Frederik

Exactly - the one premise that most people will rightly assume in my suggestion is, The likelihood that this woman had virtuous parents that are worth living with is nearly zero. Therefore, the reasons for why she is staying could be a strong family cult, high amounts of manipulation, fear of independence (implies verbal abuse), etc., all of which are almost inevitably dealbreakers for me personally. Everyone around you when you were a child was intergalactically full of shit. ―Stefan Molyneux

Yes, I would say your reasoning is, at least at first glance, consistent. I guess that a major problem in our society today is that, especially in the states, people are unhealthily accustomed to fat people, and so they don't recognize how catastrophically unhealthy a lot of people are. However, I do think the beating analogy is not particularly accurate, because beatings are a direct cause and effect of the parents' actions, but with diet it is clear that the child is also highly influenced by her peers, teachers, the television program, etc. The responsibility is not as one-sided, so I have a hard time accepting the conclusions you came up with. The last quote from Stefan about his cancer I came across just recently, actually. Reading your second paragraph made me feel very scared and anxious. I experienced a real sinking sensation! This is, I believe, because I fully believe that what you wrote is true and also that your impressions from the situation and thoughts on what is going on are valid. I approached Mike some time ago about the topic of nutition, and think I made a pretty good case concerning a philosophical approach to nutrition. He answered with a snappy two-liner about how nutrition is generally science-based, and asked me to send him research instead - exactly which I wanted not to do, in the same way that I don't want to start of a debate with a statist by sending him papers about the inefficiency of statism because that stuff just won't work. After that, I slipped into passive aggression, so that conversation didn't continue as such. I absolutely support you in the endeavours you have undertaken, and I applaud you for doing it. I would love to get the evidence from you - have you recorded the call? Can you forward me the mail exchange with Mike? I would also be happy to forward you what I have. Sounds great! I started out with RawTill4, too, and since have been learning more and more to just eat what I want, and interestingly don't eat raw that much at all anymore. I wouldn't mind a fruit salad, definitely Nutritionfacts was one of the resources I sent to Mike in the past.. I second your impression. I would argue that all of dsayers' posts in this thread contain loads of passive aggression, and I would also like to know why this is the case in this thread exactly.

Whether a parent dying early because of lifestyle choices can be considered immoral, I think is quite a complicated case. I would guess that there is the dilemma of 1. A parent violating the implicit contract of taking care of a child by ending her life versus 2. The parent owning her body and being free to kill herself. Maybe one could argue that when an adult chooses to have a child, she agrees to let go of certain freedoms like the latter? What do you think about it? Oh boy, I am so with you that the philosophical community does not put enough attention towards a healthy lifestyle! For example, it often upsets me the oversimplicity and often ill-logic Stef talks about health issues, like "sugar is bad", "I need meat for the protein because I work out", "My cancer was clearly not lifestyle-related because I have been working out for 30 years". All of which, I would argue, is not logical and not supported by the science that we have. I see a fantastically great conflict of interest between many philosophers and their own unhealthy lifestyle. So many people think they are healthy, but objectively, overweight and not in the perfect health condition that they could be in. Thinking about this often often makes me feel sad and angry Oh yes, I am very dedicated to healthy living and eat exclusively plant-based. I can assume you are a vegan, too, then? Ye, that's what I thought. Maybe it's not that simple after all. I appreciate your honesty!

Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't sure about the criteria for immoral actions. I am pretty sure it is common practice for officials to take away children by force if the parents let their children suffer from severe neglect. Let's say a young child of 10 years is obese. This child will probably suffer health impairments for all his life, in addition to the severe mental agony from being constantly bullied in school, having low self-esteem, hating his own body... Would you say that force is justified in this case? If not, how sick would a child have to be so that you would say force is justified? Thanks!

