Matthew Ed Moran

I would say that is not an argument. I would also point out that cheating is only profitable over the long term if your are part of the government (or are protected by the government), because the cheating will be called "justice," "necessary for order" or "national sovereignty" within the territory that the government has claimed. Cheating is profitable within the government, but that is reason to abolish government. To say something is the "final consequent" is not an argument, and neither is it to say something is "the optimal game strategy " If anything, it sounds like a sly way of claiming that government will always exist without actually providing any arguments or evidence. This is called an argument from ignorance, which is used to shift the burden of proof. To quote wiki "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)"

Ultimately you did listen, and I think your future kids will be glad you did. I'm really sorry about the relationship and how confusing it was. In the video you seem to be holding back a lot of pain. I hope you are finding healthy ways to express your pain now that you are free from this "relationship." I really think you deserve it. You do a lot of good for the community and I appreciate that. You don't owe me an apology.

It is not up to her whether taxation is immoral. It doesn't matter whether she wants to apply morality to taxation or not. Considering taxation is a gigantic issue in society, the fact that she is not willing to apply morality to it is cowardly. You can't make people see what they are unwilling to look at. Right here, she's being quite clear she is not willing to look at the evil of taxation. She admits NAP is valid, but she doesn't agree with it? Hold on for a second, let me pick up my jaw from the ground.......... So I guess she is so vain to think she can pick and chose when something is immoral or not based on her personal taste. And this of course gives no respect to you, because she is saying your methodology is valid, but she is going to disagree with you anyway. This woman sounds like a complete nut-job. I am now really curious what you found attractive in her... I personally am less concerned whether you are a coward or not, but whether you think being around someone who is so erasing of you and who is so quick to disregard whether she may be supporting evil or not, based on her personal vanity to pretend she can decide what is true or false. How could you ever count on her to treat you ethically, and admit fault, when she thinks she is the sole dictator of what is right or wrong, and that she could and has shown she is willing to disregard the truth based on her personal whim! NAP is valid... but I disagree with it.. what does that confess other than incredible vanity and emotional immaturity?! Maybe this comes from her own mother, or her childhood in general, so hopefully she can gain some clarity on the difference between reality and her opinion in therapy.

Yea, sure. And just to be clear, sometimes it doesn't matter how good your arguments are. I used to bring up NAP with a friend, and no matter how clear I would make it to him that government was the initiation of force, he was not going to let this affect his moral sensibilities. He would just reason backwards to always try and justify government ad hoc, despite the fact that I showed him how it is defined as the initiation of force. Sometimes he would lead me on and agree with my points to an extent, and I'd think he was really getting it, but he never changed his position and to any degree I thought he was starting to "get it," he would come back a day later with insulting arguments and defensiveness. In fact he told me that I will never convince him, no matter what (had a few people say this to me, which I think is like the finger in the ears response to my arguments) So I think if you're being reasonably clear, which it seems like you have been, and she just doesn't care about initiating force. Like she will make some excuse for doing it no matter what, then that is pretty.. abominable.. and I wouldn't want you or your kids to be around someone like that. it would be really dangerous to become intimately involved with someone who will make excuses to initiate force against you. Best of luck and keep us posted!

Utopian, what is your experience with therapists? Why was it not helpful for you? It does not sound like a pleasant or emotionally close experience at all if you say they have only ever taken time and money from you. I'm sorry about that. How did they treat you that you felt this way about therapy?

