Matthew Ed Moran

Thanks for the thorough reply, Robin You say "claims as they are made." Here is why that is troubling phrasing for me.. You are pointing to a specific climate scientist in this thread and his claims (which I don't doubt could be true). Now apart from his research presented in the videos, we also now know that he has called carbon a pollutant. You even agree that is impossible to call C02 a pollutant unless you want to stretch the term. So how can the research in his videos possibly be considered non biased now? Isn't it a valid claim to say that his research is invalid because he has expressed bias? I don't mean to spell this out if you get my point, but it would seem to me pretty fundamental that proven bias invalidates statistical research, since human manipulation would almost certainly muddy the process in some way. But back to your phase "claims as they are made".. I assume you mean the scientists you specifically refer to? How do these people compare to the media and government in their outreach? The truth is, the media vastly communicates the most about climate science to the average person. The internet provides the opportunity to learn climate science in more detail, but the media is making hysterical claims everyday, and I don't see a movement on the part of climate scientist to stop it (it's a bit funny to say I know). But there are also government professors who work directly for the state to lie about climate change (btw about oceans turning acidic - Bill Mckibben said that in a debate). So when FDR chooses to interview skeptics, who I will take for granted have said some things about the opposition which were incorrect, it is to provide a counter source to the media. The climate scientists aren't doing it, and so Stefan has to. Now when you are not a professional climate scientist, but the field of climate science is just so hopelessly captured by the government and social expectations, and you have to then fill in their place to correct the grievous lies of the media; do you really think you have any admiration left for them to want them on your show? But in a completely different direction, if you know someone who is as vocal or at least as un-compromised as Stefan against government and media misinformation about climate science, who is climate scientist and either believes in some iteration of AGW or not (doesn't matter but the truth is preferable), then I think that would make for a really awesome show. Totally on board with that one! Do you really know of anyone, though? Oh man, you aren't comparing privately funded science to government science.. are you? I don't think that is a good comparison at all, since science which is funded "publicly" obviously involve's a gun to someone's head. I know you get that, but it's important to point out. I know Big Oil is state regulated, but I don't think it can be compared to climate science. Oil is actually demanded, so there is some considerable market interaction there. But with state roads and all, there is undeniably a capacity for corruption. I wanted to try a different approach since I am not as familiar with the extent of the corruption as others may be. I figured and still maintain that I don't necessarily doubt some scientists have captured a valid trend in temperature linked with C02. I have trouble understanding the theory behind the predictions capability. Rosencrantz seems to state that there is the possibility of like a "swing" in temperature that is not proportional to the release of C02 into the atmosphere. That does seem odd to me, but a lot of science was odd to me before I understood it. But more importantly, I think it is really crucial to try and understand what FDR does. As Stefan has stated before he is not the authority on climate science, and he doesn't claim to be; his purpose is to present a counter-narrative to the media. There are propaganda videos out every day. I literally saw one just before in the democratic debate and it was a bit heart breaking for me since I rarely watch TV I wasn't prepared for it. It basically was shaming anyone who doubts what the government and media have to say about climate change. I'm not saying you're not, but I think we need to sympathize with the people who the media is attacking and understand a lot of them are just fighting back from being called "carbon addicts" who are destroying the planet. So what if they say ridiculous things sometimes? They're being barraged with insults and assaults in the name of climate media every day. If climate science isn't going to stick up for these people, then FDR must. If some incorrect statements are made along the way obviously its never preferable, but if young people do not hear Stefan or others speaking out against climate change as presented in the major outlets of society, they will conform to the social pressure. If I didn't reply to something it's probably because I agree with it. I hope I made some sense and I appreciate the fun conversation

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?

Great to have you, Ben! I thought your post was interesting. I'm sorry about the trauma you've experienced and I hope you find this site useful towards healing it. At least in my experience, I have a hard time summarizing what I haven't spent a lot of time processing first. Strong emotions pop up and it's hard to gloss over them and move on to the next sentence if you're trying to summarize something you've really never spent time investigating. So I can understand if that's anything like what you felt. I'll look out for your posts

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.