This is a fantastic thread! Apart from the many great points that have already been made, I may have some suggestions: Lived at her parents' place for a significantly extended amount of time Shows no particular concern for unnecessary suffering or killing of animals Short hair (in my humble opinion, because she does not feel comfortable expressing her femininity) Doesn't engage in regular physical activity and feels comfortable with it Is not very interested in journaling or self-knowledge in general Wears uncomfortable shoes Uses parfume excessively Says she has lots of interests but is unable to prioritize them Social media: Has a ridiculous number of facebook friends Puts particular effort into looking flawless in profile pictures Does not share any original content

Wonderful! Thank you so much for sharing. Your children are blessed to have such an empathetic and kind mother

I don't quite understand the first part of the sentence - could you please explain? Apart from that, I find your argumentation very logical and convincing. I have also come to the conclusion that nutrition can be highly productively philosophically examined and very useful principles can be extracted, making health decisions very easy to grasp. A healthy lifestlye must not be expensive. Clearly, adults who are overweight, have chronic diseases, are very unfit, suffer from mental disorders, etc., and don't invest a reasonable amount of time into researching and working out the underlying causes, are acting in a self-destructive manner. If they then raise children with this fundamental lack of knowledge about healthy lifestyle choices, they are, in my opinion, bad parents. Whether it is immoral to raise a child that, as a consequence of his parents' lifestyle choices, suffers chronic illnesses , is an excellent question I never really thought about. Hitting a child violates the NAP by constraining the person through the infliction of pain. A child that, as a consequence of his parents' irresponsible lifestyle choices, becomes overweight and will likely develop multiple chronic illnesses like high blood pressure, diabetes, or chronic joint pain that go along with overweight, also suffers from pain through no fault of his own. Therefore, I would conclude that a reasonable case could be made that teaching irresponsible lifestyle habits to children is indeed immoral.

Haha xD Nineteen times out of twenty, the life of the mind arises from the grave of the heart. ―Stefan Molyneux, FDR1170:44 When you become authentic, the only option is entrepreneurship. ―Stefan Molyneux, FDR1168:34 Everyone around you when you were a child was intergalactically full of shit. ―Stefan Molyneux

I fully understand and agree on the "fun", "not cheating" and "okay" statements. Do you see a problem (moral or amoral) in agreeing to let yourself be treated like property? I heard some people get a kick out of that?! I find myself quite confused about this whole thread, actually. I still don't get what the point of the discussion in general is (I'm not arguing my older post was good or necessary). The article is largly boloney, includes some obvious but seemingly irrelevant facts, the author lacks credibility, ... what am I missing? I would really like to understand your specific intentions for the thread, and what you got out of the article and the discussion, besides the mere intellectual understanding. I'm not criticising you at all, I am just curious to understand what this is really about. Thank you!

You can download the first chapter as a promotion here: http://www.coherencetherapy.org/files/Unlocking_the_Emotional_Brain-Ch1.pdf

Hey- thanks to all for posting the recommendation, the video and the bumping. Having read the beginning of the book and watched the excellent video Carl posted, this makes a lot of sense to me. These guys seem to have boiled down the logic behind ever-lasting foundational psychological transitions. If you think about it, all therapy is essentially just 1. Reactivating 2. Contradicting 3. Rewriting. Knowing about IFS, it is obvious to me how those steps are at the center of emotional healing. Thanks again.

