Matthew Ed Moran

Sorry if this isn't completely on topic, but I witnessed something I thought was really cruel by a neighbor yesterday. A mom, dad, brother and sister were outside playing baseball. They live a few houses down from me. The brother was playing catcher, he was probably around 5 years old. Once they threw the ball at him and he missed the catch, and so the ball was rolling near the drain. I can't remember who initiated (I think it was the mom), but when he did this, they all took turns shaming him. The mother started raising her voice at him, then the sister said he was a bad catcher, and then the dad tacked it off with something like a disappointed "c'mon, Brian." The brother didn't even say anything, I get the feeling he was far too young and vulnerable to be able to say anything back to them, and this is probably something he is used to. It was tragic to witness how normal this seemed to him. My question is why would his parents do this? It was a Saturday and they were all playing baseball on the front yard; it seemed like a setting that should be care-free and enjoyable. Why would they all take turns criticizing a young boy for being unable to catch a ball? This seems sadistic and evil to me. If this is too off-topic, I can move the post - I just thought I'd bring it up since you guys were trying to understand the father in the video's motivations for how he was treating his child. Thanks for reading. Also, is there anything I can do about this?

That's great, Sasha! Just skimming it over it looks pretty good to me. I wonder if this guy is influenced by Stef at all.

Just commenting on the first callers: If you re-listen you will notice she actually claims she had 15-20 sexual partners over ten years. She did sound like she was uncomfortable sharing personal information to me. She didn't sound very confident or clear about the questions she was answering. After Stef asked one question she even said "woah" before going on to answer it. I'm not sure exactly what "woah" means, but it does seem like a hesitation to be honest and open. I thought it was odd because she specifically made her issue with the Truth About Sex presentation about her personal history, but then seemed reluctant to share details. I do empathize with the vulnerability it requires on her part, but I'm not sure I sympathize with her reluctance. To be honest, her thoughts seemed like a bit of a mess to me. If it was not about the facts in the first place, but how the facts hit her emotionally, you'd think that would have been brought up at the forefront. But their issue was phrased as if it was about the facts, or the interpretation of the facts. Stef shot that down pretty quickly, and then they seemed to change what their issue was. Maybe they were totally clueless before going in what their issue actually was, but it seemed dishonest to me how they initially phrased their question. I also was confused and a a bit personally offended when they were talking about the male caller's mom while laughing about her relationship with cats or something. I was confused exactly what was funny, and why he said his mom was "amazing." Really confusing to me. But as someone who was raised by a similarly dysfunctional mom, I felt angry when they took the tone they did. His childhood seems to be very tragic, but I didn't hear sadness or anger or anything like that - instead I heard laughs from him and his girlfriend. Kinda pissed me off. But like I said it was confusing to me, so perhaps I didn't understand what they were laughing about. From how they talked about their parents and their justification for not wanting children, I formed the impression that they were pretty lacking in self-knowledge. But kudos to them for at least accepting a lot of Stef's points - they could have been defensive and less open to counter-criticism. I remember her saying Stef had a point when he tore apart their justifications for not wanting children, so I think that is courageous. But overall I think they were a bit audacious to call in as critics. I think it would have been more interesting as a personal call, maybe to discuss the female caller's history with religion, rather than a discussion of whether Stef had the facts right. Seemed a bit disingenuous to phrase their issue as they did. Thanks for your thoughts and the post! You mentioning this call gave me something to listen to last night before going to bed

If they were mistreated in infancy, it might make sense that they would empathize with animals but not people. It would probably be very costly and painful for them to empathize with their own experience of infancy. So maybe they are projecting their feelings for their inner-infant/child onto animals, because it is relatively easy to empathize with animals, and they also fit the category of an infant to some degree (depending on the animal) in terms of dependence, lack of a mind, and innocence. So maybe they are getting some ease from empathizing with animals compared to empathizing with their inner-infant/child. I use both terms infant and child because you say they go so far as to even consider a human infant relatively valueless to animals, which may suggest severe mistreatment in infancy, which I think is the most damaging and difficult to process (and morally reprehensible, imo).

Are you sucking my.. nipples?! Great video. I mean I loved it. Probably the best propaganda piece I've seen in favor of anarchy. But I definitely agree the outtakes should be in a separate video because of the excessive cursing.

