Archimedes

I thought of contacting the police. My mom is against it. My sister said she also thinks there is no need for it. I don't know if I should go against them and call the police.

I was browsing the web thirty minutes ago, when I heard my sister (18) screaming from above (I was in the basemet). I runned upstairs into the dining room. My step-father was grabbing her with both hands at her arms, shaking her and screaming at her. She was crying. My first response was to yell at him to let her go. He let go of her. He was still standing at her, dominating her with his body language. I remaind there, but I started to shake too, because my step-dad had one violent outburst against me when I was 5 and I had mental flashbacks. I noticed that he picked up on that. He was very calm and tried to dominate me too. I asked what's up and he started to blame my sister, that she had damaged the WIFI-stick they use to connect with the internet. I was unable to talk anymore and just standed there, trying to be as dominant as possible. My sister now escaped and hid behind me. The tension somewhat decreased, and he tried to manipulate me by saying in a friendly tone that it was good that I stepped in. I said to him that I was yelling at him, because he was attacking her. He dropped his act and became threatening again. He told me that I can't tell him what to do. I said to him, that I'm not telling him what to do, but that it is wrong to attack his child. He walked towards me and looked me deep in the eye. Telling me I should go back to the basement. I told him that I'm not going to do that and kept on standing there. We had a standoff and looked each other in the eyes. I honestly thought that he would throw a punch. My mom came home, while we were still standing there, but I could see that he was preparing to manipulate her. I said again that it is wrong to attack his child, so my mom would know what's going on. My stepfather immediatly went to my mom pointing his finger at her and told her that I can't tell him what to do in his own house. I told him again that I was not telling him what to do. My mom asked what is going on. I told her that he was grabbing my sister. My mom just looked at my step-father and said nothing. My step-father said I was provoking him and left the house. My sister now tells us that he slapped her in the face. I noticed that my mother didn't really act protective against my sister. Instead she said that she is looking for a flat and if she gets it we can move out (she is in the process of divorcing him and was already looking for a flat). However, she did not touch my sister or something, which I just find disturbing looking back. I now find out that my other sister (20) was sitting in a room nearby and never said anything. My mom asked if she was there and she said yes. She was totally empty, didn't look me in the eyes and was trying to ignore everything that was going on. At this point my mom and my sister that got hit started to talk more intensively. I leave the room to collect myself. My step-father showed up again and immediatly tries to manipulate my mom. Telling her that there are always two persons who do things wrong. And that I was provoking. I laugh at him and tell him, that he is the one who slapped his child. He again said that he is leaving and went out of the house. My mom was still not acting in any way protective. Now I'm here and writing these words. I haven't yet talked to my mom about this. I somewhat feel more save to tell you guys first. My sister seems okay for now. There is a backstory about all of this. I'm currently living at home becauce I couldn't find a job immediatly after graduating. But, I've found a job last month and am currently saving up to move out again. I already figured out a long time ago that my step-father is a narcissist, but I never knew that he was attacking my sister in a violent way. I suspected my mom was the co-dependent one. I told her this a year ago after listening to FDR. She said that she was planning to divorce my step-father, but she didn't responded to all this narcissism stuff. I tried to get her to read about these things, but I think she never did. Two days ago my sister (the one that got attacked today) tells me how my parents treat her poorly. She tells me that when I wasn't living there, my mom and dad would often get drunk. My sister tells me one night she went into the kitchen wanting to prepare herself something to eat. She found my drunk parents there laughing at her, because there wasn't anything left to eat. This completly changed the way I looked at my mom, as I perceived her more as a victim before. But now I could retrosprectivly see, that my mom was treating her poorly too. My sister cried all the time she was telling me this. I told her that I was saving up for money and that she could move out with me and stay with me until she finds a job. The thing is, I'm somewhat afraid that my step-dad will come back and become violent again. At least that's what my body is telling me. Maybe he realized that his days of manipulating everyone are over, fears that he is about to lose his narc supply and go crazy. There was just this calm calculation in his eyes, when he was starring me down. It was frightening how calm he was during this intense situation. I'm really not sure what he is capable of doing and I don't feel save right now. --- Okay, while I was writing this, my mom showed up and we had a talk. The situation has somewhat changed, but I think it's valuable to keep the above text, so you'll get my raw input immediatly after the situation. My mom told me that she told my father to get his stuff and leave. This happened while I was there, but I didn't register it. I think this was because I was fighting with callbacks of his violent outburst in my childhood. My mom now seemed more protective. She told me that she talked to both of my sisters. The sister who silently listened to the situation, told my mom what happened. My sister damaged the WIFI stick and my step-father confronted her about this. She started to yell at him to leave her alone and he slapped her in the face. He then grabbed here and this is when I showed up. My observant sister told my mom that I did not provoke him, but tried to protect my sister. I tell my mom that I don't feel save here anymore. She says I don't need to be afraid. I tell her that he is a narcissist and these situations tend to make them go crazy. She tells me that she doesn't believe something will happen. I ask her how she can be sure. She doesn't say anything and I tell her that is because she can't. She then tells me that my step father is a coward and would never do such a thing. But I had his image of calmness during this situation in my had. I wasn't convined. We kind of left it there and continued the talk. My mom reasured me that she will try to get the flat. She told me that she is sick of this place and wants to leave. I also talked to my sister. She now feels save and protected. I do to, because my mom and sisters telling me that my mom told my father to leave somewhat reasured me that she was indeed protective. However, I'm going to sleep with a knife tonight. My mom thinks he drove to his parents but he is also an alcoholic so I can't really know for sure what he will do. My mom thinks we should wait until he shows up tomorrow and then have talk with him about how living together can't go on. So these are my thoughts about what happened. I'm sorry I've rambled on to much.

