Alice Amell

People who cut themselves are not automatically suicidal. Repetitive cutting is classified as non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). NSSI behavior such as cutting are associated with an increased risk of suicide - but most people who engage in self-harm are not suicidal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-harm http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/self-injury/basics/definition/CON-20025897 This is the third time I'll say it: surgery is not the removal of the penis. Furthermore, as I said, being transgender is not addictive behavior. You backed away from it being certain and obvious, now you say it may escalate into being addicting. How can I be addicted to something I haven't even done yet? There is no tolerance nor physical dependence, and if I were an addict seeking emotional release - there are other means of doing so. Having surgery is not immediately satisfying, as in, it won't help me right now. Do you need to figure out why you are cisgender or why you are attracted to women and not to men? The question of why I am transgender presupposes that it is not a natural phenomenon, that I should not accept it at face value and that I therefore can choose to not be it. If you ask me why I am sexual rather than asexual, I have no answer and I need no answer. I just am. Science may find the reason why in time, but in my opinion it is by no means a need.

So again, you admit you've no evidence to support this claim but reassert your position that drugs cause me to feel this way. So you are saying, 1. there are drugs with unknown effects everywhere 2. transgender people are a minority 3. therefore it is possible that their feelings result from this drug. Sure? It is possible. But lots of things are possible. But you have not linked anything to transgender people specifically. You could say the same about any minority - homosexuals, or even anarchists. I see no reason why you think it is transgender people that are the product of some conspiracy for money. Nathan Diehl gave sources that detail the existence of transgender people throughout history - that is long before these pharmaceutical companies started spewing drugs in the air, so how does that fit into your theory? Why are non-natural, unhealthy,and non-average lifestyles illegitimate? I'm not sure what you mean by that - am I not allowed to live such a lifestyle, is that immoral? Is it just to stop me? Natural, healthy, and average are all subjective terms, no? Who is the arbiter of an average lifestyle? I don't understand. Perhaps you did not type what you meant, but going back to your quote... In my original response I acknowledged it was a conditional statement, I said however that your refusal to support of transgender people was not alone the conditional clause of the sentence: the knowing of that was. "if x, then y." but y = knowing that you will never support transgender people. If x, I will know . . . if not x, I won't know . . . in either case your support of transgender people is unchanging. As an analogy: "If you read this sentence, you will know my favorite color is red." Whether or not you read the sentence, my favorite color is still red. If I misunderstand grammar or if you did not mean that, then I do apologize for making the error. However, onto your argument. As AncapFTW said, your example is irrelevant. The parents are not transgender. The child is not transgender. Even if they were, do you hold everyone that shares a common trait to an evil-doer collectively responsible for their actions? They are responsible for their own actions. No one else. Are all atheists responsible for the actions of one atheist murderer? Furthermore, even if it mattered, you haven't shown that any pro-transgender people caused these parents to believe such things. Homosexuality and transvestic fetishism are not equal to trangenderism. I don't feel inclined to respond anymore at this moment; you've just ignored my points and reasserted your unsupported claims, saying we all have borderline. I won't suffer your conclusions. "Man it's really sick... Have some responsibility for your twisted values. If she were a cutter, suicidal, or anorexic, you wouldn't even dream of condoning this behavior (I'd hope). Truly shameful." Seeing as I share those values, those comments apply to me as well. Maybe sick and desperate aren't negative in all contexts, but can you say you did not mean them derogatorily here? Calling a drug addict an addict - sure, that is self-evident. Calling a transgender person an addict is not. Not all have low self-acceptance or low self-esteem; that is your prescription. It is not within the definition of trangenderism. Are you saying no transgender person can accept themselves or have high self-esteem? I have knowledge of addictions, and I do not see taking drugs or wanting surgery as an addiction at all. I do not want surgery over and over, I just want to change my body in a certain way and that is it. It is not aimless nor unending. I think calling it violence is simply framing your position as good - it causes violence, therefore it's bad. Sure, the surgery requires my body to endure some harm but it helps me more so in what it does, in my opinion. So I want to do it. I appreciate your claim of empathy but your adjectives of my position I feel are not empathetic. I'm not sure if I want to take you up on your offer or not right now.