"However as humans we know for example that if I push the break all the way down in my car on a freeway we know what could happen. I could get hit by the car behind me or there could be no car and nothing would happen. This situation doesn´t exist yet, am I then nonsensical because i see the possible outcome?" No, but this is different. The person in the car behind you exists. When you are contemplating having children, they don't exist yet. You can't ask something which doesn't exist whether it wants to be created. Now I think that it is the job of the parent to have rational standards based on the wisdom and understanding of where happiness comes from in life to provide all the necessary things for that baby to become happy. But I don't think I needed a perfect world to be a happy child, and I don't think I need one to be happy as an adult. I think I just needed two parents who loved me, and I would be more than thankful enough to be here, with a strong foundation, fighting for justice in the world. If it really is an issue for an adult child, and they are upset that, even though they were loved and raised well, that they were brought into a world with a lot of evil in it, then that is something they would do well to discuss with their parents. I imagine it actually would be upsetting. The fact that the world is the way it is is upsetting. But would the adult child feel they have been morally wronged by being brought into the world as it is, despite the fact that their parents raised them with love and care and were great examples of virtue? I don't think so. And I don't think it is immoral to do so. It is not a violation of the NAP or a form of psychological coercion in any sense I can think of. However it is a little more complicated when your childhood sucks. Mine sucked, but still I am still so glad I am alive and here living to see such an interesting time (I consider it great luck - what better time to be born?), and have the opportunity to live virtuously enough to make an example for others. Sure, there are sometimes and have been more in my past where I really did feel in the moment that I didn't want to exist - but I never took that feeling to it's logical extreme. I am very glad I didn't because I know I would have regretted it. Now, your childhood may have sucked more than mine. I get the sense that it was bad regardless. And I really am so sorry for that. But as someone who still deals with feelings of nihilism occasionally, and who still sometimes feels like they wish they didn't exist, I would say my perception is that when I am feeling that way it is actually my unexpressed inner child who was trapped in a hell house (single mother here too) for so long, who was hopeless and could not do anything about his situation and so wishes he weren't there at all. Unfortunately those feelings went on for a long time into my teens and now into my 20s before I found FDR and have been helped to realize that adulthood and free will fundamentally change the reality of my situation. Now I am not dependent and have the means to find happiness through virtue and doing things I enjoy in life. Life I now understand is an opportunity, my decisions influence where I will go, and I can have a conception of the future to plan ahead and aim to accrue a wealth of experiences, joys and pains, challenges and pleasures, knowing that I am for the most part the maker of my own destiny and my own emotional reality. I say for the most part because of course childhood trauma is and I assume for at least a very long time will be a defining part of me, and to the extent people have had even worse childhoods that may be even more true. But generally I am glad I exist and was created, even despite all the wrong that was done to me. I think, given my perception of my own capacity for free will, if did not want to live at this age and wanted to take my own life, I could not say my childhood or my parents were responsible for that. Sure, those things are influences. But as bad as my childhood was, I still see clear evidence I have the power to surmount the feelings of my childhood and replace them, work towards, experiencing more enjoyable feelings. But sorry both to you Andre and as well as to you Darkman. Darkman, your childhood sounded really awful and I'm sorry for that. And andre, you said you relate to it, so I'm sorry for that, too.

I would challenge one of your premises. You say it is not the child's wish to be born. Sure. But that doesn't mean we are doing something against the child's wish. The child is not born yet. It does not have preferences or rights; it is not even existent until you create it, and thus the idea that you'd align your actions with the preferences of something which doesn't exist is nonsensical. You say that perhaps it is a selfish act to have children. Perhaps people expect to get joy or happiness from having a child. I would say this is probably 100% the case a lot of the time. But this doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral. If I create a child wanting to use it and abuse it for sadistic purposes, that is immoral and selfish. If I want to create a child because I expect to enjoy parenting and raising a child with love and virtue, then this is selfish, but not immoral. It is true that society and culture can be very ugly and immoral. We should take accountability for bringing our children into such a world, letting them know with compassion and empathy about the ugly things in the world when they are of age, and sharing with them all our advice of how to stay healthy morally, physically, and mentally. This is a life-long process and commitment to our children, but ultimately I think a strong bond built on honesty, trust, empathy, and compassion will be worth more to the child then the state of the world will depress them. Sure, we are responsible for bringing a child into the world, and we are most responsible for what they are exposed to in their early years, but this does not mean we have to bear the burden of so many other immoral people who have chosen to be immoral.

