[What is the mainstream in this forum?]

Yeah a separate webpage dedicated to the man is just for the interest of philosophy. Removing critical posts of Trump/in favor of Rand from the board and YouTube is just a play to get people to stop hitting their kids...

[What is the mainstream in this forum?]

What day of the week is it? Lately we're Republicans backing a war candidate who has been bankrupt (morally and financially) a number of times.

[Matthew Hussey's Tips on dating and maintaining attraction]

Not finished yet, but I like what he's saying. Lots of reason, obviously done his research.

[Nicole Arbour's Ex-Boyfriend Speaks Out About Their Abusive Relationship]

Children are not adults...And unless I missed it, he hasn't filed abduction charges.

[Nicole Arbour's Ex-Boyfriend Speaks Out About Their Abusive Relationship]

He didn't beg for sympathy, he didn't say all you have to do to make things better is cry into a camera, he didn't embrace pity (what does that even mean?). These are all things you made up. You are setting up a straw man and then knocking it down. That is annoying and misleading.

 

He shared how he became isolated and concealed the truth about his relationship (that he was physically abused) from others. He gave a warning sign of her extreme jealousy. He gave advice to others that, if you are a male and have been abused, you should speak out about it to your friends and family. That is good advice.

 

Do you disagree, even if you found the message disagreeable in other areas, that this is good advice?

 

... Yes, he did. You can tell because he's on youtube crying for the camera, knowing he'll get millions of views and offers nothing substantial regarding introspection or desire to become stronger and grow from the experience.

 

And you know what, I'll say it. Physically abused? He got hit once. Cheese and rice.

 

I do disagree. Only thing he should be telling others is "I left the bitch". She didn't make him feel, didn't make him do, didn't force him to stop talking to anyone. He didn't 'become' anything. He CHOSE what he did. For her. And went back for seconds. Speak out, the hell does that mean? If you want to talk about it, do it. No need to elevate to anything other than conversation. Shit, she's like 90 lbs. I've probably gotten deeper wounds from my cat. If I called my friends crying over that, they'd think it was hilarious.

 

Hey bro, my old lady punched me.

No shit? You drop the bitch?

No! Why, I'm just so emotionally manipulated and hurt that I'm going to stick around and do this for a while longer. I just needed to speak out.

FFS...

[Nicole Arbour's Ex-Boyfriend Speaks Out About Their Abusive Relationship]

I don't doubt anything he said about her. It's not like female jealousy and aggression are atypical in relationships, but it's that we don't hear about it often. Something like 50% of domestic disputes are initiated by women. I hear that shared from FDR, but unfortunately I don't know the source off hand. 

 

The idea that the man faked the entire story, and all his spontaneous emotion... That's kind of a startling claim to me. I've never, ever met someone capable of doing that. Do you know of anyone capable of doing that?

 

What is a much more common tactic by sociopaths and people generally unable to feel empathy is this type of managed persona, where the facial and body expressions don't vary between a few states and aren't appropriate to what they're talking about (talking about sadness with a smile on your face), and instead are almost mechanistic and consciously controlled.

 

I thought the second video perfectly captured that kind of personality, for what it's worth. Her facial expression rarely deviates from one state no matter what she is talking about. She's talking about emotional topics, and you would think she's describing a party she went to if it weren't for subtitles. Did you notice that?

 

Of course, you could say I'm creating a description of what sociopaths are like ad hoc to fit the video, but I've actually noticed the trend in other places, too.

 

I think his video is brave. I think it's definitely worth an audience. People don't hear about male abuse enough, and a lot of times it makes them uncomfortable. All three posts here basically showed no compassion for the man, one suggested he was a "full blown psychopath" without evidence, the other called him weird, and the last said he doesn't deserve to cry about his experience of being abused, if he is even to be believed at all.

 

Now I'm not saying this guy is the most mentally healthy in the world, but I didn't see anything said about the woman in those posts. If the man is telling the truth about his abuse, which I see no reason to doubt, then she is lying about it with the grace of black swan. That seems just a bit more worthy of attention to me since if people are not familiar with these tactics by females (or anyone), it can cause them to feel doubt about their abuse and to conceal it from others in shame of being mocked. I've personally experienced abuse before from a woman who would later completely deny it, so I know intimately what that doubt can be like. I don't think the doubt exists for women like it does for men. Men are denied victim-hood in so many ways, and it is harder for men to speak out about it or even acknowledge to themselves if they have been abused in a relationship. So I think this video is worthy and about a topic that needs even more exposure.