Would it be fair to classify this as a red herring fallacy? For instance, if you were to bring up abuse propagated by women in society, and you were responded to with "but what about men?" The implication would be that: 1) we cannot talk about female abuse without talking about male abuse Another iteration might be as follows: If you're in an argument about the morality of government, you might say "government is the initiation of force." Your opponent might respond "but who is going to license the glass dildos?." This would also be a red herring fallacy, since it misdirects from the point in question (i.e. the morality of government). Where it might not be a red herring to say "yea, but what about x" is when x is a contradicting factor to the point in question. If you say "blacks commit the most crime, so you should watch your back around them" (yes I made you the paranoid guy), then if I bring up the fact that "yea, but the vast majority of blacks are not criminal" this would not be a red herring fallacy since it is contradicting to the point which was brought up. When you say "but" you need to actually make a disagreement. Otherwise, the proper conjunction is "and." But I bet you won't hear most people respond to your "females abuse men at x% in relationships" with "Yes, and men do it at y% (which is lower)" A good response to "yea, but what about men?!" in that context might be.. Men are victims of this abuse. That is what I am saying! If they don't get it, then obviously they were trying to install you with doubt by using a "but" statement without providing any contradictory information. At that point they can either stomp away angrily or come to a better understanding of the reality of society.

two things might be important to consider about the situation. 1) Was what you did evil? Did you initiate the use of force? 2) Can you apologize? I'm not necessarily saying if what you did was not evil, that it would therefore be ok or anything. But it would make a difference in that it would be relatively easy for the other person to stop talking to you, and for them to take some responsibility for engaging with you in a manner which allowed you to do this, and they would be responsible for engaging with you if they had passed over red flags which you presented earlier which may have indicated you would do something like this. But maybe they had no idea I think there is a pretty big difference between an act of evil and a really dick move. At least I personally think the latter is easier to write off, even if it is hurtful in the moment. The former is more terrifying since it can hardly be defended against in the same way. For instance, if someone is a sadist and in the mall they make some slimy comment about me as I walk past them, even if I find it annoying in the heat of the moment (and the extent to which I do might indicate I am not fully resolved of some past abuse), I eventually will realize that his comment had nothing to do with me as a person, but had to do with my physical proximity to a sadist.. But if he stuck his foot out and I trip over it and break my nose, well now I'm really hurt in a way I can't undo and have a lot more misfortune. But the second point about apologizing, have you done that? Was it sincere? I think to sincerely apologize we need to recognize why we did the thing (so we can recognize when we're prone to doing it again), how it hurt the other person, what it would have felt like to be in the other person's shoes, and then hopefully you can connect with the regret you feel and share it with them. Generally, I think it is very brave to sincerely apologize. And in our modern world it's a pretty rare feat, with all the lingo of "there is never anything to regret" or "yea, but I have to live with what I did so that is my punishment" (as if the other person doesn't... but believe it or not I've had someone say this to me) At worst (and really it's for best) I think FDR is about honesty, so hopefully people here will make you aware of what you did and why it was not appropriate, and maybe they can help you understand a blind spot or empathy block you may have, but usually only the most committed sadists and trolls are blocked from the site (at least in my experience the past year or so). And in terms of making future friends, there is always room for self knowledge and I'm sure you will find others who did things they regret when they were in their 20s. I think I personally have less compassion for people who hide their actions, who flee responsibility like the plague, and who never grow after years of knowing about a problem. The fact that you were so concerned, and that you came out in the open like this to share your concern shows commitment to growth and personal responsibility, and those are two very important qualities to most posters here. I would plan on making many more mistakes in the future, because it is bound to happen, but usually with self knowledge you can try to move past the self attack and move towards self criticism which extends an empathy towards yourself to avoid putting yourself in situations which harm your conscience. I know some people, who all they can do is beat themselves up or double down on their wrongdoings (I'm talking about acts of evil here), and they are not a pretty bunch. So that is why when you earn it, forgiving yourself can be quite healthy (I think at least, I think most others would agree) and necessary process. These are just some thoughts that came to me when reading your post, hopefully that helps I would check out many of the first videos that pop up when you type "Stefan Molyneux Empathy" into Youtube. If I am remembering correctly "How Can I Develop Empathy?" is the one where he says self empathy must come before we have empathy for others. It should be helpful

"There is not much you can do when being bombarded by repeated panic attacks." What does this mean? Obviously you can do a lot of things. This is not any justification for SSRIs to be administered. It's like saying "I smoked weed for years to relieve my anxiety. There is not much you can do when being bombarded by anxiety." Well, actually there is a lot you can do. If you're isolated however, yea, drugs may be the only management available. But to me that could give the psychiatry industry a big excuse, because passing off drugs to isolated people rather than connecting with them is horrendously cold and sociopathic if there are other methods of treatment available which are proven to be more effective and safe.