That is not your quote, and you highlighted it in blue in your own post, so you know it is not your own quote. You said ". . .you'll know why I'll never support a transgender. . ." Whether I know why has no bearing on whether you will - and you state you will not. If I hadn't responded with silent apathy, then I won't know why you'll never support me, but you still won't. I am only responding to this and nothing else because if you have already made up your conclusion beforehand there is no point in discussing it with you.

I don't know why my previous post had that in blue.. I did not intend for it to be blue I don't know what happened. Thank you for your concern. I do not think I would kill myself if you did prove it was a mental disorder. I highly value the truth and would welcome anyone that can prove I am incorrect, even if it will be emotionally taxing for me. I apologize for bad framing. My frustration was misdirected. Could you elaborate on the effects and implications you've alluded to but have not stated? Just saying they can't understand doesn't convince me. I think they can understand (this is at age 16, mind you, when they finally start HRT). However, even if they could not understand, that doesn't mean that they are not consenting to it and that it isn't an appropriate treatment. A child who needs a liver transplant or some other medical procedure may not understand the long-term effects of it, but that doesn't mean they should not receive or do not consent to a treatment. It is normal to experiment as a very young child with gender roles, but that is entirely different to wanting to Children develop a sense of gender identity at a very young age. A preliminary search yielded me these: "When the child is able to fully grasp gender consistent understanding about themselves, usually between the ages of five and seven, the motivation to master his or her orientation and to socialize themselves allows them to seek out same-sexed models to learn more about gender-stereotypic behaviors." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_typing "Gender identity appears to form very early in life and is most likely irreversible by age 4. Although the exact cause of gender identity remains unknown, biological, psychological, and social variables clearly influence the process. Genetics, prenatal and postnatal hormones, differences in the brain and the reproductive organs, and socialization all interact to mold a toddler's gender identity. The differences brought about by physiological processes ultimately interact with social‐learning influences to establish clear gender identity." http://www.cliffsnotes.com/sciences/psychology/development-psychology/psychosocial-development-age-02/gender-development "Gender identity is usually formed by age three and is extremely difficult to change after that.[2][3] The formation also commonly concludes between the ages of four and six." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity If children develop their gender identity so early, then I do not think it is "irresponsible" to wait until 10 years after that to give them treatment. And if they do not receive puberty-delaying drugs, bodily dysphoria would worsen. I am curious, despite not stating said "effects" and "implications," you still would not provide your child treatment? I would empathize greatly with them. I know what it is like to watch my body develop in ways that I do not want and I can never change. I do feel very strongly about that. I don't see a clearly defined reason why I would deny my child treatment. I do think they have the capacity to have a sense of what they want at that age, as I did. Thank you for asking. I mentioned earlier my sexual identification as a woman. And I did not get the sense in general that I was not myself, but I knew that I specifically identified as a woman. I wanted the body of a woman. I did not like my body. So in that regard I identified more with the female sex, I believe. Taking hormones has made me feel better about my body in the ways it has affected me. I also identified with the female gender to a larger extent than the male one. Not everyone is of course all one or the other, but I prefer feminine clothing for example, as well as prefer to be referred to as female.