Well, for what my opinion is worth, I think the fact that she is intelligent and is somewhat connected to her childhood, is in therapy, are all good things (actually being intelligent is not necessarily good, but it can help you hold her to the highest standard possible when discussing NAP and other subjects). don't understand what you mean when you say she believes, "given her childhood experiences," that the gov't can save abused children. Why would a matter of fact, such as it is, be dependent on what she experienced as a child? The fact that you mentioned her position in this way gives me the suspicion that you believe her to be emotionally attached to the idea that the government could do this, rather than thinking rationally and evidence based. If the government can save abused children, why is it currently separating families with the war on drugs, funding single mother homes with welfare, destroying the incentives of marital bonds with alimony, funding psychiatrists and prescription based zombie pills to make abused children disappear, funding and forcing children into prison environments, where they are subject to abuse, manipulation and indoctrination; I could go on and on. If the government could be moral, why isn't it being moral? Why is it being the exact opposite of morality? And does the fact that it is currently the largest source of evil in society have any bearing on whether it is sane to think it can be a source of virtue in society? And if it could, would it have to be based on a bloody, murder based effort from the top down to make people good, or will it come as the result of an intellectual and moral revolution that will come as a result of good people speaking up and refusing to submit to an immoral society? I think if you really prepared an argument like this (not that it would be easy to confront her like this), you could get to the heart of the matter pretty quickly. Is the open to hearing more, is there any hesitation she has to reconsider her positions, or is she going to immediately know JUST what to say, implying she is already certain, and therefore emotionally attached to the idea that by the magic of voting the most murder and theft based institution in society can be made to promote virtue. Who said she is immoral? Why would she bring that into the equation, as if whether she is moral or immoral has any bearing on what morality is philosophically? It sounds like she is being manipulative rather than curious in this regard, but I wasn't there so I will defer to you. Do you think she was trying to manipulate you into accepting false philosophies, because it would be less personally tumultuous for her to? What were the details surrounding this statement of hers? I think this is a lot less about whether you can "be" with someone who holds different moral values than you. To me, that is a complete cop-out and totally not intimate. It is acting as if philosophy is just some personal taste, as if there isn't a true answer (or a more true answer) than can be decided mutually, lovingly, with respect to one another's capacity to reason and maturity to accept the truth, even when it is not pleasant emotionally. If you have given her the strongest arguments possible, and she does not understand or has not been open about why she finds your position emotionally difficult for her to process (which of course would be very honest, vulnerable, and would show trust in you to help her understand the logic while being empathetic of the hurt it may be causing her), then I think you are being a bit manipulative and controlling by acting as if there is something she is not understanding, or has a bias that she'd be willing to share but is completely unaware of, and I don't think it would be honest with yourself to presume so. There could very well be information I'm missing out on on misinterpreting, so please refer to your information and experience of your time with her. But I wanted to provide this possibility if it is even remotely possible, because to enter into a serious relationship with a woman who is withholding her emotional experience from you when it is difficult for her is a very dangerous situation to get into. Last thing with regard to this girl, your therapist, and women in general. I think a really good test of the empathy and caliber of a woman is to bring up issues of females lacking responsibility (like single motherhood) or male disposability. I don't know about you, but any woman who is unwilling to come to understand the struggles men face in society, as children and adults, and the extent to which women are on the feasting end of this disposability, is not a woman I'd want to touch with a ten foot pole. That doesn't mean you need to be confrontational at all, because that does not show the vulnerability required for a relationship to succeed, but that ultimately, you need to be honest about your thoughts and emotions, and you cannot afford a woman who will erase your honesty for her comfort or for the comfort of other women in society. Or at least I can't afford that! I don't think you can either