I was walking past a house in my old neighborhood, and to my astonishment a couple that had to be past 70, nearing 80, we're yelling at each other (actually, the wife was yelling at him, I can't remember if he yelled back but he was irritated) over something about the hose or gardening or something trivial like that. At the same time I was tense because it made me so angry that people can be so vain and self important to think their petty problems are worth yelling about. It's that typical narcissist trait, where they erase the entire world and every important invent that is going on, and boil their most intense emotions into a garden pot. Man, if something is holding philosophy back it is that mindless bickering. Zombies, I tell you. I was astonished because of how old they were, but hopefully they won't be creating a ruckus much longer... But no I think mature couples are generally polite and empathetic, and I notice good people generally have an awareness if something is bothering them that might not be important to others, and they'll bring it up carefully because of this. I try to be polite when someone is doing something that is annoying me, I'm rarely if ever antagonizing on purpose. Antagonizing on purpose is like a traumatized 3 year old's way of communicating needs, not an adult.

Man, I'm not sure. I suppose I like most of my coffee drowned in some form of sugary syrup The lattes from Starbucks, I don't know how anyone cannot like those. Chestnut praline is the way to go when they have it. Hell, the economy is going down the tubes anyway so we might as well extinguish all our capital on the politically correct coffee of choice. Obama would have it no other way (okay maybe he would nationalize Starbucks) But I don't brew my own coffee so it's hard to compare

You mean there was a time when philosophy had its way? There was a time when most people were interested, not in religions, myths, barbarisms, the endless coercion of the state; not the cultural customs and the mating practices and social expectation, but... interested in philosophy? Well I for the life of me can't find the place in history where things were reasoned about consistently and according to universal principles within society, with no coercion involved, and instead negotiation between all members. No, I think I've ubiquitously seen quite the opposite, a history painted in win-lose and genetic warfare. So I think this man is conjuring up another mystical scare story with the abstract garbage of an academic salary to put the "spell of inaction" on you. He wants you to think philosophy is what he says it is, and is not something completely different, because if you had a clue what philosophy really was you'd look at this guy kinda like a guy with no legs, while you are on a jet-pack. All he can do is try to hold you down to lessen the image of his own misery, but if you keep your distance from the stasis of academia, philosophy will be sure to take you on a wild and crazy ride. It is in no way irrelevant nor does it rely on some fancy understanding of the intellectual history of bla bla era, what it relies on is an honest application of universal principles to all problems in life. Sorry, I couldn't get through more than a few paragraphs so I'm going with my gut that the article doesn't get any better. Statistics usually wouldn't have it so considering the publication and his "credentials." I think anybody who cares about philosophy in this day and age and has the capacity to do so is doing a bit more then writing books. Does this guy have a podcast maybe, where he is talking about the #1 violation of morality in society, which is aggression against children? I'll just assume he's speaking about it all the time, just kidding I won't hold my breath. My anger is not at you of course, I just wanted to throw some fire on this hot mess. (and it's possible I missed something completely so I'll hold out for that)