I am having mixed feelings about this art. I think one thing I really don't like is how little variability there is between the pictures. One thing that seems completely absent from most of the pictures is a sense of free will, or a sense that the subjects in the pictures can escape or reject the situations they are depicted in, or a depiction of a figure who stands in contrast to all the ugliness. Just a few examples: The "slave" girlfriend is tied up in chains. But we know that in relationships they are no chains - they are voluntary. But to the extent people ignore this, the more it will seem like there are chains. So I don't like the message this sends (or at least what I think the message is). The guy being censured has a guillotine strapped to his hand. There is no sense that he can get around the censure, or fight back against it with his ingenuity as a communicator. The girl is being fed cash and having her cheeks pulled apart... from the depiction, you get the sense she is being coerced.. But we know that porno people sign up for it voluntarily. The young boy is controlled by the girl's sex appeal, but what about when he is an adult and can reject big tits in favor of virtue? What about the young boys who don't have shitty supports systems, and therefore aren't experimenting with sex at such a young age? So I don't like the message I think this would send to people who are susceptible to becoming trapped in an ugly life. It is not showing them that there is another way. And if there is anything I've learned from this site, it's that we have free will and that there is always another way (to dealing with child hood trauma, which I think is the underlying cause of most of the things the depictions represent in out society). I find it dis-empowering, like the author is only trying to highlight the tragedy, ugliness, and double-think of American culture, but is leaving out the choices these people are making, and thus is trying to strip others their ability to conceive of going another route. I get a sense of hopelessness seeing the same ugliness recurrent in every picture. Maybe I am way off but that is my impression. Thanks for sharing! Edit: But also, as someone who is well attuned to the ugliness of our culture, maybe I am ignoring the effect this may have on people who have normalized a lot of the culture they are surrounded by. Perhaps it serves a more enlightening message to them.. But then again, if we don't show the contrast the the ugliness in culture, and we are made to think it is static and will always be shit, I don't blame some people for ignoring it.. If the "truth" was that the world is shit and there is nothing I can do to change it, then finding solace in illusion actually would seem like the best thing once could do in that situation.

No, none of them are socialist. If they were truly socialist they'd have constant shortages and excesses and a general discombobulation of every industry with massive inefficiencies crushing the standard of living. Of the countries that were listed top 5, I bet most have freer capital markets and lower corporate taxes than the USA. And in general, all the wealth they do enjoy is only because of the free market. But I think generally the United States is still far better in terms of producing material wealth than these tiny, ethnically homogeneous countries. Compare the USA to the EU and then tell me how socialism works. I visited Denmark and disposable income is way less useful there, and you have less of it. If they're happy, it's not because their economic system provides them opportunities better than a free market would. They've just learned to be happy with less and become good little collectivist tax cattle. Also public transportation is a bit better when you are on a rail with people who basically look talk and act like you do. There is a lot more trust in these collectivist societies, which makes the statist intrusions into everyday life more manageable.

Thanks for sharing. You are still being abstract about what your bullying was. But you gave a specific instance of hers - calling you a pussy after asking you to share your emotions. What if you had called her a pussy when she told you she had been crying about being molested? Of course, that would have been brutal. But I don't see why it should be considered any less brutal that this was done to you. So I guess I'm confused why you feel guilty and want to apologize. If she was partaking in some pretty serious emotional bullying, too, what sense does it make for you to be sorry if she's not sorry? That seems more like white-knighting or acting like your preferences not to be bullied are worth less than hers, which they definitely aren't.

This is a huge topic, man. Do you have a good therapist? If not, why not call into the show about this? Why do you think she chose you as a mate in the first place? What do you mean you didn't know what happened when she broke up with you? Do you mean you were confused why she broke up with you? Why are you using moral language if this was a consensual adult (or peer) relationship? If you did not violate the NAP, what did you do morally wrong? Maybe you have regrets, but that doesn't necessarily imply what you did was morally wrong, right? Who chose to block whom first, and why? (don't answer if you're uncomfortable) Did she effect you in any bad ways by enabling, excusing, or encouraging the ways in which you invalidated her feeling? It seems you have empathized with her feelings (or at least are attempting to and feel regret); did she do the same for your experience (if you have shared it with her)? Also, very sorry about your ACE. It's important to remember ACE scores are not comprehensive and do not necessarily reflect the trauma you experienced as a child. 4-5 and a score of 9 are both extremely poor, and it is remarkable you are both making brave changes upon realizing this.