I think there is a lot worse aggression that goes on government roads without prosecution, such as tailgating, dangerous lane switches, and right-lane speeding. I think the horn has defensive uses; like if someone is switching lanes and they don't see me, I can let them know I'm there. But it can be also used in road rage, which is clearly aggressive, and could even be the initiation of force if it puts you in danger. If it just pisses you off, I don't think you can say they're initiating force. Think if you're at a venue and some idiot calls you a name, compared to him repeatedly calling you names, following you around, and pushing his body very near yours - the former is a bitch, the latter is aggressive. Series of actions equivalent to the latter happen on the road all the time, and it is clearly aggressive. Of course I don't see any consistent prosecution of aggressive acts on the road. I see cops parked in random places, stalking at night to get some chump who is going 15 over the speed limit without another car in sight. When the roads are packed and the mayhem is most visible, I see like one or two cops per hundred cars, and for them to stop a single person takes about 30 minutes (at least in my experience cops sit idle for about 20 minutes in the process of giving me a ticket; they're really in no hurry to get back and keep the roads safe). So the problem is really the state and how it is neglecting and often times contributing to the real danger going on the roads, while they pick from one of maybe 100 or 1000 traffic violations they see daily to prosecute. And who does the restitution go to? Not the other endangered drivers, but the state! And the supposedly endangered drivers who are being protected from one of maybe 1000 traffic violations* a day have to pay for this whole purposefully lazy and retarded process that can last months before anything is done about the violation; in the mean time the perpetrator is freely driving and endangering others. Then he pays some fine to the state, and is back at it again soon, only he is more careful this time to be weary of the one or two times he'll see a cop a day, and he'll make sure to follow every law for that 20 or 30 second stretch - after all the chances of him being pulled over even if he is violating a law in front of a cop is slim. So the state is completely criminal, refusing to stop danger on the roads while contributing to it, and preying on and profiting from the victims. Pure evil. *(if the state is going to call them all violations, I'm going to assume it's because they're dangerous, but of course that is not the case. Still, many dangerous acts happen on the road daily and no consistent action is taken against it)

Omg that last link is terrifying... What a neutered man...

No, I mean the source was cited at that point in the debate verbally. It's.. Historical Statistics of the World Economy by Angus Madison, 2008.

He cites the reduction in climate deaths in his debate with Bill Mckibben, I believe at the start of his second round. I don't know the source of the first number, but I thought it might be in his book so that's why I mentioned it. BTW Professional Teabagger is exactly right. A particularly good source is Stefan's interview with Patrick Moore.

"It would be better for all species on the planet, and cheaper for us, if we reduced C02 emissions now" I found the video entertaining. I liked the back and forth format. I don't have counter-information to the points, but I am going to research the topic a bit more tonight because I'm interested. However, I don't understand how his last claim, which is clearly the most important claim, can just be tacked on to the end of the video without a strong argument as to why we should reduce C02 emissions. The overwhelming trend is that the increased use of fossil fuels and the increased emissions in C02 have correlated with an decrease in climate deaths that is unparalleled before they were introduced. So why would we assume to stop or reduce using that which has been the most successful in reducing climate deaths in the history of humanity? Edit: Some stats from Alex Epstein, who wrote the book Why You Should Love Fossil Fuels - From 1870-1940, climate temp. has increased by about half a degree: from 1940 to present, climate temp. increased by half a degree despite use of fossil fuels - Since 1920s, climate deaths have decreased by 98%

Before you ponder what this means for the children, might you ponder what this means for you? She is willing to have you thrown in a cage for withholding money for services you don't think are valuable. Isn't that an assault on your dignity as a human being? Are you sure you have made the case for her clearly enough for her to understand what she is advocating when she says she supports a state? Has she been so literal as to say she wouldn't mind you being thrown in a cage for disagreeing with her on what you should pay for? If so, that sounds like a serious red flag. Especially since women are the direct beneficiaries of the state in relationships, in that they use the state to extort their ex-partners for cold, hard cash. Remember, these things aren't always so abstract for people, or else they would give up their positions a lot easier.

yes, I agree that addiction is never fully the problem in itself, but a symptom of an underlying problem that is being "medicated." However, I do think ultimately that to self-medicate is to take a short term strategy to relieve the symptoms of an underlying issue, rather than to deal with the contents of the issue itself. If there is not a reason you must continue your addiction, except to relieve a psychological problem, then I think it is best to deal with the underlying source of addiction, than to continually relieve the symptoms. There may be a period of time in which you relieve the symptoms unconsciously, but as you become more conscious of what you are doing, I think the impetus to stop pain relief and deal with the source of the hurt increases, especially if you're ingesting your self medication in toxic ways (I was smoking blunts, but looking back I'd wish to have used edibles/vaporizers as often as I could instead).