I can hardly believe that an article like this genuinely seems "completely logical" to an educated guy like you! I really can't. You are waaay too smart to not see those fallacies! Maybe there is some psychological thing going on subconsciously when you were reading it? To me the article isn't completely logical at all. Having listened to just earlier today, I would argue that at the center of the article, there is to be found a : Sooo, instead of discussing, for example, what a cheating girlfriend incident actually says about her capacity for trust and bonding, the quality of the original relationship, the fundamental dishonesty probably of all parties, childhood history, etc. etc. he is going on this weird irrelevant "analysis" of the "agreement of sexual exclusivity"? There is soo much more going on in a romantic relationship! Can we not all agree that cheating in itself is really, really fucked up and the symptom of countless bad decisions by all the people involved, including the person cheated with? I really don't get where this man makes sense, because I don't see him reasoning from first principles, and making a lot of empty claims, pretending to make an argument of some sort. Am I totally off here? I am happy to be completely corrected if you make a convincing case. Disclaimer: I didn't take the article particularly serious at all, because the problem that I see with articles like that (and thanks god (Stef, actually) that I can think properly now and see those things), is that when they start out with fallacies, the stuff that comes after that is just garbage. Also, this guy has no credibility to me, because I get the strong impression that he is not striving to be open, honest and vulnerable towards himself, let alone a romantic partner. I find it staggering how often the author disregarded or invalidated his own emotional experience, and I have to think about this wonderful podcast that fits the subject very nicely!

Right, I see that I did in fact change the argument, without making that clear. I did not do that consciously. Indeed the more I thought about it, I gravitated towards to what conclusions I would come up to based on one of the core principles which I always find most helpful in these fields, which is that to assume nature has figured out an excellent way anyway. I apologize for not making that clear earlier. Unfortunately I don't enjoy this discussion much at all anymore. It is clear to me that we are not on the same page when it comes to creating an inviting atmosphere for a discussion. I don't work with the principle of "If you accuse me of X, you are being unreasonable because you did Y." Yes, I did change the argument, and you take that as a justification to not be bothered by my negative impressions. Alright, I get it! Also, I always deliberately discuss all and accept other people's arguments if they were true, but unfortunately I don't see that this practice is shared. What I personally take away from this discussion is that there is no evidence that I know of for clamping the cord after a schedule of some sort instead of leaving it completely up to the mother. Of course, I don't think there is anything wrong with cutting the cord if the mothers specifically asks for it, although I highly doubt that mothers in general are confident enough to trust their instinct and intution (enough) when it comes to their body (as is true for men) so that they will make those choices wisely. There is strong evidence that immediate cord clamping is very detrimental to the health of the baby. There is no sufficient evidence to support the view that delayed clamping is detrimental to the health of the baby.

Yes, I see that the analogy is too far away from the issue to be helpful. Hey, I thought of another one: Hair falls out. Let's cut all hair for as long as we don't know why we shouldn't Do you see the false reasoning? Surely handling would be more difficult, although this is not an argument concerning the health of the child. (I think handling is a crucial aspect for the hospitals because otherwise they can't take your baby away and do all those bloody testing procedures!) Pulling and forcefully detaching only happens if parents are not careful, which we practically cannot take into account, right? Now, I have not mentioned it so far because I didn't consider it fitting, but this is what I believe is the right thing to do as a healthy mother considering everything so far: Default: Leave it attached. Bite it if you are fully convinced that it is the right time for it. There is no need to turn snarky with me. I find it quite sad that you wrote this. We were not discussing biting it off, but clamping. I never argued against biting it off. Nor did I mention "wrapping it up and attaching it to the baby". As far as I understand it, the cord will become dry very quick. No need or even ability to wrap, I would assume. Neither did I know about the mysticism, nor did I mean to refer to it. I used the term Lotus birth merely as a means to give 'not cutting the umbilical cord' a name. As Antony said in the podcast: Nature isn't stupid. That is why I am always sceptical towards artificial means to alter the natural flow of things. There is really no need to become condescending just because I ask fundamental questions which you might find unnerving, algernon.