I think you both make good points. I think with the song in the OP, I have thought about it and want to correct myself about one point. I don't think I can say it is unhealthy from an outside perspective. And since health is kind of a relative thing, I can imagine situations in which it might be healthy to create a song like that. Something I have learned from interviews and studies shared by FDR is that for people who have underwent significant, nearly unbearable trauma, isolation and the need to conceal that trauma from others can be extremely volatile and harmful. For instance in the ACE study, there was an example of a woman who was overeating, even in her sleep, because was such a primal drive in her to look "ugly" so she would not be at risk of sexual molestation. I think part of that example was how she was able to put off the eating compulsion for some significant period of time simply after mentioning to one of the doctors about her past sexual abuse (hopefully I'm not confusing two different people, but it's contained in the Interview section of the Bomb in the Brain series). So it sounds like, with how intense his emotions were, that this was something which was still very isolated in him and that maybe it was healthy to get it out... But my skepticism is strong about one point, and that is how self flagellation is not healthy for the long term and it is really quite obscene. It is the ultimate surrender to the abuser, a manipulation of your own will to crush it. To say that you seek forgiveness from your mother for speaking about something so horrible which she was responsible for causing, to me that is a a giant lash of a whip against your own soul and I don't appreciate it him doing that to himself because it hurts to the extent I want to empathize with him about his experience. I don't want to say the child does not deserve to be heard, and that he is in debt to his mother for even speaking about it, I want to flog the mother with a terrified anger that she inflicted on him. Maybe that is radical of me, but I think my rage wants to fight off such a dastardly notion that he presents. BTW I've heard from Daniel Mackler who did reports on Alice Miller that she apparently still had significant presence of trauma in her life, which is not to discredit her, but apparently she had mental breakdowns even towards the end of her career (and from her son's account was a pretty horrible mother). I'm not sure how important that is compared to her body of work and knowledge, but it doesn't seem insignificant. (you can see Mackler's claim in his interview with Stefan) I personally have never tried expressing emotions through art.. I do think it can be helpful to create something without criticism though.. I know I personally lost out on a lot of creativity in my youth with arts and crafts since I was forced to be quite self critical. I can see how reliving those moments but with my own developed sense of self to enjoy my creative work might be put at ease some of the significance of those memories, but that's just a thought I have. One thing that I think is interesting is that music is usually intended for an audience, and usually it is made to be pleasing in some way to listen to. I think the great challenge in producing art that is honest is that you can't let the audience dictate what you say, or how you say it. If you want to be vulnerable, you have to be willing to "let go" a bit, see what comes out no matter how raw and unprocessed it is. With music, you usually are practicing and repeating bits a lot, and I wonder how that would make honest and emotional music difficult since the musical process can tend to be structured and managed.

I'm sorry to hear about that, Robin. There is not much worse than wanting desperately to sleep but being unable to. Hopefully you are able to get sleep soon. Take your time responding to me if you need to. I have been reviewing the posts in this thread, yours and Rosencrantz in particular, and I am beginning I think to understand how maybe others in this thread, and FDR in general, have not put an emphasis on the validity of the trend. I also used to reside skepticism in that correlation is not causation, and I was quick to do that because I thought since climate is so complex, and since the data seems to be manipulated, that this was a fair criticism. But your point is well taken that it is not an argument, and that it is also not falsifiable, and I want to be sensitive to the data if it is credible, since it is not up to me to deny valid data! So that is why I'll give a look to Muller when I have the time, but when you are feeling better I am interested what you think of his comment about C02 being a pollutant. Thanks Rosen, that makes things somewhat more clear to me. I am a bit confused why you called it simple. It does not appear simple to me, but to be honest the physical sciences I have never studied so it could be my "newness" to the topic that makes it difficult to understand. I somewhat follow your point, and it seems like I'd have to invest way more time to get a grip, but if I can make this idea more empirical, are there any instances in the past where a mechanism "stopped working" in the climate? What did that look like and what were the hypothesized causes? I think we all agree that if climate were to impose a serious threat to man's existence, well it would seem besides an ice age, we could tolerate and relocate to the climates which became more habitable. Man only exists on a tiny portion of this earth, and it would seem no matter our effect on the environment (and our C02 output does seem small from an outside point of view, but I get what you said about how it could have disproportionate effects), we will have to endure some serious climate change if we're to continue existing, since there have been large climate changes throughout history. From an outsider POV, however, it seems the worse possible scenario would be for the climate to get colder, and oddly enough if C02 were to counteract that, it would be necessary to release C02 just to keep the climate habitable. I think something like this was mentioned in Shirgall's video. But when I think about the drastic changes we might have to make in the future if the climate were to radically shift, god, we definitely could not endure the inefficiency of government at that time. It will put a strain on our resources, and any gov't intervention will cost significant lives, as it always does. Thanks for all the replies.