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

FYI, I lost compassion at "... I took her back". Would have if he were a woman, as well.

 

And I won't enable weakness. Got a problem? Let's fix it. If you need 2.5 million people to commiserate, that's just a band-aid for a gushing wound. Deny victimhood? You betcha. I'll help someone avoid victimhood, overcome victimhood, but not become a victim. One would think men would have learned something about begging for sympathy from this gynocentric culture. Between the alimony, child support/custody, taxes, welfare, complete economic ruin and just plain deplorable behavior from numerous generations of at least half the species, it should all be obvious how dangerous it is to embrace pity.

 

Instead of coddling the man(whom I don't know, don't care to, never will meet), I'm going to look for something to take away from his experience. What I've gathered is something I already knew and had to learn myself, the hard way:

Don't sleep with sociopaths.

Throw them out if you do.

Lock the fucking door...

 

Would have been nice to have had someone sit me down and tell it like it is, but only people around were a feminized caste of obedient ladyboys and man-children. So I carried on, wept, wasted emotions on vampires, drank myself into a self pitying stupor of pathetic jelly like this guy. Got me nowhere. Found reason, put the pieces together and now I'm stronger than ever.

 

Outside of that, teaching men that all they have to do to make things better is cry into a camera(just like a woman!) is destructive and dangerous. I won't be party to it.

[Could a IQ 130 still learn math at 20 even though he never had an education?]

Might want to elaborate a little. What kind of math, and what kind of education, are you talking about specifically?
Math is a learned topic. It's not and emotional or biologically embedded trait. I can't fathom what age would have to do with learning it.

I found some articles on a quick search of 'math learning age dependent'. I see that the education industrial complex seems to think an inability or difficulty learning maths is some kind of disorder, which is fuckin scary albeit perfectly predictable. (Mostly)Women refusing to take responsibility for poor teaching? How about common core! Still not working? Oh, that's a disorder...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051027082434.htm
 

 

Results show that boys are more likely to have Math LD than girls.

 

[Nicole Arbour's Ex-Boyfriend Speaks Out About Their Abusive Relationship]

Meh. He put up with it because she's hot, and he isn't. Want hot and crazy? Take hot and crazy, don't cry about it afterward.

Or fake...

[Stef's SSRI critic..a fallacy?]

Are the results measurable or not? If so, that's it. I can't get a tooth drilled & filled and perceive the cavity is taken care of. They did it, or they didn't. And if simply thinking I don't have to worry about the cavity because the dentist is going to cure my cavity... cured the cavity, there was never a cavity.

 

The study cited, I didn't watch the whole video, you describe as being administered by a doctor and others by a drip? Was it administered the same way? Was it a single shot of 'x' dosage vs slowly adding it across time configured in a PID loop? The little cartoon I skipped to was just that. A nurse with a syringe and separately a guy lying in bed.

[Are we going about discussing these topics the wrong way?]

Eh, can it just be that we're sick of hearing about god and christ and all the other fairy tale bullshit? Something bad happened, pray. Something good happened. Keep praying. Something neutral happened... PRAY! NO! Fuck that, I'm sick of hearing about how I'm supposed to sit around talking to myself to fix the world's problems. And I'm just as sick of seeing other people doing nothing else but talking to themselves to fix all the problems in the world.

[Can't we just get along?]

No, we can't. Nor should we. Truth has to be universal... Or it's not truth. If one 'side' presents reason, data and the other comes with some fantasy, someone's gotta give. Guess who it needs to be? Frodo can't debate Tom Woods or Peter Schiff. You cannot bring God to non-fiction conversation.

[Disappointed with "Do humans need government?" video]

In this video, I think Stef is confusing people who are new to Anarchism.

 

 

The NAP does NOT prohibit the use of force against people who have done wrong to others. For instance, if someone rapes or steals, then force CAN be used against them to extract what they have stolen (restitution, etc.)! Stef makes it sound like only people with brain tumors will rape. Can we stop sounding so utopian to outsiders? Yes, prevention is better, and surely it will reduce violent crime, but there will always be some unrepentant criminals.

 

Now, using force may not be the BEST way, but it's not morally wrong. I agree that ostracism is great and preferable, but Stef is making the NAP sound almost pacifist, which it is not.