I get the strong impression that you don't like to discuss this issue at all with me? Why is that? I would like to let you know how I percieve this discussion, which is that your behaviour does not make much sense to me. You interview a nurse who proposes delayed cord clamping instead of immediate clamping based on personal experience and scientific data. You do not ask her the essential questions "Why do you actually clamp at all? Why is that necessary? What is behind that practice?" I point out the fundamental lack of consistency in her reasoning, but you don't respond to it. Then I prove that the burden of proof lies onto you to show that clamping is good / necessary. Now you quote that which in part supports your view, but delete the crucial last part, just thanking me for doing my work. Where is yours? Thanks! Since strangulation is a complication I don't think anyone would question cutting the cord in those cases, if it is necessary. I wonder - doesn't the actual strangulation happen during birth? Plus, doesn't the baby start to breathe sometime after birth? Lastly, the umbilical cord still contains oxygen to support the child for a while. If that is true I would assume that the child can be detangled without any substantial risk, while still keeping the umbilical cord intact. I read about the higher risk of jaundice, too. I don't know much about it (here is the one study that is cited on Wikipedia). In the same study the early clamped children are twice as likely to develop iron deficiency, their birth weight is significantly lower. They only write "fewer" of the earlier clamped children got treated for jaundice. I have trouble accepting this as an argument because the evidence is scarce, plus the benefits of delayed clamping seem to be significant. I don't understand at all what you wanted to point out with the study you linked to. I only read the abstract. Could you please explain?

I have read the article you linked to in the thread about minimum wage. It appears to be well-reasoned within the liberal mindset, but well, that is not what FDR is about. The fact of the matter is, as you pointed out, minimum wage is just another way of enforcing opinion onto people at the point of the gun. The author writes: (my underlining) I mean, he essentially argues against common sense - to pay workers what they are worth. > Even if minimum wage policies create jobs in current societies, arguing for it is highly dangerous and unproductive. Proclaiming state programs are "good" in whatever context is only postponing the creation of a free society through distraction. I urge you to question your libertarian ideals and dive into what arguments there are for a stateless society. Here are some essential videos / podcasts:

Right, I have researched to topic in the meantime. One thought that contributed to my skepticism about cutting the cord is that I heard that the umbilical cord contains stem cells (which then can be monetized by the health industry From what you wrote and I saw the umbilical cord is indeed nothing more than three blood vessels and the jelly, for the blood contains everything that the baby needs. > If transfer of matter through the umbilical cord has 100 % stopped, we can say with near certainty that cutting it will do no harm. > Not feeling a pulse does not mean transfer completely stopped. Now, I think it is very important to point out that cutting the umbilical cord is actively altering the course of a natural birth through the application of tools. Therefore, the burden of proof lies onto those who proclaim cutting the cord. It is invalid to say "Since we don't know if we should leave it attached, we don't", because that would be like cutting off boy's foreskins because of "not knowing why to leave it attached". Unfortunately, I have not come across one actual argument for cutting the cord. What are they?

How do you know? If you know what activities are going on, what are they? I would love to know more about what is going on in the umbilical cord. I appreciate your response but you have not refuted my argument. Where is the evidence that it is favorable to cut the umbilical cord after 5 / 20 / whatever minutes, or that it doesn't matter after x amount of time? I should mention the core principle that I presume being at the heart of the issue, which is that I consider favorable that which is in the best interest to the health of the child. Yes, from what I know the conditioning is indeed true. Although I very much doubt that humans are at all meat-eaters, I understand why you did it. I don't think sex ever was gross to me, though ^.^

You said you were eating the placenta because most mammals do that instinctively. I don't understand why you did it despite not feeling a natural instinct, and even aversion.

The argument is that there is no evidence to back up the practice to clamp the umbilical cord [immediately]. There is no argument provided for clamping the umbilical cord at all. Still, she goes on to recommend to clamp the umbilical cord [after waiting]. Where is the logical consistency in that? I think it is relevant to point out her conflict of interest, which is that the less intervention is applied in childbirth, the more her market value will decrease until mothers don't need any support in childbirth just like all the billions of animals who give birth successfully without support. "Nature isn't stupid. It isn't silly"

Please provide the reasons to cut the cord in the first place. It naturally dries out and falls off after a few days or so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_birth