Sorry to hear. Have you thought about calling into the show? Also, you might want to check this book out: http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/RTR/Real_Time_Relationships_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf

don't woo me like that! jk welcome to the forums!

I swear, I think the best way to counter the anti-libertarian scare arguments is humor. The whole "we hate roads and poor people" sub-title on that site is SO great. Libertarians should make this joke every time they are on TV, making speeches, or whatever. I feel like the whole libertarian movement should just be lavished with humor. All the arguments we have are great, but so dry and easy to dismiss. But if we say "like everyone says, we hate poor people! just kidding, that's silly! We just think there are betters ways to solve problems than stealing from people" I feel like we'd then become the cool kids of intelligentsia and all the people who weren't squares (new lefties and old-timer conservatives) would like us. ... not that poor people are a problem anyway.. damn control-freak lefties..

You really wrapped your passive aggression in a lot of righteous lingo there.. "I'm not your typical troll" "I'm here to provoke thought - that's what I do" "There is often an elaborate message behind my terse statements" "I am a man of few words and maximum efficiency" "You have attempted to understand my cryptic message and have succeeded" I get a weird feeling from witnessing this kind of attitude. You made an assertion without any evidence that you "now know who the narcissists are." Somehow this was actually an elaborate message which you condensed for maximum efficiency which me must unravel, like you're playing games with us. If you have some wisdom to bestow upon us, or have a really good question that might make us introspect, then provide it. Why do you need for us to unravel your "cryptic message".. You think that's maximum efficiency?

I did mean mestizos. thanks for the correction.

Imagine how the people who created and maintain this site, and have provided the thousands upon thousands of hours of content you enjoy for free must feel after you basically accuse them of conspiring to make bad arguments to grow the listnership... Without even providing a shred of evidence... After they committed so much... And I hope you emailed them about this before you decided to make a public post, since you expected them to email you before moderating your posts.. And by the way, I get my posts moderated all the time, and I've only been here a few months

Awesome, man! I definitely want to pick back up on this, but I can't seem to get my points out clearly enough just yet! (backspaced away from the page after I had a long post written.. I just can't recover from it )

I'm not sure if she said anything unreasonable (depending on what the context actually was), but I do think making it a public video is wrong and humiliating.

There is no "objective evidence" in this case.. Because there is no objective standard of "how to best promote freedom." I think the call-in shows are fantastic and indispensable. They are so important to me because I can't find a replica anywhere on the web or in the world. Molyneux has 227,000 subscribers on YouTube & Tom Woods only has 25,000 (at least according to what someone said in that reddit). If that's true, then I think that would be your objective evidence he is doing a hell of a lot more to promote freedom than at least Tom Woods. And I think Tom Woods and other libertarians are great. But peaceful parenting and self-knowledge are a lot more important to me than libertarianism. Libertarians is just the conclusion of a self-knowledgeable society, in my opinion. I don't feel FDR is hitting a dry spot. It does feel like it's been a bit since a debate or an interview or a TV appearance, and I hope to see those things worked in once again soon. Since he has been diversifying his content for as long as I've been following him, I expect he will. If not, then I expect new books or some other product of his labors. But the call-ins are consistently of amazing quality, in my opinion, and I am completely satisfied and in fact feel generously gifted at the amount of amazing content Stefan and FDR produce completely for free.