How does my behavior "lead to a rabbit hole of addictive self-abuse." Can you explain and justify that statement? I will not suppose to know what is going through their head, what their childhood was like, but this is still behavior that often leads down a rabbit hole of addictive self-abuse. To purposely handicap oneself in order to gain some perceived advantage is an act of desperation. I only take hormones and want surgery because it helps my body align with my feelings. There is no "advantage" to it except that it will help me accomplish that. There are a great many disadvantages, in fact. But I will face them because it means that much to me. I do not appreciate your assumptions about me; I am in fact going to therapy right now, as well as reading about self-acceptance. Going to therapy HELPED me to accept who I am - as a woman. I have felt this way as long as I can remember. When I was 13 I discovered transgender people existed and there was treatment for it. Yet despite that, for 6 years I did not follow them. I tried to be normal, I was afraid of rejection, afraid to tell my parents. Only last year did I finally come to terms with who I am and finally start hormones and finally tell my parents. I HAVE explored my thoughts and feelings about it. I HAVE and DO consider the risks. I would struggle, not knowing why I felt this way. Where did it come from? I can't say I know the cause but I have accepted the feelings won't go away. Would you tell a gay person it is just in their head, that they can fix it? That if they are in a gay relationship it is gene-death and that they are awful for giving that up? That it takes away their future? That they have to love themselves and their natural born instinct of heterosexuality? That is what I feel you are telling to me. Also, being trans is not equivalent to gene-death. Transgender people can and do have natural born children, as you alluded to within that same post in reference to the interviewee. However, before starting hormones a transwoman must freeze sperm if she wants to have children. You say there are "developments in this field" about lying to oneself. How can you know this applies to transgender people? What "developments" are you referring to? Is it not your prejudice that is making these unsupported claims? Is it not self-acceptance? I accept my identity - I dislike my body. I could just as easily say rejecting my feelings is anti-self-acceptance. Am I required to like my body? I do not agree with that. I don't like my body, and not because it's inadequately masculine but because it's inadequately feminine. I can't like my body unless I change it. I accept my feelings. You want me to get rid of those feelings, I presume. I do not believe they can go away. Can you stop being your sexuality or your gender identification? The issue is not exclusively about my mind. My mind has feelings about my body. I am changing my body in alignment with my feelings; you would suggest, I presume, to disregard my feelings in favor of my body. But the thing is, I can't do that. And I don't want to, naturally, because the feelings make me want to change my body. Of course I would go under and not feel the pain - who wouldn't? I don't see the argument you are making - you are pointing out that I'd prefer not to feel pain, and therefore ..what exactly? How can you claim that to know the woman in the interview is suppressing her feelings and is not happy? Is that not a presumptuous and unfounded claim? Thank you Nathan for defending me. Thank you for your honesty about your struggle with this topic. I will try to explain where I am coming from more. I am not (or if I am, do not mean to) compel you to normalize it without question. The fact that I am explaining myself and answering questions I think is evidence to the contrary. I never claimed the suicide rate was only due to transphobism, though it does play a huge role, in my opinion. Here is why I think that: "A staggering 41% of respondents reported attempting suicide compared to 1.6% of the general population, with rates rising for those who lost a job due to bias (55%), were harassed/bullied in school (51%), had low household income, or were the victim of physical