Hey RJ I'm interested to hear what others have to say. To be honest, I tried playing the song again to see if I felt the same way I did last time - which was horrified - and I did. I got through maybe 20 seconds last time, and this time I stayed to hear maybe 40. The distaste I have for the song is that I think it is an inappropriate way to talk about childhood trauma as severe as his. And by inappropriate, I basically mean I personally found it inappropriate. To me music is about controlling someone else for a few minutes, taking them on a ride. Sometimes it can be pleasurable and interesting, and other times it can be enlightening if the song is really good (like realistically depicts a situation people are unaware of and which would be important for them). The thing about this song is I feel like he is intentionally trying to horrify me in the most graphic and obscene ways (his voice inflection which is alien and creepy, his speaking of eating flesh, how he apologizes to his mother). I don't feel like he is trying to create a positive interaction for the listener. And the fact that he basically flagellates at the beginning to say he is sorry to his mother for speaking about it, I think does not send a consistent or healthy message to listeners. I personally couldn't bear listening to any more than I did, but on the other hand I have listened to FDR shows which discuss childhood trauma, and I feel either relieved or a healthy invigoration. I can't remember a time where I felt so horrified that I didn't want to continue listening. And I basically think that is the forum, with a tender and empathetic person, where childhood trauma should be discussed in detail, otherwise to me I think it's unhealthy way to deal with abuse and I would consider this song an empathy dump since the purpose as I can glean is to horrify the listener. Let me know if you disagree with any of that and I'm interested to hear what others have to say so I know if I'm responding to the song differently than others. It was a good topic for you to bring up

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong but I'll give my understanding of AGW just to see how far off I might be. AGW is basically the conclusion that temperatures have been rising over the last 50 to 100 years and correlate to the increase in C02 being released into the atmosphere. There is a greenhouse effect when C02 is released, and this causes heat to become trapped in our atmosphere, which increases the global temperature (permanently?). The effects of this are more acidic oceans, rising sea levels, worse storms, and perhaps droughts. If I'm really mis-characterizing things I would appreciate any BS I am spouting to be called out. I guess my root concern about bringing a climate scientist on is that I imagine these guys to either be state funded either in part or whole, who are not trained economists and so might not be able to conduct a cost benefit calculation properly, and who think state solutions are the prompt solution. Maybe I'm completely mis-characterizing the field, I really don't know. My familiarity to be fair is not from actual climate scientists for the most part, but then I see one presented here, Richard Muller, and he sounds quite hysterical to me saying that C02 will be looked on as the biggest pollutant in history. Once again, maybe I'm missing something and I want to be clear I'm not at all qualified or well-read on the science. But that is my concern, and I figure, if AGW is real and the threat can be calculated, well it will be taken care of by the market anyway so there isn't much risk to be skeptical about it if it is invalid and being used as an excuse for gov't intervention and to create social hysteria. Anyway I'm going to review the thread and the videos and more of Robin's posts since I don't want to be caught with my pants down, but I did want to defend FDR not having a climate scientist on (unless Shirgall's post fits that) if climate science is primarily publicly funded and is very pro-government with their proposed "solutions."

I fail to see how the state is not in fact, empirically, supporting single mothers with the numerous types of welfare, public education, alimony, and possibly other factors I'm not mentioning. This is not a libertarian notion, this is a fact. It is also a fact that single mothers vote democrat, and are very strong advocates for the plunder they feed off like parasites on productive society. I'm not necessarily disputing your other points, but your OP immediately is suspect because you are denying basic laws of economics when you say the state can subsidize something, and that can have no effect on the amount of outcomes of that thing. That goes against basic logic, and if you would alter your OP to address that concern, I think it would garner more interest and less skepticism. I want to watch your video and I think it could have some serious implications, but I am turned off at the disregard of basic incentives that are present and are at least among this website cited as a causal factor for the fact that single motherhood exists as it does today. If there is some dispute of the basic fact that government subsidizes single motherhood I would like to see it, and I would like to hear the case for how subsidizing something does not create more of it.