Utopian, I hope I didn't sound like I was criticizing in my last post.. I know if someone were telling me I was vain, I would probably be pretty sensitive and might even self-attack, even if they weren't criticizing. And there is also the possibility that I'm wrong. But the language in your post definitely gave me that impression. What do you think? And just to be clear, I think vanity is completely morally neutral. As long as your abiding by the NAP, then it's not an issue of morality. But I do think vanity, to whatever extent it exists in an individual, is often a symptom of child abuse and mistreatment (I'm sure Stef and others have gone into more detail about this). I know when I was growing up my mom's attention was ALWAYS on me. It felt like I was being watched all the time. And when I became a teenager, I started to have that feeling in public. I would feel very self-conscious about every one of my actions. I remember I would debate with myself whether I should go into Starbucks or not because I hated waiting in lines. I felt like I didn't know how to look just standing there. But in reality, people weren't paying as much attention to me as I was imagining, and I think instead I was suffering from a bit of vanity.. And I think it was caused by my mom, the only one who WOULD say something about the way I was standing or something stupid like that. I don't think I was doing anything wrong at all by feeling that way. But I did say suffering for a reason... Vanity is quite a load to carry around.. And I'm concerned that if you think you're supposed to be saving the world in spite of hating it, you are creating a situation which will just drag you down over time and exhaust you.. And you will never get to the root emotions, and the benefits of a more humble existence. Humility can be SO relieving.. which is why I try hard to be humble! It is a much more enjoyable way of living in my opinion. And of course Stef is humble and has done incredible things. So it's not like humility is setting lower standards for yourself, or diminishing your potential. *wrote this before your most recent post appeared*

So you thought you had to lie to get input on something you were working on in your book? You know what that suggests to me? That you really think you're unworthy of other people's time. Because if you would have just been honest and said you were asking for help with your book, I bet you a million bitcoins the reception would have been positive and helpful, as it so consistently is when people are asking for input on their awesome endeavors on this forum. But instead you were dishonest, and by doing that, you made sure you weren't worthy of our time. So maybe it was the marketer in you that resorted to dishonesty. Or maybe it was the inner-child who thought he had to deceive and make a show to get other people's attention.

"Especially in today's society, if a man has emotions, he is barred from proceeding in whatever endeavor he pursues, from relationships to work." That is absolutely false. I mean, do you really believe this? You're commenting on the website of a show founded by an incredibly successful and productive man who emphasizes constantly the importance of being conscious of your emotions. "It is certainly one of my philosophical struggles that I loathe striving for a world that refuses to care about me, but if I do not work, I cant get myself ahead either." Well please excuse me if I'm wrong here, but this sounds incredibly vain. Why should the world care about you? I don't expect the world to care about me. Mostly, the world doesn't even know I exist. I'm just a number. And the vanity is sticking out like a sore thumb to me I think because I just listened to this excellent call-in today. I also sense vanity in the rest of your post. You're letting the world kill itself off? Like, in other words, it's up to you whether the world dies or not? So, yea, I'm sorry for wherever this comes from. I truly am. That's all I think there is for me to say, because I have a hard time connecting to your post, and you don't seem eager to want to begin connecting to your emotions, so I'm not sure what bits of perspective I can share or offer to you.

"but he's so run ragged these days that i don't have the heart to tell him what he said to me." Didn't he chose this life? Even if he didn't predict this outcome, isn't he ultimately responsible for how this ended up? He's not a slave, right? There is no gun to his head, right? And your mother was a bitch? And so he's dedicating his every effort towards the comfort of a bitch? And he dropped a guilt nuke on you for standing up to this bitch? Was it because he resented the fact that you didn't slave to a bitch like he did? Kinda like that old slave morality.. Fuck the people who can stand up for themselves, they should suffer like me. I wouldn't have a shred of sympathy for someone who said that to me. But that's me. But the fact that the problems him and your mom are having now were both due to decisions they made over decades of opportunities to change course makes me think they got exactly what they wanted. And if someone gets exactly what they want, what sense does it make to sympathize with them?

I don't think I can clearly determine from this ten minute video whether the "daughter is getting from the cow what she feels she lacks in everyday life" or whether the mother has a "cold heart"; nor can I determine that the mother is "loving and caring." But I did find aliasneo's observations of the mom as most similar to mine: She also said the daughter was telling a fib, and I thought what was most strange was there was no follow up to her saying that - the daughter kinda ran away from it (which I think is interesting, but not conclusive of how these things may be dealt with by her mother). So I would emphasize I don't think anything about the mother is conclusive from this video, but I definitely wouldn't call the mother loving and caring. But I also wouldn't say she had a cold heart from the tone of her voice. There is simply not enough context nor information for me to make these sweeping statements. I don't know how the girl is disciplined, I don't know if the parents are divorced, I don't know if her emotions are attended to - these things I think are much important factors towards judging the mother as caring or cold-hearted.