Matthew Ed Moran

Democrats favored Trump 57% after his address to congress. I don't know how anyone can say leftism is growing stronger or at least isn't decelerating unless they are emotionally triggered. Even if there was some 99% doomsday scenario where leftists win no matter what, what happened to 'better to fight standing then submit to evil on my knees'?

I agree it is definitely an argument in the way you explained it. Thanks for making that more clear (for me at least). I don't know what 'not tolerating' the war on drugs means. I'm not sure why I would to have that conversation with people. When I think what the world most needs to know, the first thing I go to is race and IQ and the effects of multiculturalism. This includes single motherhood and anti white male policies. I talk about that a lot online. The issues of anti white male policies and multiculturalism are really important to me, and it is something that most people are not exposed to in my experience. I don't see the case being made for what it means not to tolerate the war on drugs, and why it is more important to focus on not tolerating it compared to other issues. Maybe there is a good reason for leaving this real world comparison out, but usually when people say "we shouldn't tolerate "x!" and they don't mention: any potential benefits of "x", any alternatives to talking about "x", any past efforts that have already been made to not tolerate "x" and their results (whether positive or negative on net), I assume it is virtue signaling.

Not an argument

I'm sorry about that. It is obviously not a positive experience in the moment, but my suspicion is that your guilt was to warn you what will happen in the future if you don't take action now to become less isolated. I can tell you first hand that experiencing guilt is a luxury compared to lacking conscience. I think anybody who has ignored their guilt will tell you the same thing. Even without knowing the specific response they gave you besides what you told me, I know that the isolation you felt was inflicted by their choice to respond to you in a way that would specifically disconnect you from your emotions. When you have a significant emotional experience and your parents do not reciprocate, that is a deeply isolating experience. If you can find a good support group or therapist, I think that will provide the opposite type of experience and make your emotions vital. I think any human contact with people who are more concerned with your well being than your parents will act against your isolation.

Your certainty regarding your priorities may be correct, but I am not sure how you know. There is frankly no such thing as distance from your abusers. You have probably spent about 20 years with their personalities inhabiting your developing mind. That influence it is not going to fade. When you leave the abuse, what you will experience is neglect. The negative experience can be used as a powerful incentive to enter therapy. If you think therapy would be useful for you and you can afford it, then you will have a more confident transition towards independence getting it earlier rather than later. It is like you are saying "I can only go to the hospital once I get away from the place of my injury." Maybe there is a specific reason why you need to leave your place of injury first, but ideally you would be conscious of it and able to understand the costs and benefits.

The mainstream (communist) media (news, entertainment, academia) is the single worst influence on American society. Trump is constantly exposing how they lie over and over. The people who say "Trump lies too!" or "Media doesn't lie in "x" case!" are aiding the mainstream (communist) media. All politicians lie more than Trump, and the media's lies are infinitely more harmful than their truths, so it is a terrible idea to focus on these things given the opportunity costs. Aiding the mainstream communist media is the worst practical action one can take, because there is no greater force for communism, and there is nothing worse than communism. This doesn't mean someone can't criticize Trump, but if they don't have a track record of integrity in this battle, then most people will rightfully lump them in with the communists - and they will naturally become defensive to criticism in the future. Its not their fault for becoming defensive - it's the fault of the people who lack integrity when making their arguments.

It only applies to people who initiate emotionally manipulative non arguments (which you didn't do). Here is an second attempt Sitting in a bucket, ripples under his ass Raining from the clouds, splashing on his face He calls the world misguided This is a post modern poem which means I took 3 minutes to write it and I will sell you the privilege of reading it for your entire net worth. Hold on French title incoming. You will need to take a loan out on your kids future before you can pay for this baby Here is my postmodern interpretation of your poem which is probably only 1/100th amusing to anyone else as it is to me: A man says "there is a bridge!" He walks off a cliff.

I have a poem. People who make emotionally manipulative non arguments are full of crap.

Not an argument - bunch of emotional words. "It's not as if I'm a leftist troll posting complete garbage.​" Garbage is a bit harsh - emotionally manipulative non arguments.