That's why I work at a small company with lower pay than I could have gotten somewhere else. It has no HR, 95% of the staff are males and we all just focusing on getting the job done and creating value for our costumers. I just can't stand the current office culture at larger companies. In fact, I think it's toxic and that's why I choose to not work there.

Hello Des, what exactly do you want to talk about? The fact that I think it's okay to shoot somebody who slaps me in the face? I think I have to explain the context for that. I probably wouldn't shoot somebody over a slap in the face, if I know that person. I would get rid of that person, but the past relationship with that person is resonable evidence, that the person will probably don't harm me further. However, if I walk down the street and a random person slaps me in the face, then I think it's reasonable to shoot that person in self defense, since you don't know what else that person might do. I think such a contract is a good idea. I'm still thinking about how you get other people to sign this. Is this something people have to sign when they move into your neighborhood? I'm assuming you are thinking about a gated community. Otherwise, I don't see how you would have the right to demand others to sign this contract.

The german asylum law says that everyone who lives in a country that is under attack has the right to seek asylum in germany. So if a terrorist attacks a country, every citizen of that country has the right to ask for asylum in germany. If you combine this with the welfare laws, in particular Hartz4, you'll see why everyone tries to come to germany: Germany pays every person who lives inside german borders a wage of 399€, if you can't earn it yourself. This is payed to everyone, includig illegal immigrants, of which 80% keep living in germany after they failed to obtain asylum.

How do you know the purpose of genes? Have you asked them? How do you determine what the biological purpose is? Homosexuals are programmed to be attracted to the same sex. They experience urges to have sex with people of the same gender. It's not like they are attracted to the opposite gender, but choose to only have sex with people of the same gender. Yes, they may experience a desire for reproduction. But in this case they have to either mate with a person they are not attracted to or engage in a process that doesn't involve sex, in order to produce a child. So how could you say that the biological purpose of sex in homosexuals is still reproduction? Biology definies sex as the sexual connection per vaginam between male and female. Of course, if you base your conclusions on this definition, then yes, the biologal purpose of sex is reproduction. But you also have to ignore other forms of sex, like oral sex and anal sex between heterosexuals, all forms of sex between homosexuals and deviant forms of sex like pedophilia. That's the problem of biology. It's a theory that ignores certain parts of empirical data about human and animal sexual behavior. That's probably because it is largley based on the findings of Darwin, which he had published during a time of severe sexual repression. That's why it gets challenged by guys like Chris Ryan. Because how can you talk about the purpose of sex, if you just focus on one aspect of it? Just because we are caught up in this game, doesn't mean the purpose of sex is just reproduction.

Interesting argument. How do you explain homosexuality, though? Bonobos use homosexuality frequently to establish social standng. Homosexual people still like to have sex in order to strengthen their relationship.

Hey, it has a dirty premise. I couldn't resist.

I don't think we just have sex to reproduce. Our body shares many characteristics with primates that use sex to establish hierarchy (chimps) or for social bonding (bonobos). Like chimps and bonobos, the humans has about 1000 orgasms per fertilization. Gorillas and Gibbons use sex mainly for reproduction and they have a lower number of orgasm per fertilization. I think a healthy reason why humans have sex besides reproduction is to strengthen the relationship with their romantic partner. There are also another reasons. For example a prostitute may have sex to profit from it economically. I also think that our behavior with contraceptions shows, that humans have a desire to experience sex without it leading to reproduction.

Here you go: http://imgur.com/a/8anj7

Avatars can be an expression of ones views. If you claim to be a person who likes voluntary interaction, first principles and honesty, and then post under the avatar of a character that stands for the exact opposite, than that's odd. I doubt that Lily expressed honest criticism with that article. Because it's both disrespectful towards men and women. For men, it's because she's basically saying your philosophy and values don't matter if you are not meeting women's dating requirements. And in the case of women, it's because she is implying their philosphical views are dependent on the men who express them. Her whole argument is as irrational as refusing to buy your favorite food at the super market, because you might run into some overweight smelly people. Nobody is expecting them to date those guys, just like nobody is expecting me to become friends with people who like the same food.