assault (61%) or sexual assault (64%)." The 41% and 1.6% they did say is not a fair comparison because the 1.6% comes from a federal study in which they only inquire about the past year. The study on transgender people asked if they ever had attempted suicide. Further down I reference another study which gave the annual rate at 11% in Canada. "Forty-three percent (43%) maintained most of their family bonds, while 57% experienced significant family rejection. In the face of extensive institutional discrimination, family acceptance had a protective affect against many threats to well-being including health risks such as HIV infection and suicide." "Those who expressed a transgender identity or gender non-conformity while in grades K-12 reported alarming rates of harassment (78%), physical assault (35%) and sexual violence (12%); harassment was so severe that it led almost one-sixth (15%) to leave a school in K-12 settings or in higher education." Taken from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey http://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NTDS_Report.pdf There is a lot more info in this study if you want to look at it but those are a few of the many things they gathered data on. In regard to children: as far I know it is not acceptable practice to give hormones to someone who is 9. They will wait until puberty and give puberty-delaying drugs if the child wants it and wait until they are age 16. At that point, if they still identify the same way, they will begin hormone therapy. It is the child's decision. Many are very afraid of puberty because it will make their body develop in ways they do not want. Are you suggesting they should not delay puberty and should have to endure those unwanted and irreversible changes? We are not. Sex is a biological reality dictated by chromosomes. "Gender is generally conceived as a set of characteristics or traits that are associated with a certain biological sex (male or female). In non-western countries, gender is not always conceived as binary, or strictly linked to biological sex. As a result, in some cultures there are third, fourth,[1] fifth[2] or "some"[3] genders. The characteristics that generally define gender are referred to as masculine or feminine." From Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to me like you are making an argument. Reframing my argument as the destruction of flesh, self-mutilation and violence is not an argument. Of course no one would want the destruction of flesh, but you then equate surgery with violence itself. If you are against surgery, why are you opposed to my minority surgeries and not much more common surgeries like rhinoplasties? I do not think I've received a lot of empathy from you and instead am being intimidated. You call my values "twisted," "shameful," and void of responsibility. Your most recent post, though you claim to be in favor of empathy, continues this trend calling me "sick and desperate," having a mental disorder, and being indecent for not saying you're right.Those are shaming adjectives, not arguments. I am not sure continuing to engage in this conversation with you would be very productive. Actually, I listed the criteria. And answering questions without giving any argument as to why those answers are correct is very unconvincing. It isn't an argument to just say "yes, most transgender people are X, Y, Z" without any evidence. "Can't claim equality." What does that even mean? And 71% is not the suicide rate. As I posted above the estimated attempted suicide rate for transgender and gender non-conforming people is 41% (over a lifetime). Per year is 11% in Canada according to this: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/08/suicide-rate-much-higher-for-transgender-canadians-study It is a strawman to say any of those people support lobbyists or that they condone any bad parenting. That child is not transgender and to say that because a non-transgender child has non-transgender parents that are bad, I am against transgender people. It is very discriminatory and conclusive to say you will never support a transgender person, and if you never will, there is no point for me to address your "arguments" anymore.