If the bullet had hit someone and injured them, then your parents, the police, the victim and his/her family all easily could have ganged up against you. Your parents would have tried to convince everyone in the scenario, including you, that they had no responsibility for your actions. Seeing your vulnerability as a potential source suffering for them, they would have tried to blame you for what you were exposed to in their parenting that led to this point. This would have had such a drastic negative effect on you, with no one else in your life to tell you how you were being made a scapegoat by your parents for their irresponsibility and neglect, to isolate from yourself to the point of despair. You would have loathed yourself because everyone would have told you this mistake was isolated and easily avoidable, and had no connection to anything that was done in the past to you. They wouldn't have even needed to say anything to you to do this. Just their silence would have communicated to you that you were responsible for the consequences of their past wrongdoing, and as punishment you had to suffer shame for their fear that you would act as they taught you.

I think what you are saying in the first part is this: "You are being emotionally reactive" I think my criticism was not an argument, and was also passive aggressive because of particular weasel phrases I used. If I were going to rephrase it, I would have stated more boldly: "I think it is rude to suggest someone is making a mistake without providing reason or evidence to back it up" However, this is still not an argument that I'm making. Also, one definition of mistake is 'a judgement that something is misguided,' in which case I cannot even say in good faith Rose's judgment is objectively incorrect. I think a more sincere approach would have been to ask Rose for clarification. (Rose's) Above are some examples of weasel language: posing questions to someone else about my own subjective opinions, giving insincere or hasty apologies to relieve anxiety, and playing victim were a few of the examples of what I think are weasel approaches of debating a point with someone else. It is important for me to work on getting rid of this type of language from my vocabulary because good people will be justifiably revolted, and bad people will use it to their personal advantage by attacking the weakness and submission that I offer in my position.

For some people, it is to combat the anti white male propaganda and disarm the media in its attempts to indoctrinate children towards being paradoxes of completely certain nihilistic relativists who can easily be used to destroy respect for the rule of law, western tradition of limited government, conservative approaches to social change, and in group preference among whites - and institute a tornado of social disruption to displace them with communist totalitarianism - by appealing to their all-enlightened vain and impulse driven desires for sex, responsibility free hatred, and sadistic humor (I'm looking at you, SNL). If I could make that sentence longer I would. For other people, it is to minimize all attempts to do this and insert passive aggressive cynicism against all who try and do, by bogging them down with insincere questions and an attitude of intellectual entitlement whenever they are unconvinced of something.

As far as I understand from all the evidence I've been exposed to from the show and have experienced, you can't magically disarm major anxiety in the moment. You can act on the anxiety - but you can't just make it go away. You've already tried a number of things and failed regarding this approach, so I think this might be evidence that the next thing you do consistent with this approach won't work. You said this is the most certain attraction you've had compared to ambivalent interactions you've had in the past - but it seems to me that everything you have shared since your last interaction with her, including your choice to write this post, signal ambivalence!!! Instead of trying to get rid of the anxiety, you could act on it. You could approach and commit to being as honest and genuine as possible with her, and continue doing that until you have some certainty regarding how you feel. If you don't​ achieve any certainty about how you feel around her no matter how much you try, then I would think this is strong evidence one of you is not being honest or open in the conversation and a relationship isn't going to be possible. If you feel increased anxiety the more you interact with her, and you still desire her, then the theory that seems to make sense to me is that you're following this simple equation: EGGS! > your positive feelings interacting with her. (Is she pretty?) If you feel positive around her, then fantastic! Then you can continue to figure out why the !&$# she voted for Hillary Clinton! These are hopefully not just my opinions and are consistent with what has been said on the show! I could be totally​ wrong in characterizing your situation. Please take it with a grain of salt if you're inclined to!

https://selfknowledgedaily.com/how-to-hit-on-a-woman-6bca1582b5d1#.qtcyn2r92 hope this helps

going to drop out of conversation after looking at your post history. I'm embarrassed

