Zelenn

Fantastic! I'm hardly on the boards anymore. Life is super busy. But I go up to St Pete on a regular basis. PM me if you'd like to meet up. I'm making a note to check for your response.

Forgive me sir, but I must say that is a facile argument. What you basically said is that women have a lesser CAPACITY for philosophy, logic, and open mindedness than men do. And that is simply not true. Now, one oculd make the argument that women have less INCENTIVE to be philosophical, logical, and open minded given the current legal and economic climate, but men and women are equally CAPABLE of philosophy and virtue. When looking for a woman I would suggest only looking at women who have the least DISincentive to utilize State violence (I.e Genrally speaking, Single Moms are off limits as are budding "Artists," Public Teachers etc.) Not likely to find Virtue in people whose paychecks come from the State. But to be clear, ALL of those types of women are CAPABLE of Virtue and Reason, but since reason and virtue go very severly against their economic benefactors, you may find them reluctant. I think opting out of marriage and going full tilt MGTOW is rather cowardly, actually. I have been contemplating MGTOW for sometime now (and I have been known to sya some very "not nice" things about women in general,) but upon further reflection, I've realized that men and women go together and compliment each other in very fundamental ways and that it would be a damn shame for a man to never know the deep satisfaction of loving and being loved. Do not give up hope my friend. I have had three conversations this week with attractive young women (in STEM fields) that were essentially talking like an AnCap without knowing it. If you can get someone to accept the NAP, Universal Standards of Behavior (my words for UPB,) and Peaceful Parenting, I'd say you're half way there! To enhance your odds of success, look for women with exposure to the Scientific Method (STEM Field women,) or who have some exposure to the evils fo the State interfering with the Free Market (Women in small businesses who've experienced first hand what the State rakes out of their bank accounts.) There are ways to DRAMATICALLY increase the odds of finding a good woman. Quoting statistics and talking about how "low the odds are" is a cowards way out of a great thing. Don't fall for it.

You bring up excellent points. "Natural" vs "Created" AnCap are perspectives relative to the person seeking a relationship. For example, if I met you out and about somewhere you would be a "Natural" AnCap relative to my experience, in the sense that you already held AnCap ideas at the time I met you. A person I meet who does not (yet) hold AnCap ideas and values would be "Created" in the sense that they weren't AnCap when we met, but they then become AnCap as a result of having met and spoken with me. Does that clarify the idea? And to clarify another point, I didn't mean to suggest that "rational thinker" is in any way invalidated by feminists who turn out not to be rational. You are correct that it would then be all the more important. What I meant was that many people will self identify as a rational thinker, even if they are not. And what I was proposing as an example was a person that self identified as BOTH a feminist and rational thinker (contradiction.) And the question about that example was whether or not such an individual could be (was worth) persuading out of irrational ideas (like feminism) using the reason and evidence that they also claim to value. The question is really what kind of person is "close enough" to being an AnCap already, that all that is really required is a few good conversations to clarify in their minds what they basically already think and feel, but just haven't had stated to them in explicit terms? I have met several several young women this week (all of them already married and majoring in neuroscience for some reason) who were essentially talking like an AnCap without knowing it. They "knew the notes, but not the music." They basically "got" that violence is wrong and one even "got" that "governments use soliders to protect citizens, but the soldiers rely on taxes, that makes citizens poorer which is self defeating," but she never would have used the phrase NAP or Taxes = Force etc. But essentially, these were examples of women that were "pretty damn close" to being an AnCap without knowing it. And I could tell in a single, five minute conversation "where they were" relative to some AnCap ideas. If I began dating one of these women, I suspect that they would all have had some kind of "Ah Ha!" moments in our conversations because they basically already think some of these ideas. So again, the question is, "How close does a woman (or potential male friend) have to be philosophically, in order to have good odds of "creating" an AnCap through conversation? How do we separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of potential relationships? This is a great point and most of the people in my life don't fit the cookie cutter and I actually value them that way. They are, as you say, "Character Builders." :-) But when it comes to choosing a mate, which I guess is what we're really getting at, or maybe choosing men to have strong friendships with, I think it is absolutely essential that they "fit the cookie cutter," or at least come really close. I can't imgaine being with a woman that wasn't an advocate of peaceful parenting. Or forming a strong friendship with a man that was fully supportive of war and thought soliders were "cool." I like your tactic of being upfront and honest to filter people out; a policy I myself have used frequently. The only draw back to that strategy, I have found, is that the intensity of it tends to alienate others before they've even had a chance to see what I'm about. in my older age of 27, I have "tonned it down" considerably, with the general effect being that my conversations last a bit longer and I provoke something resembling thought in another person. Before I was just "being honest," and "honestly," I was a little ball of rage and anger. (The Red Pill Rage one experiences after learning all this is QUITE intense.) Nobody wants to hang with somebody who's pissed off all the time and broods on negative things like politics. It wasn't till I discovered Stef's show, which focused more on non violence and self knowledge, that I chilled out, rediscovered my ambition and got my life moving in a positive direction. Before that happened, the "honest" thing was me being very angry for many days of the week. Did not make me popular, I can tell you. Nor did it make me very articulate or able to express WHY I was angry all the time. This is off topic, but I was discussing with someone about how Taking The Red Pill turns you into a two year old. You reenter a time in your life where your "ability to understand, exceeds you capacity to express." Like a two year old, you "get it, but can't talk about it." And this is very frustrating, because the whole time you feel angry because of what you've learned, but lonely and isolated and confused (and more angry) because you can't THINK about Red Pill knowledge coherently, let alone express your new knowledge to anyone. Back on topic. I think being honest is a good strategy for filtering non virtuous people, but I also think that there are a lot of people who would be interested in philosophy if it weren't being pitched with a "Hard Sell" tactic. (Rar! Reason and Evidence! Taxes are Violent! Single Moms are an economic plague! And if you disagree you're an unvirtuous, evil Statist that can fuck off and die!) Even though those arguments can be made, fairly successfully, one does not, friends win, by pitching it with that kind of attitude. Honesty? Yes. But not so blunt we turn away the women or men that would have made great friends and spouses, had they been exposed to an argument, instead of just our hostile mood.