Hey, welcome! No worries for the rant, I definitely enjoyed reading your post. That interesting. I used to play a lot of video games on pot - halo specifically - and I was convinced that I was a better player when I was high. But the truth was I was a more consistently good player when I was not smoking - I could play well for hours on end if I wanted to, and yes I was more aware of the correct moves I was making as well as my mistakes. But the appeal of smoking, I think, was that when I was lonely or upset about the empty days I'd have, where each day was a replication of the next and equally as empty, I could tune out and play video games. The thing about pot was, the more I used it, the less I enjoyed the time I was high. But once I had smoked, I felt like I was literally incapable of doing anything for an extended period of time besides playing video games. So I'd play, get bored after a few games, but I felt so autistic and anxious that I could do nothing else but force myself to keep playing - or else face the depression that was underlying. This lead to me getting more and more frustrated, angry, and even feeling hateful towards myself for putting myself in these situations. For the last year of smoking, it felt more like a punishment I was inflicting upon myself than anything else. And the more I realized this, the more I would get angry at myself for forcing myself to smoke and endure the bad consequences that I knew were to follow after the high faded. Of course, without weed comes emotional reality of loneliness, and the presence of other difficult emotions, but overall I feel much more capable of handling them without weed. They contain very important information for me, so I'm also appreciative that they're there. In fact, they are the basis for my motivation to heal and become productive, so without them I would truly be irreparable. I definitely agree with concentration lasting longer without weed. Weed can produce the appearance of passion, but it is all the more painful when the low comes after the high, because it really reveals (at least to me) that the passion was not authentic or sustainable or spontaneous, it was just an external source of temporary disillusionment. It is enjoyable to lose yourself in the moment, but in the end we all come back to reality. And if reality needs your attention, it will make itself present no matter how many chemicals you put in your head - unless you're willing to go down a path you can't return from. To answer your question, I was without weed for a year not by choice, but by practical circumstance. I still would even be so desperate as to hope to magically find a bag of weed on the ground while walking my dog - talk about wishful thinking! I was planning to buy lots of weed when I got a job, and it was a large part of the motivation for me to find work. It is amazing to me now how insistent I was on smoking without focusing on what I was trying to escape from and whether it would do me well over the course of time.

I think the context in which you feel this urge is important. I was bullied once for a few days in a row by someone I considered a close friend. This was some of the most significant bullying I remember having to experience from a peer in my post-adolescent youth. I think I was a young teen. We were playing basketball, four of us, and my teammate was criticizing me with a tone of anger and frustration while we were playing. I felt anxious, shameful, and humiliated in response to how he chose to criticize me. It was very hard to play well with these emotions. We lost and my friend threw the ball at me multiple times really hard. He would wind up, until his hand was behind his head. He then went on a verbal tirade, mocking me, showing his disgust towards me, and he would not stop. I endured it for maybe 5 or 10 minutes, which actually felt like an eternity, because mostly no one was speaking beside him. He was calling me insults and mocking me in ways I found incredibly offensive and humiliating. I did not say anything back, as I stood in a single place for the duration. I did not feel like he was going to stop, so I left with my head down while he continued to verbally accost me for leaving. This "friend" was Muslim and had a very large father - over 6 feet tall - who criticized him when he was a youth playing basketball. My "friend" was very skilled at sports but his father showed (this is what I infer from when he briefly mentioned this) no praise. Apparently he only criticized, no matter how well his son did. From the phrasing my friend used, it was apparent to me that it was inflammatory and degrading criticism; the kind used to cause hurt. I think bullying in my friend's case was a spontaneous reaction to the fact that his father was in his head, "sitting on the bench," criticizing him. He knew the consequences of losing, and so besides managing his own play, he felt it necessary to manage the play of his teammates. Because even if he performed well, but his teammates did not, he would lose and this would be a source of vulnerability for him to present to his father. As a timid and anxious child who did not defend himself, I was a perfect victim for him to unleash his vitriol upon. I was not going to fight back. And in fact, since I found it more difficult to play when being criticized, the fact that I did worse in response to his criticism levied him a challenge; a battle between his inner father and his conscience. Was he going to sympathize with me playing worse in response to criticism, which would reveal his inner-father as abusive and sadistic and counter-productive? Or was he going to up the ante (so to speak)? What I mean to point out is, I was a reflection of what his father was doing to him, but it was a particularly painful reflection because I was downtrodden, anxious, confused, and humiliated. He could not accept that his father did this to him and so he unleashed his rage upon me. The rage was was all the more intense and brutal for him, because he had to say with his actions that he does not accept the plight of the victim, and that he will destroy the image of the victim; because to him, to recognize the victim would be quick death to the compliance he needed to show his father to survive his childhood. He left consciousness in his rage, and he entered his past to avoid seeing the present reality right before him. To summarize, I think to ask yourself what service the bullying provides to you might be helpful. Ask yourself what it would mean to remain present and conscious of the situation, rather than to enter hatred and rage. Notice your environment, the moments that lead up to you entering this state of mind, and exactly what you are witnessing when you feel triggered. Ask yourself what metaphor is right in front of you that is triggering you, and what you are trying to escape or avoid, crush and erase, by entering your rage and hatred. Look for constancy in the themes and see if you can relate them to understand why it was necessary for you to develop this tactic in your childhood. Daniel Mackler and others make the argument that our unprocessed trauma is triggered when we unconsciously witness metaphors or reflections of our childhood trauma, and that by unpacking these metaphors, we can understand our spontaneous emotional reactions more acutely and process what our unconscious is trying to tell us.