You can say he means something else, but everyone has the quote right in front of him. You posted a paragraph of insults that didn't contain any evidence, and expected this to be convincing. All this says is that you and Robert lack integrity in some respect. I don't know if you're so disconnected from the public opinion or you just don't care about being convincing, but calling someone non-ideological is not actually an insult; after years of Republicans saying they have ideological adherence to free markets and conservatism - it's now a compliment to be non-ideological, almost regardless of party affiliation. If a president is pragmatic and has the general populations interests in common, that's definitely better than being ideological and never getting anything positive done. You can say he's inconsistent and that he breaks his principles, but without context and evidence, you're just doing more insulting. What's worse is that you supported a candidate who couldn't even name illegal immigrants as criminals. So the idea that you value or can judge consistency accurately is not supported by the evidence, to put it mildly. I will say this - clearly he's not a moral relativist. And he enacted a major campaign promise within the first several days. And it was a massively pro liberty position. Can you name another president in history who did this? You know what he read and what he hasn't read in his 70 years on earth? C'mon dude this is not only false, it's terribly unpersuasive. Sorry to stereotype you, but that this is the crap libertarians pass for argumentation nowadays only confirms how inconsistent libertarians are with their principles of humility, truth, consistency, and empiricism. As far as your statement about Muslims - you said their actions are understandable and reasonable. This only is evidence that you have a very low opinion about the capacity of Muslims to think and act rationally. Maybe you're right - 80 IQ, high trauma environment, massive propaganda - doesn't exactly seem like a breeding ground for these characteristics to put it very mildly. But my challenge is that you're excusing some very destructive behavior if you're saying killing innocent people thousands of miles away is a reasonable way to react to injustice. Of course I would never want to carry out further injustice because injustice was done to me if I had any consistency. That is a society destroying perspective. It's sad to see libertarians voicing the same perspective that violent SJWs are. As Stefan said of those who want to do further evil because evil was done to them - we don't yet know how monstrous these people are. So do you give blacks who have had their families torn apart from the war on drugs the same excuse? Are they reasonable and understandable if they want to riot, loot, and otherwise destroy the foundations of society in response to the evil that was done to them? Are do you just apply this to selectively to Muslims? Your argument is moral relativism. It applies to everyone equally because everyone has been the victims of injustice. If Trump carries out worse pro-war actions than have been taken in the past 8 years, then I will condemn him strongly. You can't just say "pro war" as if that means anything. You need to put things in context. So if he ends up not bombing hundreds of times, not starting wars, not empowering evil groups to the same extent Obama did - and what we can presume Hillary would have done - then by any reasonable measure, he is a success. And that's apart from any other rolling back of the state he might do. But let's wait until more evidence is in to judge him.

We should violently redistribute organs and limbs because some people have disease or deformation. We should force marriage so that low IQ people can marry high IQ people because some people are born smarter. We should force beautiful people to marry ugly people because some people are born prettier. All these things are inherited and it's so fucking unfair, so the government should start carving up the population until we all look and act the same.

You can't really take this seriously... or can you? As far as blowing up Muslims is concerned - if you know some other alternative than targeting people who want to do harm to Americans other than through the state, you can do it and make a difference. You can influence public opinion in an infinite number of ways. But if you're talking about solutions within the state paradigm rather than private efforts, your choices are limited. The case has always been Trump vs Clinton, not Trump vs Anarchist defense company. You can say don't talk about statist solutions at all, but you'd have to prove why defeating Hillary Clinton wasn't an important and noble goal. If you are saying America has some special obligation not to do unnecessary harm when everyone in the non-western world has shown a greater ​intention of doing harm given the opportunity, then that's hypocritical. Americans may overlook the 'deep state,' but Muslims cheer women being stoned in public. Who really has the greater intention of doing harm here? The idea that Muslims targeting innocent Americans because of actions of American government is justified, but Americans' support for targeting Muslims is the worst thing conceivable, is completely hypocritical in the worst way imaginable. There really is a difference between wanting terrorists who are actively plotting to do immense evil brought to justice, and wanting to blow up innocent people going about their peaceful daily routine. If it is the priority of Muslims to do justice, then they have plenty of opportunity in their home countries which do deals with the west. That's something they conceivably have control over. The only problem is Muslim IQs are unfortunately low. As far as I understand, what has been most harmful for both the Muslim and Western World has been the intervention of the 'deep state' in arming radical groups and generally making deals with devils for profit at the expense of public security. Flynn and Trump are against this and are under immense pressure from the media and spies in intelligence not to change the status quo. I am not nearly knowledgeable enough on foreign policy to judge the future decisions Trump will make, but from the way the media and establishment are acting, i.e. the evil people responsible for this horror in the middle east and Europe, it seems at least hard to argue that Trump is completely overlooking their corruption. I don't know what kind of blind, emotionally detached world one has to live in to think Trump is just another pro-war candidate. Clearly he speaks for the American people who have been the victims of terrorism when he says he wants the rule of law enforced, but if he were on board with the black-hearted evil that is going on in the depths of the 'deep state,' there would not be as much tension as there is right now between him and the intelligence community and the media. You only need to follow good journalists like Mike Cernovich on Twitter to understand this. People who don't get this don't care to get it.