I just watched 1984 with John Hurt. Kind of sick to my stomach at the thought of failing a philosophy class for actually being philosophical. "Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4."

Evening guys. I want to talk about this concept of establishing virtue based relationships and kind of "refining" a person into the kind of person that it would be great to have a relationship with. As we've discussed before, not everyone is philosophical and many people have never had these kinds of conversations before, but that doesn't necessarially mean they wouldn't be good friends or partners, or wouldn't become virtuous if someone would simply have the conversation with them about ethics, philosophy, etc Now, Stef's advice was not to pursue perfection, but rather to find people who are "open to reason and evidence." To basically find a person "close enough" and then through discourse, bring them to our side of the fence. This is not an easy thing to do. I have known many Feminists and Statists who THOUGHT they were open to reason, but when in discussion, showed just how opposed they were to any evidence that contradicted the stories they wanted to believe about a topic (taxes, patriarchy, military etc.) So, being rational is kind of "not enough" to, I guess we would say, "qualify" a person as worthy of friendship, love, and the effort it takes to argue against their "Inner Statist." What then, does qualify someone as worth our effort? Could we form a basic friendship with someone in the military or is being part of the military "crossing a line?" Can we go on few casual dates with a known Feminist with the intention to reveal what Feminism is REALLY about, in hopes that she may be persuaded to see the gender issues a bit clearer? Or does being a Feminist make her "off limits" and not even worth trying to persuade? If a person is an advocate of peaceful parenting, but thinks Kant is the greatest philosopher, opposes war, but supports welfare, is that person worth engaging in discussio with the intention of philosophically "refining" them so that a relationship might be possible? Or is such a person... "wasted effort?" I guess what I'm saying is that most people are these "grab bags" of unprocessed, mixed, contradictory ideas and that we are endeavoring to find friends and lovers from among their ranks; because finding a "natural" AnCap is so rare, we are really trying to "make" an AnCap by finding someone who is somewhat ethical and voluntarist (they think) and then through philosophical discussion bring them "all the way." I'm just wondering what kind of ideas you think a person could hold and still be good "raw material" for this process of refining through philosophical discussion? TL;DR Is it possible to "make" an AnCap from somebody who at least grasps some of the basics of philosophy? NAP, peaceful parenting, voluntary interactions ect? Or is this impossible and our best bet for a relationship is to find a "natural" AnCAp as opposed to one "created" through discussion. If this is possible, what kinds of ideas and philosophical perspectives would, if held, make someone great "raw material" for this refining process?