I think he also discusses it towards the end of the show with Bill Whittle most recently, How Western Civilization Can Be Destroyed. Might not be as comprehensive as the show posted by Ricardo, but it's a fun listen nonetheless (as I always find their spunky conversations )

I think I made an error. If I say something exists, then I say it is also verifiable. That's an is from an is; not an ought like I had originally said. An ought only appears in a conditional, where the subject of the "is" statement is valid or not on whether the condition is accomplished. If it is not accomplished, then the conclusion still may follow by chance (highly unlikely), but it will not necessarily follow for any specific reason. The angle I was trying to push in on the conversation is how pointless it even is to point out that you can't get an ought from an is if you're not given any other premises. That is like saying you can turn a turkey into an astronaut by magic. I get annoyed that people think this has anything to do with morality. As soon as you begin speaking about morality, you're speaking about what people should do. There are valid ways we can reason towards this conclusion that are consistent empirically, but if people think there is no such thing as morality, meaning there is no such thing as what people should do, then they are being very manipulative, whether it's to their own fault or not. You can't tell or even suggest people should do something if there is no such thing as a good reason why we should do anything. I laughed at what you said about Sam Harris earlier in the thread WasatchMan, about how Sam Harris is only good because other intellectuals suck. I don't even watch Sam anymore to be honest Am I missing out on anything besides this? +1

I wonder why it would make sense to bring one of these scientists on though? I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, but I'm having trouble understanding the utility of that for this audience. It does not matter much really if the science is true that you are referring to, since we don't need public opinion to correlate with science for science to function correctly in the market place. If there is a problem the solutions will be accounted for, just hopefully not by governments. And if FDR can make an impact on this social issue at all (remember, even if the science is true at some level, the social issue is completely distorted), it is to inform everyone who is willing to listen that the government is being severely corrupt and endangering human lives. And that governments are the biggest polluters. And it's also to dispel the gigantic myths propagated by fear-mongering state sponsored academics who paint pictures of dire plight. If the science is true people will adapt it and the world will move on. But I think obviously FDR is mainly concerned about the issues we can effect change on, like the public's opinion of the government. Let me know if you disagree with that or not P.S. Forgot I wanted to also ask you, what do you make of C02 being called pollution by Richard Muller? I know it was not in the largest context ever, but as an outsider with a fair understanding of economics, to me this seems like a severe blind spot for a possibly neurotic jewish scientist who wants the fame and glory of the public sector hu-rah when a skeptic claims he is not a believer. Obviously it is not the worst position to be in the public sector's eye this way, right? I'm having a hard time understanding how something can be called a pollutant to a human environment without a consideration of its larger context, and the possible alternatives. Or am I missing something as an outsider?

I think the whole "numbers must add up to zero" thing is just an accounting method. The economics of the situation simply means there are less resources available than thought before, and given the expectation of increasing wealth, capital will command a higher interest rate, which will increase savings on net. This is because more wealth is accumulated by simply deferring consumption. I don't follow how savings necessitates debt (I think that's what you said, correct me if I'm wrong). And I think you have mis-characterized what interest is, at least according to the count of Mises, who says that interest is the extent to which we prefer consumption in the future rather than the present. Profit can be made on loans, but to make a profit on a loan you must use the resources in a way that provides more utility in the future compared to simply consuming the capital. Capital needs to be maintained, and so there is always a rate of interest, even if it's marginally infinitesimal. But what modern governments do is consume capital like crazy by debasing the currency, at which point we will be in a disaster situation (relatively) since the capital base and productivity for current consumption of the economy will crumble exponentially. I believe this is what happened in Rome, which led to the dark ages, and basically all other governments throughout modern history.

But crime is not counted as humans committing evil against other humans, so what is the practicality of your question? And is the fact that blacks commit the most private crime, collect the most welfare, and abuse their children most often not indication enough?