I said that it's not the job of men to turn non virtuous women to virtue. I never made any claims about single people putting less effort into their lives. But you are right, this discussion is not productive anymore. So it's best to stop pursuing it. Bye.

That's not a concession. You were venting your frustration about the rape discussion at me. Then you created a false dichotomy between being single and putting in the work for a relationship, implying that single people are not putting in effort in their life. Those are two instances of passive aggression.

My question remains. Why should we care about people who prefer aesthetics over philosophy? Btw, I find it rather telling that her avatar at that blog is a sociopathic tv show character, that survies by manipulating men in her environment.

Does anarchy really need women who don't take part in it because of the lack of successful men? Do we really need people who don't pursue values they philosophical agree with, because they don't like the people who hold similar values? It seems the women Lily Goldberg talks about just value access to successful men more than first principles. Which of course is a valid life choice, but then they aren't potential anarchists to begin with.

First of all, I wasn't talking about rape. If you have a problem about what other people have to say about rape, than talk to them directly. Don't direct your emotional outburst at me. As for the other part, I think you are projecting your own regret of wasting your time instead of seeking a relationship with a virtuous women on to me. I don't think that being a bachelor is a regretable fate for people who don't find a life partner. In my view, natural occuring relationships between virtuous people are great, but that doesn't mean single people lack the philosphical rigourness or are somewhat incomplete for not being in such a relationship. The virtue of a person depends on their principles and values and not on their relationship status.

I think it's because they have a pretty strong herd mentality. Most women crave social cohesion and don't like to stick out. Your average woman who just cares about reproduction and finding a good men, doesn't see the point in anarchy. In fact, it's contraproductive to her goals, because the state provides all the goodies that help her to achieve them. The anarchist women I've met are highly intelligent and indpependent thinkers. Because of that, they are usually not accepted by their female peers and seek male friendships instead.

I totally get where you are coming from. Virtuous women are rare and tend to get snatched up pretty quickly. However, I don't think the solution is to go after non-virtuous women in hopes of turning them virtuous. I think this is a high risk strategy, because a high number of non-marital sex partners is correlated with a high risk of divorce in women. I agree that Stefs advice is also risky, because you could never meet a virtuous women and end up alone. But so what? You said it yourself being virtuous is rewarding in itself. I tend to agree with that. That's why I don't see the point associating myself with non-virtuous people in order to find a life-partner. I would like to have a relationship with a virtuous women, but I'm not desperate for any kind of relationship. I have standards and if women in my environment can't meet them, then I stay single. It's not my job to convert them to virtue. Besides, there are opportunity costs invovled with Roosh V's strategy. The more time you spend with non-virtuous women, the less time you are with virtuous women. And any virtuous woman who sees you with non-virtuous women will usually not want to get to know you. So if your goal is a relationship with a virtuoes woman, the advice of Roosh seems contraproductive. And let's say you find a non-virtuous woman who responds to you. How do you know that she's really becoming virtuous and not just fooling you, because she wants a provider? Non-virtuous women are known for applying manipulative tactics and the alpha fucks/beta bucks sexual strategy.

No, what I meant is when women who take care of themselves can't find virtuous men, because those men have taken the advice of Roosh and spend their time trying to fix non-virtuous women,then actual virtuous women will probably conclude that virtuous women are not in demand. Kind of like how men realized that being a respectful and hard working provider is no longer rewarded.

I don't get why they aren't going for already virtuous women instead? There is a captian-save-a-hoe mentality behind his strategy. It's not the job of virtuous men to fix broken women. What kind of message would this send to women who take care of themselves? It would be an even more disincentive for women to behave morally, when they see that virtuous men rather spend time fixing promiscuous women instead of seeking a relationship with them.

Yes. Roosh is a good marketer. He knows how to rock the boat an profit from it. Unfortunately, that is all he can do. He provides little value overall. Return of Kings is just click-bait. It's hard to find intellectual value there. And some of his advice is flat out dangerous for men in our current social climate. I think he just wants to make money, regardless if helps other men or not.

Depending on the species, sex is more than just a tool for reproduction. Many species also use sex for social bonding. Bonobos for example use sex to resolve conflicts. While Gibbons are sexually monogamous and only have sex when the female is in ovulation. So, sex isn't universally just about reproduction. Humans have about 1000 orgasm per reproduction. We obviously don't have sex just to reproduce. It's a viral tool for keeping a relationship healthy. Therefore, I think homosexuals aren't defective. They use sex like heterosexual couples to strengthen their relationship and if they want to reproduce they can go to special agencies.

I doubt the story behind the article is real. It's the only article published by Micheal Sonmore. You can't really find anything by him online.

Deserve is funny word. I don't think humans deserve anything. We just live in this universe, some things happen to us, we choose how to react and we also plan our action in advance to be proactive. If we want something, we need to work for it. And even if we put all the work in, we might not get it, because somebody else wanted the same thing and outcompeted us.

This is a good strategy, allthough sometimes hard to follow, because has someone who cares about truth, you want others to understand it. This is exactly what trolls exploit in order to get attention.