Ya know, that's quite insightful. I've never thought of rambling as a defense mechanism against dealing with the real issues. But now that you mention it, I can see that. I've been journaling recently about MGTOW topics and I tend to get in to a ramble about the statistics. I'm not entirely sure what that means, or what I'm avoiding, but it's worth pointing out. I've recently gone back to college and I've noticed that attractive women are paying attention to me (a problem I've never had before.) Specifically when I talk about virtue, ambition, self improvement, peaceful parenting, etc. This has put me in a position where I know that some "hot chicks," with no other redeeming features, are interested in me and thus I have "women on the brain." And this is NOT the appropriate time in my life to be fucking around, or getting married, or even dating seriously. I have work to do, important work, hard studying (Biotechnology AKA Genetic Engineering) and long hours at work (phlebotomist at a large Diagnostics company.) That and I have looked around and seen the "nuclear smoking craters" that remain of the lives of men that get involved with unvirtuous women. This has me contemplating MGTOW ideas and wonderig if women are worth the effort and what I can do to insulate myself against the institutionalized uses of violence by women against men. When I journal about the topic, or even when I think about the topic, I get "stuck" in the numbers. Right, 97% of combat related deaths are male, men only win child custody battles something like 14% of the time, 70% of all divorces are initiated by the woman, etc etc. Many of my rants are just me repeating these statistics as though that were an argument. But, I'm going to take your wisdom on board here and journal about what I might be avoiding by rambling. Thanks for the insight.

Do you focus on a particular bubject when you audio journal or is it more stream of conciousness? I have noticed that I tend to ramble on and that my thoughts are scattered. My mind can make HUGE lateral leaps to other subjects and its become a bit of a game with me to listen to what I said and then fill in the gaps by tracing back through the thoughts and memories I had THEN that led to me saying what I've recorded. Does that make sense? Clear as mud? I would like my journaling to be more purposeful. I lose my train of thought so easily. It honestly kind of concerns me how scattered I can be sometimes.

I think it's great that you're making videos on the topic and posting them. I saw that your last was 4 months ago. I encourage you to continue. They're valuable to us all as examples of honesty in pursuit of self knowledge. Also, it goes without saying that we two could have Skype conversations on the matter of IFS. Perhaps from our conversations others would join in. Are you interested in having a conversation?

So I have experiemented with a couple different therapy methods, I've seen professional therapists for DBT, CBT, and REBT, Sentence Completion ala Nathanial Brandon etc and have recently started playing with IFS as a self therapy method. I was curious what your thoughts are on IFS, what's a great resource for learning more about IFS, and what has your general experience been? Also, are there any Skype groups for IFS? If not, would anybody like to chat with me on Self Knowledge related topics on a regular basis?

George Carlin! Love, Love, Love that man! Yes, if Stef is going to do comedy, which I think would be awesome, I think it would work best by portraying his material in somewhat the same manner as Christopher Titus. When Titus was performing his act (I am thinking particularly of Love is Evol), it was pretty obvious that his life and relationships were absolutely horrible and that he'd dealt with "some serious shit." His Dad was violent, his mother was crazy and she and Titus' sister killed themselves. There was a messy divorce where his wife took everything. It was just brutal. But Titus made it funny and drew attention to the fact that men can be the victims of their wives, that children get caught in the crossfires of divorce and insane parents, and that sometimes Dad is really "Anti Dad-- Here to dash your hopes and dreams!" Comedians like Burr, Titus, Carlin, Robin Williams etc have a way of calling attention to "real shit" that's hard to talk about without screaming. I think if Stef did a comedy show featuring a main character feeling sorry for himself and starts going down a wrong road with the "Socialist Drug Dealer" while having "pathetic, whiny unmotivated guy" as a work associate or roomate that undermines his efforts to improve his life, that it'd be pretty funny while also calling attention to just how these parasites in our environment get their hooks into a unsuspecting man and erode him from within. I guess now that's my .04 :-)

