kavih

I couldn't find a proper topic to place this question under, so I'm placing it here. I do not enjoy rough sex (receiving or giving), so it has been extremely hard for me to understand how and why someone would enjoy it and whether it is a problem. I know there are varying degrees of "rough" and varying degrees of intensity of the roughness. I'm referring to any of the following: spanking, hair pulling, biting, or choking, at any intensity. I just can't understand someone wanting to do any of these or enjoying these being done to them. If I were to guess, it probably has something to do with childhood trauma relating to sex (molestation, rape, etc.), but that's just my guess. What do you think and do you think this is a problem that should be resolved prior to getting into a relationship with someone? In other words, do you think (through therapy or some other ways) that this can be "fixed" or will that person always be incompatible for someone like me? Note: I'm not currently dating or seeing anyone with this desire, but it has come up a couple times with past partners and with reading online dating profiles.

This is why I love the NAP and the awesome people, like Stefan and FDR, who help spread it. I am very much looking forward to when it is "unfashionable," but I am not idly waiting either. Many countries have banned spanking, so that already shows progress. American society definitely seems like a huge hurdle to get over, though. Any ideas or suggestions for better ROI when talking to someone about the problems with aggression? If they are a stranger, I tell them the scenario Stefan helped me learn, which is to compare spanking a child to a man beating his wife. The first time I tried it, a couple people said they had never looked at it like that, so hopefully it changed their minds. The day will come when it's unfashionable to do so and there you go: free society without bloodshed. What do you think? Absolutely. There may be many people willing to open their minds and come out of their apathy, if they know they have others to share their ideas with or learn from. I'm a perfect example of that, back when I was first introduced to the NAP via Ron Paul. I'm very glad I kept exploring and have ended up here with FDR, because the fundamental ideas of truth and virtue discussed here are what really matter in the little and big scheme of things. I really like one of Stefan's latest shows where he says something to the effect of "little things are big things."

As the title asks, I have been wondering lately if there is a common origin for the apathy I see in most of society's ability to philosophize. I say "common origin," because I know there will be non-common origins for why someone is apathetic to philosophy, but I'm looking more so for a wider trend to point a finger at. When I look amongst the people I interact with in my neck of the woods, it seems to be a result of the culture fully embracing non-philosophical dialog. But since culture is defined by those who accept and perpetuate it, is there some kind of childhood trauma that could explain people's willingness to be that sheep like? Or is it simply ignorance, such that anyone can become philosophical, once they get exposed to a truth that deeply resonates with them? There is also fear of ostracism at play, since challenging mainstream ideas puts people in a vulnerable position.

Hey Josh. I know this is a somewhat old thread, but I just finished part 1 and 2 of this debate Q&A between SSP and Thaddeus Russell: This is my first time being exposed to Thaddeus. He is a relativist, so I'm curious if that was what you meant by "challenging?"

I'm planning on getting an iPhone 6 next month. Does anyone know if it can be jailbroken and, therefore, disabled the kill switch option?

@darknova, thank you for sharing your experience. I sometimes imagine what my life would have been like, had I not investigated how the matrix really runs. I'm still new to transitioning out of it. My first step is to become independent, in as many ways as possible. This is going to require removing myself from the area in which I grew up for most of my life, because the physically environment that had been part of my programming for so long keeps re-enforcing the programming since I have so many memories here... memories from the matrix. So, step #1 is moving. I like the weather and beach here, but I am going to move somewhere even nicer, so I will have a chance to start over in a sense. Moving will also take me away from the current set of people in my life, of which, most are still plugged in to the matrix. I will miss them, for the good times we had, but it's only necessary to start over in this way, for me. I don't know how anchored you are in your current location, but maybe moving somewhere new, near like-minded people, will help your transition and maybe give you the sense of starting over, if that can help your self-knowledge work.

I would definitely join the group if I was in Missouri. I've been looking for an FDR-type meetup group around me here in California for a few months now, but they are just too far away from me at the moment. Btw, nice username. Your silent "h" is just located differently than mine

No problem. The only people older than me right now, that I feel I can influence (one of which I already have) is my Mom and Dad. Though, I have yet to approach them on their past parenting techniques yet... that will be a doozy, but will happen somewhat soon.

I don't literally think of the equation above as the way I calculate whether to keep a conversation going or not. I just found the simplicity of it as helpful, to me. I have been an activist for about 2 years now. With strangers, the relationship value is so low, that it doesn't take much unreasonableness to call it quits; however, for the minority of strangers that are more reasonable, I tend to increase the relationship value, even though they are strangers, just because they were somewhat reasonable people to begin with. There is another factor that I didn't bring up in my above post, which is that the relationship can reach a state where continuing to converse on topics doesn't work, but that the value of the relationship is high enough to at least keep the relationship. For example, if a teenager is still living at home, yet conversing with his/her parents about topics for which they are unreasonable, the teenager can still decide to live with them for their resources until he/she is ready to deFOO, and just not bring up the topics. I mention this state, because I am currently doing this with a friend of mine. He is very vindictive and so I can't Galt him until I'm ready to move away, in fear of the irresponsible ways he deals with his emotions. For non-strangers, I tend to allow a lot of time for steps #1 and #2 of your process, just because I don't have that many relationships and, therefore, each one tends to have a higher value to me.