As a disclaimer I would like to mention that I have very little experience RTRing with my parents thus far, though many experiences with RTRing with other people and I have great interest in advancing my knowledge and abilities about honest and effective communication. I would also like to say that I fully subscribe to what kathryn has written. Excellent advice, in my opinion! Something I often find helpful if I find myself not being sure about how someone would react to something, I put myself into their shoes. What if I was the parent and my child comes up to me with a particular concern? If you as a child express a genuine concern and say that you experienced negative emotions during the conversation, every truly loving and caring parent would try everything to work it out. "What do you want me to do about it?" gives me the strong impression of passive aggression (making you feel bad by being annoyed by your genuine concern). If my parent were to say that to me, I would probably first ask, "Well, does it bother you at all that I feel stressed?", because I first would want to make sure that my parent is genuinely concerned. Otherwise the conversation won't go anywhere without the parent being intrinsicly motivated to make the relationship work. If she answers "No" -> I would RTR more, until closure. If "Yes", I would express my needs clearly and directly. "Okay, I appreciate your concern and that you want to help trying to work it out. What would help me a lot is if you let me know what goes on for you in the moment emotionally. What did you feel when you asked me the initial question?" I would then go on and explore the relationship further... Please let me know what you think. I found your post very interesting, for it includes criticism of RTR. But I am not sure if you refer to the "method" RTR or the whole work - the book? The "method" RTR I would (personally) define as Openly and curiously examining and expressing one's emotional experience in the moment in order to increase self-knowledge and the quality of relationships. I think you make a very good point, in that the wants of a person in a relationship might not be clear enough. I cannot remember reading in Real-Time Relationships explicitly that making wants known in a relationship is essential for closure. I do remember, however, Stefan talking about that repeatedly in (older) podcasts. On the other hand I would argue that you are making excuses for the conversation partner. Every truly caring person knows what to do if someone experiences negative emotions. Even if they know nothing about the value of sharing emotions in the moment, they would be thrilled to experience someone being open and honest in the moment and they would try everything to keep up and help the other person out. As I stated already, I think it is essential to make one's needs clear in a relationship, because then there can hardly be any doubt left about the relationship if wants are still not met. Again, I don't think it is valid to say that a person who really wants to help does not know what to do when someone is being open and honest about their experience in the moment --- because the appropriate response in every case is vulnerability. Responding "I really don't know what to do right now, can you help me out?" is knowing what to do... If that makes any sense?

The Danger of Being an Alpha Male An absolutely hilarious talk with a man in his sexual prime. Interesting, entertaining, and plain funny. Sex for Resources | The Most Honest Modern Woman You Will Ever Hear! The title says it - the most honest woman you will ... hear in a long time. Interesting and entertaining. The Truth About Elliot Rodger The makings of a mass murderer. An innocent child turning into a total fanatic. Stefan is his calmest I have ever seen, and appropriately so. A powerful video containing lots of peaceful parenting teachings, seen over 600k times. Taken from my playlist I would like to see this thread going as I always enjoy watching FDR videos that others recommended!

I feel insecure and anxious about making this post, but I will post it anyway since I think it is important. I don't think mellomama wanted a long intellectual analysis. I also don't think mellomama wanted to be told the way you intended to be interpreted. The fact of the matter is that mellomama had a negative experience while reading your post. Even if her negative experiences have everything to do with herself and nothing with what you actually wrote, I still think it would be more empathetic, helpful and productive of you to respond with something like "I am sorry to hear that you had this negative experience." and with genuine curiosity towards what created this sitation on an emotional level. Does that make sense?

This seems manipulative to me. "One-sided" implies that arguments made are fallacious / wrong and information is misrepresented. "Pro-gold" - again, this you would only write if you would assume that all the advice in favor of precious metals (PM) is not based on reason and evidence. This is insulting to those who consider themselves rational philosophers who are also invested in PM, who surely exist (because I am one). As you could imagine, I don't feel that I am getting into a rational and productive discourse by reading your thread and listening to the podcast. I wonder how you react to my response?