Was it Daniel Mackler by any chance?

Great post. I like the phrase "submitting" better than sacrificing in the last sense which you used it. You are submitting to the fact that you made choices in the past which obligate you into the future. I don't think you continue "paying" for your choices in the past, because what has be done cannot be undone whether you chose to "pay" or not. It is just that you will feel worse if you go out with your friends, or buy a bigger house, at the spite of fulfilling your moral obligations to your child. It is still not a sacrifice to do the right thing, because the alternatives are worse. Instead, it is for your own benefit that you do the right thing. If you didn't, then you'd be sacrificing your children for the sake of material pleasures, which I think is a worse sacrifice of the self that would be difficult if not impossible to reverse if done for long enough.

I don't know what you mean. I was suggesting you have as many kids as possible as one way to create an impact on the future. There is a post where other skilled members are brainstorming about possible ventures, I think it is called "Where are all the successful FDR members?" but for some reason I can't find it. If I do I'll edit the link into my post. Also, what about crypto-currencies? They have the possibility to severely limit state power and virtually end war if they were to replace fiat currency. Stef has many vids making the case for their importance, check them out if you're interested. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45456-where-are-all-the-successfull-fdr-listeners/

Are you planning to have kids? How many?

In regards to your mom, there is a difference between actually being a protector, and being someone who cleans up a mess they created. What you wrote is some seriously treacherous and heart-breaking stuff. Your mom is not innocent and you would not had to endure such a catastrophic event if your mom was even close to an adult with empathy or compassion for her children. What I have read in this thread is the infliction of evil upon 3 children who will never be able to forget this, who will never be able to live as if this didn't happen. I am sorry you had to go through this and I hope you are safe. It was difficult to read, and from being in situations of abuse myself, I know it was infinitely more difficult to endure. I am sorry for your experiences and I hope you are able to reach some resolve with your mother when you are financially independent and feel safe to do so. Good luck you have my best wishes for being so brave in this situation