I hope it is okay to continue this conversation since it's been months since it last stopped. First, jpahmad, would you post the link to the gold forum where you posted the video (or PM the link to me)? Just asking for an actual post here so that other gold subscribers can quickly get to it. Anyways, I read everyone's posts here and I have many relationships going on right now that I have not "Galted" even though each one has different levels of the other party being of unreasonable. My conclusion, so far, is a combination of the ideas provided by just about all of you on this thread. I'm pretty new to the process of conversing with an unreasonable person, but the way I feel it is best handled FOR ME, is deciding how long to converse, before the unreasonableness of the person outweighs the value of the relationship; with the goal of enlightening them through similar processes discussed here, so that they finally empathize with you. So, if it were an equation, it would be: With the following variables,Cc: continue conversingRv: relationship valueU: unreasonablenessCc = Rv / U Such that you want to maintain a value of Cc greater than one, and the only way to do that is either increase the value of the relationship or decrease their unreasonableness. Is this too simplistic?

Criminal rehabilitation definitely needs R&D. However, that only applies after childhood, which to me, means most of that R&D funding should go into rehabilitating traumatized children or even adult rehabilitation (prior to them becoming criminals). I wish Stefan would get onto the TED stage! I would fully support donating extra to that cause and that kind of exposure for FDR. I think it will happen eventually, but I want it sooner than later Ultimately, I'm wondering whether the typical TED audience, and therefore, TED's reputation would be thought to be in jeopardy with a talk of peaceful parenting on their stage, since capital punishment is still widely support in much of the US.

Thanks Melesina!

After being active in the forums for about a week now, I came across this board and realized I hadn't "formally" introduced myself. My name is Kavih. I guess you could say I started to wake up from the matrix through the documentary "Thrive," which led to activism in 2011 for Ron Paul's presidential run. Much more activism and like-minded community searches have occurred since then, with FDR being the tip of the iceberg at the moment. Though, with so much that I feel I can learn, I think I'll be spending plenty of time here and I look forward to it.

Gosh, I don't know if I would have had your ability to overcome the anger in that moment and instead fill it with the wit you displayed in your message to the father. Keep it up Timur!

Asheli, I would recommend inviting him into in-person meetups or in-person events of like-minded people like yourself. With so many sources online for him to learn and even books to read, there exists the same amount of misinformation and false counter-arguments, as well, which can diminish his motivation. Bringing him along to hear from people you associate with can be very powerful and will most likely validate your stance even more. But, him coming along has to be his decision, in the same way it has to be his decision to read a book or article you recommend to him. I recommend this approach, because I didn't truly get "fired up" until I went to my first sign wave for Ron Paul back in 2011. Seeing all of the other activists out there, in the public, jeopardizing their reputation by standing up for "fringe" ideas, gave me that much more motivation to research and find the truth(s). Best of luck! Oh and I just remembered another time where a like-minded friend (Debra) brought her husband (James) to some of our events and he was skeptical of Ron Paul, regardless of how much Debra provided information for him. I talked with him a few times about Ron Paul, and sure enough, Debra told me about a month later, in private, that it was me that helped convince James to support the good Doctor. The best part is that I really didn't do much. I just answered James's questions with the facts I knew. It was the fact that James and my interaction was completely voluntary and in-person, which drastically validating Debra's claims. Now, James is just as active as Debra

I was somewhat wondering how to answer that question as well. Thanks for posting this topic, Rainbow.

Ones I've published on the FB: "The capacity to counterfeit, combined with the voters' desire to get something for nothing, creates the mutant, tumor-based economy that we're currently struggling to recognize and communicate as dangerous to others." From: http://youtu.be/LZMgmuSZVGE "Life flourishes in the absence of force." From: ? Such a good analogy about what happens when you stoop to a hater's level: "You can go wrestle with a pig in mud, but you both get filthy, and the pig likes it." (Though, this one may have been Stef quoting someone else). From: ? "Rights are something made up by governments to make you feel like you're buying something with you're taxes." From: ? And a meme I created

AustinJames, you may be on to something and maybe all we need is to give Chris some time and some more Stefan, as described at the following comment (where, after listening to Stefan, Chris changed his mind temporarily): https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37034-chris-cantwell-vs-stefan-molyneux-debate/?p=368776 Though, Chris published that article I believe prior to his interview with Adam, so mabye not...

I agree with you both (thelizardking52 and Culain). You hit on a really good point Culain, about Cantwell resolving his own aggression and trauma if it exists (though, he calls himself an Asshole directly on his own blog/website). I think both of Adam's and Cantwell's approaches are striving to solve the issue in a more timely manner than peaceful parenting, because, literally, we have to wait for the peaceful children to grow up to continue the cycle of peaceful parenting with their kids. I think we can all agree we want the state out of our lives sooner than later, but Cantwell's approach just seems too risky and to find justification of his approach being "self-defense" seems fruitless in the eyes of 50% of the population (Democrats, liberals, gun-law proponents, etc.) to be effective.

At 12:32 and 33:44 of this recent discussion Stefan's approach to changing the world is challenged as the best approach. The reason I'm posting this topic is to have enough of the FDR community chime in and rate it up, in the hopes that Stefan will review the video in one of his own videos, where he can have a rebuttal against the two approaches outlined in the discussion and to defend his own approach. Direct link to 12:32: http://youtu.be/BmsH2RFlYbQ?t=12m32s Direct link to 33:44: http://youtu.be/BmsH2RFlYbQ?t=33m44s What are everyone's thoughts? And if you want Stefan to make a rebuttal video, vote this up! Cheers