people come from? We know the answer to this. Childhood abuse has physiological ramifications and teaches the child the language of evil. Check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. Not only does it touch base on this, but it somewhat addresses your next question as well. Namely how long will it take? It will be a multi-generational process because right now, we live in a world full of broken people who don't know how to think. It takes people like you'll find in this community, who have put in work towards repairing the damage, healing, pursuing self-knowledge, and embodying peaceful, voluntary interaction in their own lives. FDR has been instrumental in spreading the message of peaceful parenting, which will raise a crop of peaceful people who only know coercion as a nightmarish fairy tale.

I got lost. You had asked that in regards to me mentioning my psychologist? Intellectually, I'm attracted to intelligence. Physically, as a vestige of my more predatory days, I'm attracted to easy targets, which intelligence sort of gets in the way of. That said, I'm still working towards self-knowledge and healing, so I'm not really on the market and when I return, I will not allow myself to get tangled up with people that could punish me for making the wrong decisions if that makes sense. No, the innuendo was towards females. That's what I meant by holding it against them when it was just as true of me. Can't really look down on somebody for being forward about their sexuality when I was doing the same thing.

Lol, I was going to post that one, but didn't since it's so atrocious out of context

This reminds me of my journey from the bigoted upbringing I received to acceptance. I had started working a job at a call center that had a couple of very flamboyant, outgoing homosexual males. They were nice guys, but it really bugged me how out there they were with their sexuality. Until one day, it occurred me that I was a stone hypocrite for thinking that way as much of my teen years and early adulthood was spent making innuendo constantly. The very thing I used as an excuse to be disgusted by them applied to me also. Needless to say, it helped me both to become more accepting and to tone down my own obnoxiousness. Something that I later found out seriously bugged a couple of my "friends" despite them behaving as if they enjoyed that about me. I can't speak for others, but I know this isn't true of me. My first sexual encounter was with a boy. We were having a sleep over and he taught me that being touched down there felt good. Later in life, I had a friend I hung out with regularly. We lived in the same apartment complex, had keys to each others' place, etc. He sort of snuck a peek one time and I was a bit of an exhibitionist anyways, so I kind of went with it. But despite half being open to the possibility, and being able to understand that some men are really good looking, I am completely turned off by the idea of being a giver in a male-male physical interaction. So no, intellect alone doesn't do it for me. Thanks for teaching me a new word though

In this regard, be glad you're a woman. I could be wrong, but it's been my observation that men tend to go all in. I think this would make them more at risk of getting burned out in this regard. I could cite so many examples of this. Including studying philosophy. I go through phases where I binge and phases where I abstain. My kingdom for a happy medium!

Translation: I am not interested in anything that would conflict with my bigotry, so I looked at what you provided only long enough to figure out a way to reject it. Since you appeared to be talking about a social contract, I thought that was an easy way to reject it and didn't bother to consider how it might apply to the topic at hand even though you provided it as if it did. You're doing the same thing in your general approach here. The point that was made here is that workers choose their business relationships and thanks to competition are not limited to one. Instead of acknowledging that this refutes the claim that voluntary paid labor is slavery, you subvert the topic to use that point to defeat "taxation is slavery" even though that claim isn't made here and doesn't even apply since governmental claim over somebody predates their existence (not voluntary). You have to understand that at FDR, you're going to run into people smart enough to not be fooled by this hoodwink attempt. It is clear you're more interested in appearing correct and/or railing against "the system" than you are in having a discussion and seeking the truth. Which is your prerogative, just be honest about it please.

It sounds like it is his situation. Why do you feel you need to do anything about it? If this is your brother, did you grow up in the same household? Have you been subjected to the same abuse he has? Do you accept that this level of irrational hatred must come from abuse? I think the most important thing you could do is to explore these things and try to identify how this abuse has effected you. In other words, I think the best thing you could do to about your brother's situation is to use it as motivation to enhance your own situation. I don't know that there's anything you could do for him. It's clear he would reject any rational argument that didn't support his position. If you did pursue the self-knowledge recommended here, you might be able to later offer an emotional plea to him, having presumably come from the same environment that enabled his hatred. Otherwise, I wouldn't let the irrational convictions of another person inhibit your ability to do well yourself. Does that make sense?

Once upon a time, I was in a left turn lane, signal on, waiting for the light to turn green so that I could continue. A police car was behind me and as soon as I made the turn, his light bar lit up. Turns out I had a warrant out for my arrest. I was in holding for several hours before my support system was able to make bail. I finally have my day in court; Turns out I didn't answer the jury notice they sent me to an address I hadn't lived at for seven years. Clearly that was my fault, so being kidnapped was okay *rolls eyes* The only advice I have is to NOT engage in any gimmicks that might increase State attention towards you in the future. That is one predator you want to be as much off the radar to as possible.

I can relate. I had watched season 1 of HoC awhile back. When season 2 came out, I wasn't at all interested. Recently, Stef was talking about it and brought up things I hadn't thought of, so I thought I'd give it another chance. He's right that it's awesome that this sort of mentality is entering the mainstream, but you're right that it's too realistic to satisfy the abnegation we indulge when we watch shows and movies. I'm mostly pushing forward since to me, it's still unclear if the series is meant to glorify such treachery or not. I will say that I really do enjoy the way they're highlighting how aggression directly impacts the complexity of one's own well-being and survival.