 

Stef made similar "far out" arguments about how an anarchist society would work when on the Joe Rogan show, where he spoke about future weapons targetting peope based on DNA, etc. I was pulling my hair out... For statists, you need to ease them into the anarchist paradigm. The most solid argument is simply "If it's a service that people want and are willing to pay for, the free market will provide for it". Boom. Simple as that.

 

Surely I can't be the only one who thinks this?

 

Well, you can dumb your arguments down for idiots, certainly. But I don't like to practice being stupid. If your audience has trouble with a concise and reasoned argument, talk to someone else.

[Racism alive and well]

https://www.facebook.com/ladyspeech/posts/10207904453838443

 

Dear White people who get it,
It is YOUR responsibility to go get your people, to check your people, to heal your people, to address your people, to educate your people, and if necessary to take your people out.

White men and white women been out here Hella reckless for centuries! These mass shootings are getting out hand. Police brutality by white officers has always been out of hand. "The Angry White Man" is out here losing his shit and trying to kill the world.

Dear white people who get it,
Go get, go check, go heal, go educate, go address, and if necessary go take out the the poisonous, racist, sick, evil white folks in your circles, in your village, at your job, at your dinner table, in your family, and most especially the white person you look at in the mirror every day.

It's your responsibility because these mass shooters, these cops who engage in police brutality, the racist that terrorize people of color are your Co workers, is your family, are your peers, are in your village, and prosper in your community.

Because the cocktail of "White Privilege " + "White rage + White Male Privilege " is and has been killing this planet, and people of color, for centuries. And now that shit is killing you too.

To my White friends who get it, who check, heal, educate, address and begin to kill off the conquistador within, I see you. I thank you. I love you. And I need you to go harder. All our lives depend on it.

‪#‎DomesticTerrorism‬ ‪#‎WhiteMenAreAProblem‬ ‪#‎RealTalk‬ ‪#‎RealShit‬ ‪#‎Boom‬ ‪#‎truth‬ ‪#‎WhitePeople‬ ‪#‎GoGetYourPeople‬ ‪#‎WhiteRage‬ ‪#‎WhitePrivilege‬ ‪#‎ShootsFired‬ ‪#‎YeahISaidIt‬ ‪#‎ShitAuntieSpeechSays‬ ‪#‎AuntieSpeechSays‬ ‪#‎LadySpeech‬ ‪#‎FIGHTME‬

 

I'm starting to see a lot more of this. I mean, anyone here can spot all the fallacious, weird nonsense, but it's just resonating with too many people not to be wary of this attitude. Things could get real dangerous in a hurry.

[Honking horn violation of NAP?]

 

"... Because non-moral agents introduce harmful sound to the environment. So, introducing harmful sound into the environment cannot be immoral in that both moral agents and non-moral agents produce it."

 

A tornado plunges a stick thru my body, that's a non-moral agent; an archer plunges a stick with feathers thru my body, that is a moral agent.  The question is whether the introducer is aware of the harm; that makes them either a tornado or an archer.

 

I would argue that those scenarios would require two different questions. One regarding weather, and another regarding murder.

 

But again, car horns are not arrows. A person intentionally damaging another person's hearing, or doing so by means of negligence, is one act which may make use of a tool called a 'car horn'. Or jack hammer. Or firecracker.

 

The imposition of audio to anyone within earshot, without qualification, is just making sounds. Car horns are not demon, succubus, siren screeches at any range. You can not show damage if someone behind you honks at you, unless there's some silly story like he put a foghorn on, but that's something different again. It is not a weapon, just because you hear it.

[Honking horn violation of NAP?]

Show objectively damage results from the sound of a cars horn. When you can't... Thats why ignore.

[Honking horn violation of NAP?]

I don't know how "UPB" compares to "voluntary behavior that is binding upon another moral actor without their consent." As such, I cannot ascertain if we've agreed upon a method for determining what the truth is regarding ethical considerations.

 

I reject your claim that consent can be implicit. It is not reasonable to assume that if a driver could give consent to the use of a car horn for the purpose of harming somebody, they would.