I don't think so. I've looked over the classes that I could take to satify it. There's history (egad!), Art (groan), comparative religion (they'd LOVE me :-) ), and philosophy (Yay?) Of those, philosophy sounds best, and of the philosophy courses only Introduction to Philosophical Reasoning and Applied Ethics, satisfy the requirements. I'm almost certain that the Ethics course would just be a test of endurance that I'd probably fail. LOL. So, Philosophical Reasoning sounds like the safest humanities class I can take, and it MIGHT even be fun. I can't be sure that my professor is a total Statist/ Irrationalist, although the odds seem fairly high. From what I can tell by speaking to others and reading the online reviews ratemyprofessor.com, it seems to be an "easy A" for the non philosophically inclined. If worst comes to worst, I'll try super hard to remain silent, grab the A and get out. My degree (Biotechnology AKA Genetic Engineering) is pretty awesome in that it only has 3 non science courses, one of which was an english class which is over, another of which is this philosophy class, the last of which, the Social Sciences class, I can test out of by taking the Statist propaganda exam known as CLEP Macroeconomics. Better to take an exam over a month's time, than sit through an actual Sociology class. I agree with you about the "impartial professor." This professor claims the right to teach me about philosophical reasoning. He claims access to superior knowledge in this matter. If he offers nothing in the way of reasoning about important matters in the world, then he is doing a massive disservice to his students by offering then nothing in return for their time and money. We come after all, to gain knowledge about reasoning so that we might apply it to the real world. Witholding examples of such applications of what we're learning is intellectual thievery. On the other hand, if he makes groundless, basesless, arbitrary assertions without providing either evidence or valid reasoning, then he would essentially be a "counterfeit philosopher" or a great example of the average professor. :-)

Yes indeed. But those bits contained a "higher concentration of funny." :-) My father in particular (and I think many people are like him) is a man that appreciates stand up comedy and enjoys a comedian named Bill Burr. I hope he's been heard of here. Bill and Stef seem to be of a similar vein, (particularly Men's Issues, Feminism, Political Correctness), even if Bill Burr wasn't too kind to Stef in one of the stand up routines he did. Bill Burr has sparked some interesting conversations between my father and I by bringing to light these issues in an overtly comedic way. I think that men like my father are intimidated by great intelligence and overt philosophy, but by "breaking it down 3rd grade style" and using humor to show truth relationships, my father has broached many subjects with me that otherwise, he wouldn't have spoken about. I think a lot of people feel "intimidated and ashamed and like they could never understand" when men like Stef speak with intelligence and rigor, even about seemingly simple things, but those same people would be very easily accessed through stand up. Just my .02

My school has a course in Logic, but it doesn't qualify as an "Area 4 humanities." Intro to Phil Reasoning does count. And I swear by John Galt (lol,) if it turns into a circle jerk of Kant, Feminism, Socialism and Hegel, I'm walking the fuck out of class and demanding my money back.

It's worth it to see if your family changes their minds. Mine have. My parents anyway. And my Uncle who is raising his son using peaceful parenting methods. Its a work in progress and they don't watch the show and they still hold mixed, contradictory ideas, but slowly I've been having these conversations with them and when I point out these contradictions to them and make arguments against the State or dependancy, they see sense. My father was a cop for the longest time and he and I will sit down over a cup of coffee and have these 2 hour chats about the State and the validity of law and the use of violence against non violent people etc. We'll also talk about child abuse and violence. He was MASSIVELY abused by his father and, greatfully, he passed "almost" none of that on to me. I was spanked a few times and my father can be a bit careless with his words, but given the model of parenting that his parents showed him (his father literally shot one of his sons with a crossbow) and the fact that my father has not treated me like that at all (and infact prevented me from ever meeting my bio grandfather) combined with that fact that my father does change his behavior in response to our conversations, its pretty clear that my father is trying and he is learning. Will he ever be a philosopher? Probably not. Will he ever be rid of his tendancy towards anger and frustration? Probably not. It's been 50 years of behaving that way. But I can say that my father is a brighter and more optimistic person than he was even 2 years ago. He moved away from his mother and brothers (negative, violent people) and moved to different state, because of an argument I made. He and my mother have reduced their alcohol use and improved their health, because of a conversation we've had. My father governs his temper better and speaks to me with more respect, because of a conversation we've had. He and my mother fully understand that our relationship is voluntary and that my respect and friendship have to be earned by their behavior and emotional availability. As such, my parents, particularly my father, have become better people to talk to about my life. They hear me and let me speak. And I can be honest with them and tell them when I feel I've been treated unfairly. That was not possible before we started having these conversations; they were very passive aggressive, but weren't aware till I pointed it out openly, in clear terms. So it is possible that your parent's and family will come around. It probably WON'T be all at once, the conversations WILL be uncomfortable, and they may not be consistent about their change. There may always remain parts of them that won't be philosophical. After all, 50 years is a long time to be a certain way. I think there are ways in which a person can be damaged and they never really recover. But as long as the growth is there, I think we should have compassion for our families. Perfection is an impossible standard to live up to and our relationships will be doomed if we demand too much from them. It'd be like asking a new weightlifter to bench press twice his bodyweight after the 2nd day, hell after the first year that would still be quite a feat. Be patient, continue to study and learn and grow, and keep having this conversation. Welcome to the forum. I just added myself to the Ancapistan map. I can be found in Bradenton FL and my entry has my skype name. :-)