+1 I think this would be a great call-in

I have only analyzed 5-10 of my dreams and I'm not sure if I'm any good at it, but here is what I think about yours. In the beginning you perceive a threat which you can't recognize, and no one is their to witness it. (maybe you had a single mom who abused you in the isolation of her locked house like me). You respond to the threat with rage. Red in my experience signals deep rage. Your mom smiles at you because she is deeply sadistic, and she knows there is only a threat for you. She does not console or ask you about the threat you are facing, instead she enjoys to see you in this dark terror, so she smiles. She has succeeded she thinks, since you think the threat is something other than her. She walks away satisfied that she has placed you in a firmly subjective and maddening world. Everyone ignores your warnings because they know the threat is not to them, and they don't care if you're in danger of dying, they're not going to "sweat it." You are basically surrounded by sociopaths. When you hear the booming voice, you run to the top of the building, which is the most dangerous place for you to be if the building were actually burning. You look to your cats to console you in this subjective and maddening world you inhabit. I'm really sorry, that is a horrible dream and signals you have been at a horrible place before in your life, and no one gave a damn about it. I've had many similar dreams, one constant for me is deep, deep isolation. I will be alone, with my mother, and there is no one around to save me. I also had another where I was with a friend, we were both talking to this girl and I noticed he was trying to humiliate me in front of her, I looked to the sky and saw a gigantic tornado in a deep red sunset which blanketed the entire sky. I didn't feel anger in the dream, but I realized when I woke up this red tornado sky signaled a deep rage I was suppressing in the situation, which made sense considering my experiences being around this so-called "friend." Edit: I missed this part "Everyone begins to exit," so people were rushing out the door and you were going upstairs? Hm... Have you thought of calling in to the show? It would be interesting since Stef is pretty good at these..

Okay, thanks for making that more clear, I wasn't sure what you meant. I think both dsayers and I are trying to bring focus to the fact that her communication is becoming further and further punished (and ignoring someone is severely punishing), so she is trying to disassociate from her experience because she is terrified of what happens when she is direct. This means she is being severely isolated and neglected, which is a horrifying experience for a child. Just imagine knowing that you need your parents to survive, but your perception of reality is that parents can't see or hear you, like you are some kind of ghost. There could really be no more terrifying experience, and a two year old will completely break in half under the pressure of trying to manage that reality. Two year old children usually have a small vocabulary and can express fear, angst, and sadness directly if they are encouraged and modeled to, but if they are pulling their hair out instead it suggest severe and contemptible neglect which is forcing the child to disassociate. She is pulling her hair out when she is alone in bed, right? When the parents aren't even in the same room? That is what I'm talking about. She is communicating her reality, which is that she knows she must keep her genuine emotions to herself not to be punished, and this burden is slowly crushing and driving her mad. She is trying to tell anyone who can see her that she is in danger.

Oh, it's a movement alright. Plenty of people here are taking steps to raise their children peacefully, and speak uncomfortable truths to those around them. The show is reaching millions with information that before did not even exist, much less was it able to be communicated on such a large scale without censorship. The thing is, we here are not creating change for a revolution. Have you looked at revolutions of past? None have created sustainable change. Slavery of the past was never ended revolution, and our modern slavery will not end by revolution. Revolutions are for changing the masters, not ending slavery. It is to give new people, the people calling for revolution, the chance to grasp the ring of power. It is a powerful high to hold it, but that is all it is without and underlying evolution of the morality of the species. To end slavery, you need generations of people who are willing to sacrifice and speak moral truth until it no longer will be possible for people to be in doubt about their chains. We're creating change for an evolution, and that by definition will require ingenuity, not a succumbing to failed "solutions" of the past.

Are you saying that, for a child to be considered abused, they have to be actually able to state in sophisticated verbal fluidity that they are being abused? Children don't know what abuse is, they only know their experience, and if they are not safe or able to express their experience with words, they will express themselves otherwise. She is pulling her hair out, which foregoing the possibility of a brain tumor, means her experience is unlivable to the extent that she is trying to disassociate from it. Dsayers is correct that this is communication, but it is the kind of communicate that suggests she feels completely helpless to get through to anyone around her. They are pretending they don't see her trauma and are isolating her, and it is becoming increasingly horrifying and worrisome for her. That is why she is pulling her hair out. That is fine, Baylor, at least we are getting to the reality of this topic now. I appreciate you brought it up at all actually, rather than make an abstract post without this very real example. Hopefully we can figure out together as a forum what the best thing to do about this situation is.