 

Again, "Not sure where crows come in, given they're not moral actors as they're not able to conceptualize ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, calculate consequences, etc." This quote of yours here does nothing to address this challenge, but only serves to re-assert your position despite the challenge offered to it. I reject that what a being who lacks the capacity for reason and therefore lacks self-ownership does is any measure of what is moral discourse for those that do. Using the standard you've put forth here, anybody can waltz onto your property and run off with anything they can carry because hey, non-moral agents do that too.

Binding upon someone is not injurious. A billboard displays a messages, creates a thought. Immoral? No, just the reality of existence.

 

So now we're talking about people intentionally causing harm? I thought we were talking about the introduction of harmful sound into the environment? Your definition is imprecise.

 

And again, pulling a bad analogy in. A raccoon digging in my trash isn't theft, or stealing. Noise pollution as you defined it did not require any moral agency to exist. It doesn't even require that anyone is actually harmed. Pollution could include beaver dams.

But it's obvious that you're very emotional about loud noises, in order to qualify a car horn as harmful, one would have to show damage and you've practically insulted every board member with this insinuation about bias. So, that's my piece.

Nobody is even close to the point, nearly everything said here is irrelevant. It'd be easier to see if you'd put things into a realistic context.

 

The only thing that matters is, who owns the road, and are their rules for use of the horn being followed

 

Nearly everything is so much simpler when you stop generalising about unrealistic scenario is without property rights and throe some actual volu.tary human interaction in there.

 

The answer is, UPB has nothing to say about Amy situation where property is ignored.

 

Cars are property...

[Honking horn violation of NAP?]

This is begging the question. Neither of these statements does anything to cast doubt on whether or not sound can be used to create pollution and/or be used in an immoral fashion. You acknowledged obfuscation isn't helpful, so let's remove it.

It wasn't begging the question, before you defined noise pollution. It was a statement following:

Is a car horn honk not a subset of noise?

 

Unqualified, noise is just sound.

 

UPB I believe is an acceptable measure. And I hit that in my initial comment in that whilst driving, or being on or near the road, nobody assumes not to hear a car horn, regardless the intent.

 

And particularly if that's all your definition entails. Because non-moral agents introduce harmful sound to the environment. So, introducing harmful sound into the environment cannot be immoral in that both moral agents and non-moral agents produce it.

[Honking horn violation of NAP?]

Like theft is immoral, but taxation is not because it's a specific kind of theft? Inefficiency is a type of obscurity. I thought I was removing the obscurity. We could consider every instance of theft (or noise pollution), or we could consider the entirety of theft or noise pollution since instances aren't fundamentally different. Is a car horn honk not a subset of noise? If noise pollution is binding upon others without their consent, how is a car horn honk then not binding upon others or suddenly with consent where none was given?

 

I've already addressed that context is necessary. If you're driving down the road and somebody jumps in front of your car, it's reasonable to expect that if they could consent to your horn, they would. Is this the same as somebody using it to realize harm against you in a way that is consequence free? Clearly not.

 

Not sure where crows come in, given they're not moral actors as they're not able to conceptualize ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, calculate consequences, etc.

Noise pollution: Undefined. More unassociated links are being made, however. Theft is not sound. Sound is not pollution. Sound exists whether a moral agent makes it or not. Strawmen have also entered the room...

[Honking horn violation of NAP?]

I don't think car horns is the issue. The underlying question is: Is noise pollution immoral?

 

The question was specific, thankfully, so I don't need to read into underlying issues. Remove the obscurity, and you remove the problem.

 

If the question regards noise pollution, start defining terms. Then quantify, qualify, reapply to a specific, workable scenario. We'll end up right back at the initial question, and the problem... Solved itself.

 

A tangent was provided revolving around shouting. But that's a separate act, which would be fleshed out thusly, and a more complex analysis would be necessary. Yelling is both an old guy who can't hear, and the fat black lady on the bus t'ombout my muddafukkin baybee daddy owe me some got-deamm re-ent. So even it requires further deliberation.

 

But then crows (particularly while mating) are noisy, does that qualify as pollution? And how can you apply morality to horny crows? On and on. This is pointless, and if that's what the topic was intended to be, I'm sorry I participated.

 

Specifics are our friends.

[Honking horn violation of NAP?]

Are we actually just talking about assertion? Honking a horn to say 'dick' or 'move your ass' or 'dont hit me', even 'oh hai jenny!' in car speak is the same word. Chalk it up to a language barrier. The act is the same regardless of intent and all cars have horns. To drive is to accept they may be used. Ditto for deafening goddamn sirens.