So I was watching the video on The Drug of Socialism and I found the "drug peddler" and "whiny socialist" bits to be hilarious. I realize it was a serious presentation, but I've often found comedy a great vehicle for "dark truths." Anyway, I was wondering if Stef might consider doing an Anti Statist comedy show. The man has a way of being spot on and hilarious at the same time. Thanks.

Well done sir. I'm glad you were there to stop him. Had a less courageous man been detailing that car, the owner may not have fared so well. That mechanic was clearly intent on doing some serious damage.

WOW! (Digging the username by the way.) It's gonna be super hard to NOT defend peaceful parenting or NOT put feminists on blast. I also keep hearing college students say that Kant is basically the greatest thing since sliced bread. That's not to say that the professor holds this view, but the students of this school aren't thrilling me. What classes did you take and can you remember any specific situation about this social ostracizion you're talking about? Thanks.

So, after much soul searching, I have decided to take Introduction to Philosophical Reasoning at my college. I have checked out the professor and he teaches courses on Aristotelian Logic, Applied Ethics, and this class on Philosophical Reasoning. I have looked at his reviews and he gets great scores from intelligible commentors and terrible reviews from commentors that type in fluent MSN shorthand. He also has a reputation of letting the class engage each other in discussion. I realize that's not much to go on, but I needed a humanities class. I thought about testing out, but thought it might be kind of fun to have a class where the students get to engage each other and the professor explicitly on the topics of Logic, Ethics, and large philosophical movements. I can't be sure whether or not it'll be an entire semester of Statist propaganda, Cartesian Matrix style realities, while praising Kant and Buddhist self erasure, or a great course on Reason, Logic and Evidence, but either way, I get to talk about philosophy for 3 hours a week and get credit for it. I just thought I would let the community know... I'm strappin up and goin' in! :-)

Well, I think my conversation partner's position was that the validity of the senses is a an assumption, albeit a very useful and pragmatic assumption. So, she didn't say that the senses WEREN'T valid, only that their validity remains a funcationally useful assumption. It felt odd to me, because I think that's skirting right on the edge of saying that they're not valid, without actually saying it. Of course, the answers we get in Metaphysics dictates the answers we'll get in Epistemology, so when the conversation inevitably moved on to the theory of knowledge, she said that knowledge fundamentally rests on a series of very useful, very pragmatic "assumptions." But I am bothered by this word assumption. Concepts like "Existence," Reality," Sense Validity, Objectivity, these do not feel like "assumptions to me. They're a fair bit more powerful than that. Like gravity. It is not my assumption that gravity exists. I couldn't defy it even if I wanted to. Sense validity is the same way. My eyes open and sight occurs. Vibration is in the air and hearing simply happens. I have no power to stop it. I do not make an assumption and I do not... not... make an assumption. My thoughts, feelings, and ideas simply have no part of the thing. Existence exists and the senses are valid, and I either nod my head in agreement or Reality crushes me. Assumptions not required. I feel like there's something I should be saying to make my position clearer. Either that, or there's something about her position that I don't understand, which may be possible. I'm not sure. Have any of you debated the validity of the senses and what arguments have you put forward?