That is like me asking you "how do you know what it feels like to be a man?" Caitlyn Jenner is of the male sex, but identifies with the female gender. Only she can make that decision of what gender she wants to be, not you. You are saying she is a man and therefore can't know what it is like to be a woman; but she is a woman, in that she identifies with the female gender, the same way you identify with the male gender. But unlike you, her gender is not associated with her sex and therefore it is not as acceptable for her to express that identity and she hid it for a long time. If instead you mean, how can a transgender person know what it feels like to be of the female sex, to have a vagina and so on, I don't know that we necessarily do. Do you necessarily feel the same as other men do about being of the male sex? I can only speak to what I personally feel. I know I have a desire to have a vagina, and to use it for sex. It is hard to explain. I feel dysphoric with my current body and have a desire to change it - I have a desire to have a more feminine body. I am averse to my penis and do not want to use it for sex. But I still feel sexual urges - I want to have sex as a woman. I want someone inside me, not the other way around. I apologize for being graphic but I do not know how else to explain it. I hope that answers your question.

Thank you for listening to my perspective on it. I do not know in what sense it is violence - that it causes physical damage? Is surgery to save a life violence? Would you describe it using that word? If not, calling voluntary surgery or voluntary body-altering violence is inconsistent. Let me repeat that is it voluntary; there is no force being used. I also do not think straightening one's hair is necessarily assimilating to white culture. White people straighten their hair too. Are they trying to be more white? No, they are already accepted as white - because they are white. I do not see how changing hair styles is evidence of assimilation or idealization of white culture. Do you think no black women can straighten their hair less they be trying to be white? Should no one change their hair less they are denying their natural self? How far does this go - straightening, curling, cutting, dyeing, etc. Both black and white men and women do this. Changing skin tone is nothing new either. Some people want to be lighter and some want to be darker - white people get tans all the time. However, I agree there is discrimination against black people and so there may be an incentive for them that there isn't for white people - but to what extent that is the reason for this behavior I can't quantify. But if I get a tan no one accuses me of trying to be more black. I am not familiar with transracial people. I tried to look it up but found very little, just some satire. If you could link me to what you were referring then I'd feel better about commenting on it. Race is socially constructed as is gender (Race is skin tone and culture, while ethnicity is origin of birth). What is wrong with someone wanting to change appearance or behavior to be in another culture / group? However I couldn't find much about it so I think if it does exist is not as common as transgender, though that may be my assumption. I wouldn't say it is abundantly obvious. I also do not know what psychology or cultural factors would make me want to be a woman - no, transpeople face a lot of discrimination. To suggest that black people would gain cultural approval or that I would gain any for being trans I think is a false claim. Skin lightening is a serious topic and people who have done it face a lot of scrutiny. There was a big controversy over whether Michael Jackson was trying to be more white. I can't say I know the answer. He did get surgery on his nose, but I understand his Vitiligo may have been the cause of skin lightening. I agree that taking hormones and having surgery is a much more serious issue. By taking hormones, I've done irreversible things to my body (infertility, breast growth - though I could have frozen sperm if I had wanted to). You say that it is self-abuse, but would you call someone who has plastic surgery to fix a deformity or a scar self-abusive? Would you tell them to accept who they are and not change themself? From my perspective, I think I am accepting myself by going through these changes; I don't see it as a denial of my self. I felt like I was suppressing myself until I finally came out and started living as and going by and being accepted as a woman. I don't know how self-knowledge can help me stop being trans. Self-knowledge, in my opinion, was what led me to accept my transgender identity. I had feelings of discomfort with my body and gender for as long as I can remember, but I suppressed it. The feeling never subsided and after 19 years I finally did something about it, and started taking hormones. I have felt much better since coming out and have been less self-abusive. I'm not sure what you mean by self-violence, as I mentioned earlier. It may be irreversible and risky, yes, but to me the choice is clear - I want to do this and be who I want to be and finally feel better. I can see how that sounds bad, something an addict might say, though I'm not sure what else I should say. I do appreciate this conversation and your openness about it, GuzzyBone. Yes, they are able to. Did anyone claim they weren't? Taken verbatim from Abnormal Psychology by Ann M. Kring, Sheri L. Johnson, Gerald C. Davson and John M. Neale: DSM-5 Criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder Presence of five or more of the following in many contexts beginning in early adulthood: Frantic efforts to avoid abandonment Unstable interpersonal relationships in which others are either idealized or devalued Unstable sense of self Self-damaging, impulsive behavior in at least two areas, such as spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, and binge eating Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures or self-injurious behaviors (e.g., cutting self) Marked mood reactivity Chronic feelings of emptiness Recurrent bouts of intense or poorly controlled anger During stress, a tendency to experience transient paranoid thoughts and dissociative symptoms I do not see a direct overlap between being transgender and having BPD. The unstable sense of self is actually contradictory toward being trans because I have a stable sense of sense - in terms of my gender/sex, that is.