Body Language: - Posture - Eye Contact - Tone of Voice - Pacing speech Verbal Communication: - Listening - Being Curious and Asking Questions - Forming Judgments - Creating Analogies Any more? I tried to put them in order of importance so that they can be practiced individually. The only two I am unsure of in their current places are Posture and Eye Contact. Which is more important and basic?

Okay, this helps a lot. So you had a feeling... So your criticism was basically 'muh feels' but you did conceal it behind the claim that she made a mistake. You didn't say 'I feel you made a mistake' (which would have been hilarious, like you have some sort of spidey sense for mistakes that you don't need to back up). You said ''think.' And didn't provide reasons when asked to back it up. Gloria is a female so this was probably a bit more intuitive to her to agree with your approach of following your feelings. But her analogy doesn't actually apply. If someone says they think there is a fire, and they won't explain why, they're actually just being a bit of a dick. I still of course appreciate the replies, but I don't think it's fair for me or anyone in the conversation if I'm apologizing on a false pretense. I'm glad to backtrack an apologize if my reasoning is incorrect, but that would require someone to take my reasoning and actually rebut it. It is also interesting that you want Kathryn (another female) to get involved in the conversation. I think this is between me and you, so unless anyone else wants to volunteer their opinion, let's keep it that way

Thanks for offering that perspective. I want to apologize to Rose and Kathryn. I think I was white knighting, because looking back on Rose's initial comment, he did imply that he wasn't certain so I'm sure it was just a helpful suggestion of his with good intentions. I think I perceived Rose as immediately negative because he was criticizing a woman, and I also think I underestimated Kathryn's ability to handle the criticism on her own, which is obviously not a fair belief about her because she is very capable. I really appreciate both Gloria's (and Rose's) patience to help me reach this conclusion.

It's not that you're wrong - it's that you haven't given a reason 3 replies in even after I asked you for one. I think it's rude if you don't take your feedback on someone's work seriously - that's all I was saying. You can take ownership or you can chose not to - it's not hugely important to me what you decide to do. I was just sincerely curious what your reasoning was - or if you had no reasoning, whether you also thought it was rude to say she made a mistake.

I still don't understand your reasoning for why you think it was a mistake or inaccurate though. I'm sorry that I thought you weren't being honest, and I apologize for coming to that conclusion without evidence, but I'm still sincerely curious what the mistake was. Just to recap, in the video she says the wage gap is determined by taking all of men's earnings and subtracting them from all of women's earnings. What is incorrect or what might you think needs adding to that? I don't think simply saying that something is inaccurate or a mistake without explaining why is very helpful, but that might just be my opinion. I think it might be important for Kathryn to know in more detail what your reasoning is, because there is a balance she probably wants to strike between being accurate without boring the viewer with technicalities that may not be necessary. I think the point of providing the real world example was to make the problem easier to understand in practical terms, and for those interested in the technicalities to have the sources provided in the description.

I interpreted Kathryn as saying the gender pay gap simply aggregates total wages of men and women and subtracts the differences, without taking into account career choice, work hours, etc. There are also sources she provides in the description if someone wanted more detail. If you're going to suggest someone might be making a mistake, isn't it a bit rude to conceal what you think it was?

If you could have cannabis legalized or have an end to illegal immigration - which would you chose?