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your thoughts and honesty. I want to answer some of your comments by saying that I think this post was meant to go in two directions. You had made a comment about my post going in one direction and then going in different direction and that it felt somewhat off to you. I think that was my purpose in writing. On the one hand I did indeed want genuine feedback and advice such as Carl's and your own. On the other hand, I think my post was a plea for empathy and for someone to simply relate to this kind of experience. So I think responders can go either way with it. My "call to action" is to EITHER give feedback and practical advice, or just commiserate with me and tell me of a similar experience in your life; ya know, help me feel like I'm not the only one that deals with this in their work. Practically speaking, you bring up a very good point. There really aren't any expectations of the parents. Generally speaking the parents are at least pleasant around their children and some are even iconic peaceful parents. Experiences like I posted are fortunately NOT a daily occurance. Because of this, there's nothing in place to handle parents like I spoke of. What I think I will do in the future, is ask the parents to "give us space to work." That will get the parents to back up physically, buffering the child and myself from them. And then I can connect with the child and explain everything, much in the manner Carl suggested; that's basically how I explain it to them. Answering your first point, No, I don't expect the child to realize that her mother is abusive and I "get it." That's just me ranting in my head and venting to the boards. I do understand that philosophy is dangerous for 11 year old in an abusive situation. But thanks for your honest response and don't be shy. Thanks.:-) Carl, Thanks for you practical advice. That's basically how I explain it to kids. I tell them everything thing I'm going to do, from going over the paper work to putting the "rubber band" on their arm, to "feeling around their arm for something soft and squishy," to "then I'm gonna put a small needle in there and get some blood. And the whole thing will take a minute and a half." I've never had a child that I've explained the procedure to "freak out." But parent's gotta let me do my thing. If the parent's are amping them up, telling them not to look, or bribing them with toys to prepare them for this "awful experience," then the parent's are just priming the kid for anxiety and fear. Calmly explaining everything that will happen and that, yeah, it's gonna be "uncomfortable, but quick," has always worked. I've drawn 6 year olds that take it like a champ as long as I talk to them before and during the procedure. And yes Carl, It is important to be a positive experience in a child's life. I had many such "bright lights" in an otherwise dark childhood. Those people let me know that even if goodness was rare, at least it was possible and worthwhile to search for it; cultivate it in myself.

Hello all, I thought I would bring to the forum what I remember from a conversation I had not long ago. Do forgive me if this has been thoroughly discussed to the point of being banned like Determinism, but I am "cutting my teeth" philosophically and I wanted to discuss sense perception, since it is a foundational topic. I am eager to discuss philosophy and to practice maing arguments explaining different concepts, mostly to make sure that I, myself, understand the concepts. So, The other day I was having a conversation about the validity of the senses, just some polite, philosophical reparte, and the conversation started to go around in circles. I would say the senses (and the existence they sense and the conciousness that senses) are nesessarially valid because no alternative is possible. Non Existence isn't a real thing. Unconciousness, isn't a real thing. A Non Sensory experience is not a possible experience. The absence of a phenomena is NOT the opposite of that phenomena. Being that there is no possible alternative to these things; I put forward the idea that that these ideas are axiomatic, they're literally Self Evident. The response I got was that I am only "assuming" that no alternative is possible, I can't know for sure. And that all knowledge rests upon assumptions that differ only in "degree of safety." And we discussed daily "assumptions" like "I assume there is gas in my car" and "I assume that my car keys won't fly away," etc. I responded that these assumptions were based on the behavior of matter and energy; behavior observed and validated by sense perception. This led to a discussion of Descarte's "Brain in vat" being fed false sensory impressions and that I am only "assuming" that I'm not a brain in a vat; I am only "assuming" that my prior sense experience is valid; I have no way to know for sure, but its "pragmatic" to "assume" that sense experiences are valid and that I'm NOT a brain in a vat, and my conversation partner wanted me to concede that my knowledge was only based on multiple "assumptions," and that even if they're very useful, pragmatic and valid assumptions, 100% certain knowledge is not possible in the end. Notice that we're bridging that very nice and very important gap between Metaphysics and Epistemology wherein the validity of sense data ties the two together by establishing a method of thinking (Logic) which derives its standards and methods from the behavior of matter and energy which is observed with the senses. If the senses are not valid, then there can be no content to think about and no (rational) method by which to think about it. At this point, I thought we might be using the word "assume" in two different senses. Like in one sense you mean an assumption which can be proven or disproven later, i.e. "gas in my car," I can go and look and find out. And that in another sense we we're using the word "assumption" to mean an idea held about something for which no evidence, for or against, can be found, i.e. "Brain in a vat," can't be any evidence for that., so I have to "assume" that it's not so. I responded that things like Existence and the Senses CAN'T be proven, but that it's not the same as an assumption. (Now we start going in circles.) That concepts such as "Proof," "Evidence," "Logic" etc are built upon the foundation of concepts which really and truly can't be challenged, concepts such as "reality exists, the senses are valid, conciousness is real etc." I responded that there'd be no way to "prove" the principles of Proof! And that this could be "called" an assumption, but its more than a mere assumption. Its not an assumption like "gas in my car," or "brain in a vat." Its a different kind of "assumption," if that's even the appropriate word to use, because I'm COMPELLED, by reality to acknowledge these things. Challenges like "You're only "assuming" that the senses are valid," or "Prove existence; you can only assume, with a degree of safety that existence is real, now provide evidence that existence is 100% for real," presuppose that there is an objective, external, REAL existence from which to gather evidence. Asking for some kind of "proof" while calling into question the very principles upon which the concept rests is commiting what Ayn Rand called "The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept." This is a fallacy whereby one accepts a higher, more advanced concept while denying the earlier concepts upon which it rests. And from here we just kept going in circles. I am wondering if there is an argument that I didn't make to validate the senses? I still feel that the hang up was on this word "assumption," and that the word was used in multiple senses and that this 'slippery' word useage led to confusion. What are you thoughts?