Full Disclosure: I am a transwoman, identify as female, prefer female pronouns, and am undergoing hormone replacement therapy. Is there an agenda to make women more masculine? Transmen exist as well even if they aren't a well represented in media. That would go against the whole turning men into women to make money idea. Would it not be a huge investment to poison our food and water and market trans-positive stuff (of which I honestly haven't seen too much - most transwomen I see in media are mocked) just to get more make-up sales? While also driving away customers (transmen)? Transwomen are an extreme minority and that would, to me, seem like a small return on investment. Perhaps Caitlyn Jenner is vain but is that a problem of transgender people or the female gender in general? The penis is not removed in surgery; it is inverted and used to create a vagina via vaginoplasty. However, the testicles are removed. High suicide rates are a huge problem in the transgender community. It is not to me a sign of pharmaceutical conspiracy- I'm not sure how you made that leap. Assuming there is a maliciously induced chemical causing people to identify as another gender, I think the burden of proof is on you to give evidence for that. It is certainly not the case that it would make more money from the "average person." Transgender people are not average people; they are a minority. I suspect the high suicide rates are because many (dare I say most?) people are unaccepting of transpeople. Many are disowned by their parents, and become homeless. Or become victims of violence. It is so socially unacceptable, many turn to suicide. Not only for that reason, but so much comes with it as well: having to hide it from people for so long, being rejected by some people (perhaps your family) when you come out, experiencing body dysphoria, knowing that you can't, as you said, change your sex. I will never give birth. I won't have two X chromosomes. And that sucks, but I have to live with it. I have no idea where you go making these assertions with nothing but a reference about one doctor who exploited his patients. Taken from your own source: ""It is the most egregious case of health care fraud I have ever seen," said U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade. "I think what makes this case different is this is not just a case of a doctor billing Medicare for extra treatments or treatments that weren't rendered in order to make a profit. This was a case of a doctor exploiting patients, using them as commodities in order to make money." He pleaded guilty to 16 counts, and that is the most egregious case, according to this attorney? I don't see how this is evidence that big pharma AND big media are therefore conspiring to trick people into accepting a very socially unacceptable and life-changing diagnosis. Yes, they profit from pills. What is that evidence of? The fact that they sell them, nothing more. And I don't follow your logic - the media intends to use Caitlyn Jenner to show to the world that others hate transgender people? Is that what you said? And that is supposed to make people more likely to buy pills? There is no contradiction between gay and transgender acceptance - both are an affirmation of unchanging characteristics of a person. It is consistent to say you cannot change your sexuality, nor your gender/sex identification, and that identity must be affirmed. In the case of transgender people, they may change their body, which CAN change, unlike their identification. Changing my body is a means to reduce bodily dysphoria - a feeling that my body is wrong, an incongruence between how I feel I should be and how I know I am. I can not speak for anyone else, but for me, I do not like my sex. I acknowledge I am biologically male. I do not deny that. But I also don't like it. I wish I had been born as the female sex. I struggle a lot to deal with my body, and taking hormones helps to change my body in alignment with how I feel, how I've always felt. Actually no, not everyone's body knows definitively if they are male or female because there is not just a binary. Intersex people exist as well, with chromosomes such as XXY or XXX. Gender identity is separate, as well. People may identify more with one gender than another, even if that gender is not associated with their sex. Could I just say, "having a feeling of being straight isn't enough to have sex with a woman (if you're a man) and have a baby." I'm not sure how else to respond to such an argument. What IS a legitimate reason to take drugs? What do you mean by legitimate? Are my feelings illegitimate? Or is it wrong to get surgery or take drugs due to feelings? It is an unfounded claim to suggest that chemicals implanted in food and drink produce feelings of transgenderism. You say we may never see real research, but I'm not sure you cited much to support your belief that transgender people are all being duped by some corporation that wants money. Do you have it elsewhere? May I see it? If true this is important to me and I'm willing to entertain such a notion even if I am off-put by it. I agree on Feminist hypocrisy there. And perhaps I agree with your last statement. If I didn't realize there was a term for what I was feeling, and that it was a legitimate thing and there was treatment for it (hormones), then I would probably have suppressed my feelings. However I do not think, if you implied this, that the existence of pro-transpeople creates more transpeople. It is not something to be taken lightly. Transitioning is a life-changing decision, and to be faced with a lot of opposition and social scrutiny. Of course when it's more socially acceptable, more people are comfortable coming out. But it is by no means easy or beneficial to be trans, in my opinion. You are conflating sex and gender. I was discovered to be biologically male, XY chromosomes, at birth. I do not deny that is what I am. But gender is another thing entirely, the behaviors and attributes usually associated with someone's sex. Men in suits, women in dresses, etc. That is gender. I do not believe I am the opposite sex. But I wish I was. I identify more with the opposite sex as well as the female gender. I like female clothes, pink cute stuff (gender), and I want breasts, a vagina (sex) etc. I feel dysphoria with my body and I want to change (and am changing) it so it is in congruence with my feelings. "He also reported on a new study showing that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people. Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”" I would like to see the suicide rate of transgender people pre-op; I'm not sure what he thinks his suicide rate comparison proves. I haven't read his study about children so I want to look into that more before I comment on it, but I would want to look at the age of those children and how long they tracked them. "The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.” I am not sure how my idea (or feelings, or identity) is mistaken - I feel this way BECAUSE it does not correspond with physical reality. It leads to grim outcomes because it often is grim and transpeople face a lot of discrimination. It is not similar to anorexia as he says - I do not deny reality, I am upset because I dislike reality, precise because I do recognize reality, unlike an anorexic person who deludes themself on their own weight. I am not sure if you are trolling or not. Few people are getting surgery to look like Barbie. They just get surgery to look more feminine, to reduce dysphoria and to change their body so it is more aligned with how they identify. Which is very different from an obsession with beauty.