I'm so sorry to hear any of this. That last sentence reminded me of my father. He's Christian and extremely bigoted and judgemental. I remember him once describing gays as people that want it so bad, they don't care where they get it from. Just an awful thing to say. I don't question your experience for a moment. I just wanted to point out that anecdotal evidence isn't proper evidence. I was seeing a psychologist when I was a teen very briefly. She was nothing special to look at, but I was incredibly turned on by our relationship simply because we had a level of intimacy that I longed for and hadn't received even from family. This isn't rational, and physiologically, it was not an accurate interpretation. People make mistakes like these all the time. Again, not questioning your experience. Just reminding you that we are capable of error.

I don't think appreciation of the mind and shallowness are mutually exclusive. More than ever, I appreciate a woman's mind, ability to critically think, explore the truth even when it's comfortable, etc. At the exact same time, I continue to be moved by physical beauty. I wouldn't base a close, personal relationship on that alone though. Does this still qualify as shallowness? Is it anecdotal evidence that the two are not mutually exclusive?

I addressed this, in your presence, here. It doesn't appear that you had any correction, clarifications, or challenges to make. To continue speaking as if this hasn't been addressed is dishonest. As is your use of the word peasant. That word indicates a relationship with a ruling class, not a voluntary business partner.

I would've called motel management. They could address the situation on their own property. If they would not, you could ask them to be moved (which costs them more in having to clean an extra room) or a refund to go and stay elsewhere. I'm a private investigator that does security patrols and alarm response. I sometimes have to call the police to fill out a report in the event of an actual break in. It's actually a fun experience because I'm in a position of greater and legitimate authority during our interaction. Plus after a lifetime of multiple bad personal experiences with police, there's something rewarding about being armed and police turning their backs to you without hesitation. The last time I called the police for personal reasons was because somebody had broken into the house I was staying at to steal a cheap handgun I had while I wasn't there. I did this not with the expectation of ever recovering my property, but to make sure that if anything happened with that gun, that it wasn't thought to be my responsibility.

Well don't read too far into it. I've noticed that most series are only good for 2-3 seasons, if that. If you look even to the classics, there usually comes a point in time where they start loading up extra characters and other stuff to prop it up. Worst is with sitcoms that start throwing in deaths, marriages, etc. You know, unfunny stuff. Even the recycled pairing off of characters like with Friends and That 70s Show sort of indicates they're running out of fuel. In fact, the only series I've seen in recent years that did a good job of sticking to their original design were Psych and Dexter. I just started season 2 of House of Cards and feel it deviated from what made it interesting almost immediately. For shame. So, Mike, did you find Walking Dead to not be that way in the beginning? How far in would you say it went from being interesting to not for you two?

Thanks for the correction. I'll have to stop mentioning that until I look into it more. Still, I don't think it's rational to exclude the possibility of bi-sexuality since even that explanation indicates something gone wrong.

That would certainly make the like system that much more useful. It would have to be via frictionless currency, or else those microtransactions wouldn't be so useful. A side story on the topic at hand: Once upon a time, I did mods for a video game series. I was good, professional, and prolific. I had never considered donations as I was doing it for my own pleasure. Releasing it was just for the sake of returning value in light of those who did the cracking and tool design that made my work possible. Still, I actually had somebody ask me to set up a PayPal button on my site to donate and sure enough, they followed through. That's why I wanted to emphasize talking to others in terms of value. A lot of people watch YouTube videos. Most of them understand that clicking a link is less beneficial than watching the whole thing is less beneficial than clicking like is less beneficial than clicking subscribe. If we associate that with value, it would change the way some people think about the subject. I think it would be interesting to see how many such people don't bother donating because YouTube has monetization options already. Larken Rose recently released a video telling the story of his incredibly unfortunate cross-country trip. He ended up having to appeal to his subscribers and they supported him. Same as when Stef was diagnosed with cancer and people supported him. Because they provide value already. Which is another reason to push the point of value: To reveal that welfare programs are basically handouts for those not providing value to others.

It's not a fact. It's a speculation and one that isn't based on anything realistic as outlined above. Your initial question was how would the market solve this scenario. Presumably you meant free market, which means free society. In a free society, a contract like you're describing would be unenforceable. You including this element doesn't change the question at all, which has been answered.

What do you like about it? I've never seen anything about it (besides the first few minutes of the iPad app by the same name), but I've heard of it many times. I've never checked it out because the zombie thing never really appealed to me. But I'm always interested in new series, so long as they don't just parrot the narrative.

As I understand it, homosexuality is the result of trauma in utero. Referencing what the brain looks like in an untraumatized state would not be helpful in considering how the trauma might manifest.

Isn't this projection? I ask because I noticed an avoidance of your own fallibility in your other thread. I am fully aware that the sun and the moon aren't even close to the same size despite appearing that way. This comes from an acceptance that in the event that my interpretation of the evidence of my senses conflicts with the real world, my senses must give way. You've successfully arrived at performative contradiction number three in your time here. You are communicating with and soliciting the feedback of people that you claim to think might not exist. I wonder if you were aware when you joined this forum that this is a place for philosophy. If this is truly your interest, then may I recommend Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy series. I found it invaluable in teaching me how to think after decades of propaganda.

Yet when I pointed out that "nothing is certain" is a certainty (internally inconsistent), you didn't reply with, "Oh yeah, whoops *blush*." You replied with this quote here. This isn't an indication of somebody that is open to their own fallibility.