[French Flag Filter]

As Doug Stanhope would say, it's just "another form of doing nothing".

[Indigenous people in an anarchistic world]

So, nobody's even reading what I write, and it's just turning into an ignore-fest. Baling out of the thread.

[Indigenous people in an anarchistic world]

"In an anarchistic world, how would black people seek justice through arbitration or private law so that they might remain on the lands they've existed on for decades or more?"

 

"In an anarchistic world, how would hispanic people seek justice through arbitration or private law so that they might remain on the lands they've existed on for decades or more?"

 

"In an anarchistic world, how would Asian people seek justice through arbitration or private law so that they might remain on the lands they've existed on for decades or more?"

 

Just more racism disguised as concern.

[Indigenous people in an anarchistic world]

Right so the underlying principle here is that if it pleases you it's right? Fair enough. There''ll be people like me to protect vulnerable people from snakes like you. More power to me, right?

 

 

It has a definition but there's no such thing as a species. It's a classification humans give groups to who can interbreed. It's a collectivist concept like "society" or "the people".  Why would I give a fuck about a collectivist concept? It's like saying "the future of the country".  I care about individuals and some individuals may chose this "idiot" life. 

I'm not a relativist and I prefer modern civilization but insufferably smug and hubris-tic people like you sour the whole thing. What's ironic is that you fail to grasp that civilization has a moral component and part of that is the universal application of ethics; NOT ""well these people are idiots so let's fuck-em over".

Meh, insults and no argument. Another one for the list.

[Indigenous people in an anarchistic world]

I'm curious, do you think you would have turned out a Libertarian with no sympathy for indigenous people, had you been born among them?

 

Bad philosophy is dangerous, precisely because it threatens the thinking and actions of future generations. Don't think that highly intelligent people can't adopt terrible philosophy. Hell, the entire world was beating their children until recently(where now slightly more people parent peacefully).

 

The whole idea [is] that they don't have any bargaining power as it stands, because of immanent domain. At least they could hold developers up for millions, or even yet say "no." As it stands they don't have that ability so long as some developer can convince a panel of judges or one judge in some cases that it is in the "public interest."

 

Also, they have little resources to take action if they are agressed against by predatory businesses. What would stop someone from drafting a contract, stating that the signee releases all right to title, in exchange for 20 iPhones. Then that person poses as a representative of the state and communicates through translator that if the indigenous people want to remain on their land, they must sign. You could easily defraud a whole group of people who don't have an ability to fight back.

Last part first.  If the indigenous choose not to interact with civilization, they don't know the difference between the state or anyone else. Market forces come into play regarding businesses that operate this way. The people most closely invested would be responsible for providing legal representation and watching the court actions regarding such issues as much as they would their neighbors or themselves. Again, this involves either integrating the people into society or outright removing their agency. I don't see why fraud against ignorant people is any more or less abhorrent than fraud against anyone else, and would be handled the same way in any case. But I assign personal responsibility to everyone pretty much equally.

 

If fraud can be proven, in say a private arbitration court, it would only require proof that it happened for any interested party to present their case against the perpetrator. The victim wouldn't necessarily have to be involved in the case, beyond showing how they were damaged. The burden of proof still, as it should, lies on those presenting the case.

 

Now, if it is the case they're genetically inferior, then will you treat them as inferior? Or do I have to still pretend they should be treated like equals AND coddle them? I won't do both.

 

The first question is irrelevant. And it's presumptuous. Had I been born to them, I wouldn't be doing much thinking at all. I'd eat, sleep, do stupid shit, get high on frogs and have sex. I have sympathy for them. Just not for their lack of advancement or involvement in the world all around them. You can Theodore Kaczynski if you want, but don't expect a handout when you're face to face with reality. Because they know about the communities surrounding them, and choose their lives.

 

The uncontacted tribes get a pass initially, but if it's so important to you(or whomever), set up an expedition to find and teach them about the world, educate, etc, etc. It's not anyone's responsibility to cater to them. However, once you do that, they won't be what they are. If you want to treat them as trinkets, be honest about it. If you want to treat them like people, then start treating them like people. Predators are out there. I don't excuse getting drunk and passing out in an alleyway in downtown Chicago as an honest oversight and I don't excuse dancing around a campfire instead of thinking as noble and fascinating. It's just careless.