I heard his brief comments about it in the video that RoseCodex mentioned. I was happy thank you

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/kungfury/kung-fury Watch the video under "campaign." It's great!

Maybe I dont understand UPB then, but someone misplacing a wallet doesn't mean they relinquish ownership of it, does it? And if I take money I see at a friends house without their consent, is that not theft, because I didn't use force? I would think in both scenarios I did use force, because I dont consider force violence but the use of others' property without their consent or threat of doing so.

Since many of us here accept UPB as an objective proof of morality, I will apply it to a practical situation that confuses me. 1. Taking someone else's property from them without their consent is theft. Feel free to argue any of the points, of course. 2. If you leave a wallet on a bench, and someone takes it, then they have committed theft, assuming they did not receive your consent. For me, the first two are pretty straightforward. The next three are my practical questions. 3. If you, yes you, found a wallet unattended on a bench with money inside, would you take the wallet amd/or the money? 4. If you found a $20 bill on the ground, would you take it? 5. What if you found a penny? 6. If you said yes to 3,4,5 then you would have committed an immoral act (theft). If you answered yes to 3,4 or 5, you have committed theft. No? And yet most people would answer yes, at least to 4 and 5. I think people are more willing to say yes to 5 because they assume (rightly, I think) that if it were just a penny, the owner would be more likely to consent after the fact, not valuing a penny very much. Implied consent, while I do think exists (it is implied you consent to pay when you eat at a restaurant), is an assumption I'm not sure applies here. If you dropped $20, would you want it back? I would. If 6 is true, then will you change your behavior to align with morality? If you find a $20 bill on the ground, will you refuse it? Will you tell others it is wrong? I'm curious to see where I went wrong, or if I didn't, what you think of this.

As you said, if you do something nice for someone even without expecting material reward, you still feel good about it, and often receive gratitude or favor. It is good that altruism doesn't exist. Because that would mean people gain nothing from helping others, and so people would help much less. It is also not surprising that it is beneficial to ourselves to help others because we are a social species and depend on one another - we have evolved to protect the tribe, and to get along with those in the tribe else we be ostracized.

I'm sorry that these people don't want to connect with you. It can be hard to find someone who is willing to talk about real things. I hope you do find people in the FDR meetup group. If you need someone to talk to feel free to pm me as well. I disagree with what I think MMX asserted that men have to do X and focusing on relationships is a female only perspective. Why should we limit what we can do based on gender? So these people you hanged out with, they care not for philosophy and so on? You can't connect with them? So why do you want to conform to them and do drugs with them? I agree that doing drugs is not wrong and it could be "just a pill" but I would try to find out why you want to do it, and if you are okay with the answer, then you could continue if you still find the answer acceptable. As for me, not everyone I interact with wants to connect with me and I keep those relationships at a superficial level. Sometimes I do feel lonely because of that but other times it can also be enjoyable. Not all relationships have to provide everything. You could get something else out of them, even if you can't get meaningful conversations or a deep emotional connection. If I avoided all people who didn't live up to FDR standards I'd be very lonely in the real world.

Maybe unlike past decisions, this one seems more important, or the answer more unclear. Is that why you fear regret? Do you have any idea? Have you expressed these feelings to her? I would start with that. Are you not able to express how you feel safely with her? Or do you fear her response? If you fear her response, is it because you yourself are afraid to open up despite her behavior (if she's open to hearing you) or because of it (if she reacts negatively to hearing you)? How do you know she becomes more anarchist when you don't bring it up if, well, you aren't bringing it up? Maybe ask why she is changing her view? Have you established fundamentally the difference in opinion of you two? Why would her opinion change by not talking about it? Is she working through some biases that block her acceptance of the idea? But not telling you about it? I think its unhealthy for you to censor yourself to "make it work." If she doesn't want to hear what you have to say or discuss it with you or listen to you, I would end the relationship.

Thank you all for the replies. I think I understand it more and should look into more research to understand how predictive it is.

Speaking for myself, I have not had rough sex so I can't say whether I would enjoy it or not but it is a fantasy of mine and I do want to try it. The thought of getting spanked or tied down or slapped around is a turn on. I consider myself a submissive person. I did have role play talks (texting) with one guy I which he wanted to be dominated. I thought it weird at first since my preference was to be dominated but I sort of liked role-playing it. It was nice to bring pleasure to him. Guys have rape fantasies too I learned. As for my history, I never was hit as a kid. I would say I was emotional abused as a teen but not by my parents. I like the evolutionary theory about it though its possible I am trying to reenact that abuse in a safe controlled environment.