I have a running theory that the adults so thoroughly hate their own lives and are abjectly lacking in self esteem and they download all of their own bullshit onto their children.

So, it has become clear to me recently, in a way that has it has never been before, that I have a front row seat to the CONSTANT verbal assault of children in my profession. I am a phlebotomist (blood taker) for a large medical diagnostics company and the entire purpose of my job is to stick needles into people and get samples of their blood. "People" also includes the children. Sticking kids has always been a challenge for me, because adults can control themselves a bit better and have usually had this done once or twice before. When I have to stick a 6 year old or and 11 year old, its a bit different. They're scared, they're afraid it will hurt, their parent's have often "hyped up" the negativity of what they will experience, and to make matters worse, some parents are flat out abusive to their children in my presence. Today, I had to stick an 11 year old girl. She was black. (An aside: So... this is gonna sound oddly racist, but... Why do black parents seem more often than other races, to be abusive? Is it just me, or does that seem to be the case?) So, this 11 year old came in. She was scared of having her arm stuck with a needle. I'm trying to explain the procedure to her, tell her whats going to happen, address her by name, ask for her preference of arm to use, ya know... generally be a decent human being to her. And Mom is threatening to punch her if she doesn't sit still, ordering her to not look at the needle, and at one point she reaches over and physically grabs the girls face and turns her head. At this point, I told Mom to go to the waiting area. The poor girl was crying and I hadn't even stuck her yet. When I brought the incident up, my co workers (all of them "minority" single Moms) said that the girl was "just sassy." Then I was informed that the parent I dismissed was my supervisor's sister!!! I was so mad, my hand was shaking from the rage I was supressing. (Spolier alert: Not good for using a needle.) During the blood draw, the girl kept looking over to her mother for some kind of confirmation and the only thing I could think to myself was, "Doesn't this girl realize that her mother is abusive? Doesn't she know that this is wrong? Why does she seem to cling to her mother?" And, how come my co workers don't understand that these interactions are wrong? This kind of thing happens in my lab at least once a week, maybe more. Can't report them, I've tried. The incidents are dismissed. The best I seem to be able to achieve is getting the parent away from the child for a few minutes. Goddamit! Just stop being violent people! I'm not asking them to read Aristotle, or produce arguments against Kant's duty based ethics, or watch John Taylor Gatto's documentary on Education. Just stop treating your kids like something between a pet and a hobo! Just stop being violent. Its not that goddamn hard to understand. I am increasing frustrated by the way I see children treated. Any of you have jobs that give you a front row seat to child abuse?

Might I join in with this "large skype group?" @Yeravos-- That's great. I'll be sure to stop by. @ Everyone-- Ironically, the time that works best with my schedule is usually in the afternoons Eastern Standard Time. So if there's anyone else who has a kind of "mismatched schedule" don't be afraid to say "hi."

Hello all, Being that I much prefer talking and face to face interactions rather than writing and reading walls of text, I thought I would extend an offer to the community for Skype conversations. Maybe there are others who would rather talk than type. I think that regularly engaging in philosophical conversation is highly necessary to making progress. It's all well and good to journal and listen to the the show and read RTR and such, but without interacting with like minded individuals, I can see how easy it is to become a recluse. Truth be told, I feel that the word "recluse" describes me pretty well. I find it hard to form friendships and relationships with people who, more or less, openly declare that they'd like to see me in a cage for not supporting Statism/ violence. From what I gather on the forum, I am not the only one that feels this way and I have read here that others feel their tendancy to become reclusive. The only way that I can think to combat this tendancy towards social withdrawl, is to leverage the power of Skype and connect with each other despite geography. My Skype name is limitbreak12 and I'd be more than happy to Skype with you. Send me a message and we can decide on a time to have a conversation.