Kevin, you made really great points here that I didn't consider when writing my post. I think I could have been more empathetic in this thread towards the goals of the single mothers on this board in sharing their unique experiences and how they handle the significant difficulty of raising a child as a single parent. I agree it would be a shame, Mothra, if you found my post intimidating, so I wanted to express an apology for not being more curious to your goals with regards to creating an acronym, but just as importantly, towards the other goals Kevin mentioned that this thread could be useful for. I am certainly not a single mom, but I have been raised around many. I think I carried over the distaste from my general experiences to this thread (but also acknowledging that there is significant importance to talking about single moms generally), and I want to make sure that I do not personalize your posts, which is certainly possible. I think I could also have been more empathetic towards myself, as I think it would be a great experience to read about the single moms on this board. I hope you understand the point in my first post, but I also want to be honest that I could have been a more empathetic communicator and listener, and that if my post was written in a way which was intimidating, I am sorry for that and would like to be honest that any personalization I have towards this topic is not a result of you or a reflection of your particular character, but from my personal experiences with trauma from single mothers and how society at large handles it.

The point of talking about single mothers generally is to combat the notion that is commonplace in society that they are victims, often portrayed as righteous and heroic, for procreating irresponsibly and raising their children in environments which produce anti-social behavior, violence, addiction, betrayal, and even more single mothers at a rate unparalleled by others who chose to procreate more responsibly. It is to give children raised in single mother homes the dignity to know who made the mistakes that ended without there being a consistently present father in their childhood, and all the detriment and heartbreak that causes. And it is to recognize men and more responsible procreating members of society as a whole are at the point of a gun to support the irresponsible sexual practices of single mothers, who are becoming a larger and larger invisible parasite on society. All single moms are "like that" in that they made a significant mistake about who to procreate with. Some take ownership for their mistakes Im sure, but most do not take responsibility and pretend they are victims of unforeseeable circumstance, and they get a pass by society for it. To create a new acronym that says "Hey Im not a completely shitty person who takes no accountability for my actions" kinda contradicts the point of talking about the general reality of single mothers in the first place. If you don't fit every category, or even many, that single mothers fall into, then at least recognize when we're talking about the damage single mothers are having on society we may not necessarily be talking about you. I think the fact that you are on this site alone is significant proof you do not fit the category of the general single mother - I don't need an acronym to figure this out, and creating one would come at the cost of diluting the important message about the general reality of single mothers that the statistical picture paints, which society as a whole is unaware of or unable to talk about honestly at the present moment. I don't know how serious you were about the acronym idea, but I thought it was worth it to be a reminder of why it is important to talk about single mothers generally, and why this doesn't necessarily mean all single mothers fit the generalization.

Thank you, this books sounds very interesting.

If you're not making an argument, and you're telling people what they should do, you're removing credibility from your statements even if they end up being true.

truth is relative to falsehood: does anything else need to be said? (not being facetious, let me know if there is something in this thread that expands on this idea without contradicting it) Edit: I have now read the OP. I think this issue is explained better without reference to some new term, "coherence theory," but simply by refining our understanding of validity, truth, and falsehood. A valid theory is that which is consistent internally. A "truth" is that which is consistent internally and with objectively observable events. A valid theory could be true in some cases and not true in others, but it will always be valid. I don't understand the importance of the physics analogy (though that could be my fault) but I did think it was interesting. They essentially to me sound like two ways of describing space, to yield different types of predictions. They can make different predictions correctly, and that is the sense which they are true. When physics experiments are done in a lab, the results they get are true for the very conditions in which they were proven true - remember, truth in the hard sciences are just a collection of verified and reproducible data, interpreted by a valid theory; which is then used to predict the outcome of future events. The extent to which it can reliably predict future events is the sense in which a theory is robust, but it is only true for the particular predictions that have been verified, which exist as historical data subject to future verification. For bodies of theories like relative and Newtonian physics, the amount of verified predictions that have occurred over the decades and centuries since their founding, in technology, flight, etc ad nauseam provides a proof of concept of these theories for the types of predictions they can be used to make - and from this fact we gloriously have verified some fundamental physical principles. I believe Ludwig Von Mises "Theory and History" breaks this down even further, but I am only half-sure what I just described coincides with his taxonomy since I haven't actually read the book. Let me know if I made sense.