If we are going by that definition, then virtue is synonymous with following UPB. However, the definition of love that Stefan puts forth does not use that definition of virtue. He accepts honesty, hard working, etc. as virtues but these are only aesthetically pleasing traits. They are not related to morality. You may say they result in win-win scenarios but that is not always true. Many people do not appreciate honesty and if you are honest they will get angry; they will also never change and will dissociate from you. They would see it as being rude to challenge their views. They value faith over reason. So not everyone values the same things. Even morality is not valued by everyone (immoral people). My definition of virtue would be any trait that someone possesses that is valued. Virtue then would be completely subjective. If I am religious and I value faith, and I want to avoid all conflicts, I won't like someone who is dropping truth bombs all the time or challenging my ideas. But I will like someone who also has faith and avoids conflict.

I have been wondering about the validity or usefulness of IQ for a while. I have not studied it very much but am looking up studies through PsycInfo database. My basic question is: Is IQ a valid construct, and how rigid and predictive is it? Even if most people do not change, and do not make an effort to change IQ or overall standing in life, does not mean having a low IQ predetermines you for low success. Personally at the moment I see it as irrelevant and it is more productive to focus on improving my life, ignoring IQ. Maybe this stance is wrong though. I came across one study which looked at childhood IQ (at age 13) and looked at later life outcomes. The study says "Most children with high IQ scores came from the families of professionals and other non-manual workers. These children were raised in much more advantageous conditions than the children with low IQ scores. Thus, it is difficult to assess to what extent our respondents' intellectual functioning in adulthood and their own life careers resulted from their genuine capabilities and to what extent it was actually stimulated, or limited, by the environment in which they were brought up..." Basically they can't say whether its their background or their IQ that predicts outcomes because those are highly correlated. Those with higher IQ got on average more education, better jobs (professionals, technicians vs. service workers, manual workers) and made more money. In the discussion it says "In the cases of persons with identical IQ scores but different social backgrounds, we discovered that the predictive power of IQ was limited." In AP psych in high school I learned intelligence is about half nature half nurture. So I wonder to what degree it can change later on too or if someone can escape their upbringing so to speak, similar to how many here deal with their childhood and try to improve their lives. In that sense IQ might predict where you are in a sense but not where you have to end up. It also doesn't capture all types of intelligence (like social).

That was a good find, Aragorn and Arwen. I love them! I was about to add, "but they are statists" until I came across this. http://www.quora.com/Why-does-The-Lord-of-the-Rings-glorify-a-monarchy-if-it-was-written-by-Tolkien-who-lived-in-the-UK-in-a-time-of-increased-democracy

I also doubt many will post low scores. The survey isn't really a random sample. But not useless, perhaps. I took the online quiz and entered my score though I doubt it's very accurate. I've never taken a real one in person and it costs money so I doubt I will. I think in person I'd do a lot worse. I would bet that I'd score around 100 though. The European scale had a standard deviation of 24 while the American one has a standard deviation of 16, so the scores can't be directly compared. This means 116 on the American scale is equal to 124 on the European scale (both 1 standard deviation above the mean).

Maybe I don't understand. What did she do? Do you mean by choosing to be with you that she shouldn't have expected better? Maybe that's true, or maybe she left because at the time you weren't up to her level of growth or standards or whatever? How do you know she feels no remorse? You say "it seems" which is only a guess. In any case, maybe she thinks you do not feel any remorse? If you apologize she will at least know that you do.

I like that definition of love. However I interpret virtues as being unrelated to morality, and subjective. A virtue could be anything you value. It is just a trait someone has. If for instance you value dishonesty, you may love a dishonest person. Because they embody your values. Or if you value honesty, you may love an honest person. If you value UPB's morality, you may love someone who follows UPB. And so on. In this way, virtues are any trait you value. I think most people prefer honesty, generosity etc. But I would not say that universal objective virtues exist that are a prerequisite for love.

I'm sorry someone said that to you. You aren't hurting others by not remembering them. Or you didn't intend to forget them, nor to hurt them. You want to connect to people, they are preventing you from doing so now by saying that. They made that comment to hurt you. You don't need to meet their standards if they are content being rude to you.

I dont think it is too late. You sound like you want to. Is there any reason you think you shouldn't? If nothing else you will feel better. I think she would appreciate the apology too, even if she still doesn't want to talk to you. And I think you are right to not expect anything from her if you apologize, even if that's painful. What are your thoughts?