Matthew Ed Moran

Threat of social ostracism to a child is as severe as hitting, and its incredibly sleazy. I don't think there is any distinction between physical abuse and manipulation that threatens ostracism, since both imply sociopathic coldness to take advantage of a child's complete helplessness in the situation. It could be that your children are having difficulty staying away from these children, because if the realize the severity of what is being done to them, and the severity of what the parents are willing to do to their children, then it will be hard for them to reconcile why you would let them be in that situation in the first place. Giving kids a choice is important, but when there is a situation of abuse and manipulation, then we must protect children from that because as adults we know better. It is more difficult to change your tune on the issue afterwards, but I think that is because your children will have to accept quite a scary fact that they were around such people, and that they were not told the severity of the danger they were in. Children are made to conform, so if they knew the severity deep down, but you are not reflecting that back to them, I think they won't be capable of pointing it out on their own. Also, if your children are around these people, if they do not defend themselves from the bullying and manipulation, they will be sitting ducks. It's like the rule Stefan has with his daughter; be nice to the nice, and mean to the mean. So if your children are nice in response to the other children's meanness, then it seems either you have to teach your children how to be mean back so the other child knows what it's like, or your children cannot be around these kids else they will be prey and they will be learning to subject themselves to bullying. Sorry if that sounds kind of crazy in teaching your children to be mean, and I don't think they should have to be around people who are mean, and it sounds like it could be dangerous to have that sort of conflict, but I think the worst scenario is for them to think they deserve to be bullied, or to think that a certain amount of bullying is acceptable in a friendship. If you are assertive, but it is not changing the situation; i.e. the parents continue justifying the abuse, and the 'friends' keep up the abuse - then I think you have to point out these people for what they are for your children - mean, abusive, evil people who deserve to be treated the way they treat others. But if you're implying to the children that they can be friends with a bully, then you are sort of lying to them (not intentionally or anything). Once you make the case that a bully cannot actually be a friend, and that mean people should not be treated nicely because that is to make prey out of yourself, then at least your children will understand the situation better, and if you decide to step in and not allow them to see these children, it will have more credibility now that you've explained an error you made and apologized for it, and are stepping in to correct it. Also, if you accept manipulation from the parents you are also modelling to expose yourself to abusive people and the kids will pick up on that too. I'm really sorry about this situation, and I am so angry about these parents who chose to treat their children this way, even with your example of peaceful parenting in their face. You are very admirable with what you are doing, and I'm angry these idiots treated you with disrespect rather than learning from your fantastic example of what a great and considerate parent is.

Welfare and subsidization of single motherhood have the effect of breaking up the nuclear family. When government cheese is not available, private charity and large families tend to prosper because of the financial benefits they provide. In a single mother household, I am not sure religion has the proclivity it does in a two parent family to be passed on and ingrained into the offspring. Single mothers have poor credibility with their children and could be less successful in passing down their religion.

I've made all these excuses before, with a special emphasis on #2, and #5 in close second. #5 I have had the experience of sheer terror when I thought of therapy at some times, which in an odd way was sort of validating in that I really could benefit from understanding why I felt it. I want to have those deep emotional experiences, but for me they are fleeting because in many ways I use the #2 excuse to avoid reality, and live in imposturous absolutes - "have to go to therapy" - "have to quit smoking" - "have to exercise more" - "have to do "x" to avoid feeling regret or sadness or any genuine emotion in the present moment" is usually the form it takes for me, and if I put myself in a position where I'm incapable of feeling emotion (seeing my mom, smoking weed), then I will be so frustrated that I want to invent some dictate I can focus on instead of feeling the sadness or regret or anger from smoking or being around my mom. I find that kind of thinking in myself very deceptive and dissociating. When I let go of these absolutes, I connect more genuinely with my emotions, and in every instance where I retreat from my emotions and go back to absolutes, I feel filled with frustration and want to punish myself. It's sort of a vicious cycle, but self inflicted and so onerous to take part in, that when I have genuine emotion, I have a blanketing sense of regret, because I see on almost every occasion that any genuine emotion with a sober mind is preferable and infinitely more fulfilling than living in a land of tyranny, with the dictator of "needs." When I am sober and have a wonderful and genuine moment, it is hard not to notice how many of those I have lost out on by engaging this vicious cycle - but today I combatted this with a rational approach to try and limit my regret to focusing on the part of it which will help me and inform me of what I can do now in the present to relieve it, rather than perhaps letting it overwhelm me. (though it could be the self attack which overwhelms me after the regret, not the feeling itself.. not sure yet) I appreciate how bluntly you wrote this article. I found it challenging in the best ways.

"The dramatic fall in Christianity to me indicates how the Information Age has destroyed the credibility of Christianity by shining light on its irrationality and dogma. However, as religion has disappeared from being the dominant cultural force, the only pre-packaged, ready to assimilate, ideology around to catch the rebels has been Marxism." So people are leaving Christianity because it is irrational and dogmatic, but they are fleeing to Marxism which is equally irrational and dogmatic. I'm not sure how that doesn't contradict your thesis that it was a lack of credibility demonstrated in Christianity that led people to become atheists. At least since Christianity has been on the decline in the period you cited, the state has grown larger and more encompassing of society. I'm not sure how statism has displayed more credibility than Christianity in the past 20 years. The information age is also alongside the age of state education, Prussian in its brutality and disrespect for autonomy and self thinking, and Soviet in its willingness to drug or imprison those who do not conform.

I don't think creepy is a word used by males as much as females. I think the word basically means: "undesirable" "ugly" The thing is, ugly/creepy/undesirable women will be defended like heck if a man dare says such a thing. The ugly woman will get empathy, and the man will be called uncaring and insensitive. But switch the genders, and as if you just jumped into the matrix headfirst, calling males creepy is completely unsuspecting and normal, and the man will probably be derided for being creepy, and told to stop being creepy point blank. And maybe he should be derided, just like maybe women who are obnoxiously displeasing should be, but it seems there is another feminist double standard here (number 1.8 million and counting) in what gender is allowed to make what judgments.

NAP and property rights are two sides of the same coin. Yes, you need to be able to define aggression to apply it. It does not apply itself. Just like scientific principles don't apply themselves; you actually have to provide evidence. Of course, aggression has been defined ad infinitum by libertarians and others, and I'm guessing that is why Mike simply noted the concept of "homesteading" - it has been defined since Locke centuries ago - and what it means to use something which is un-owned, and what it means to use something which is owned by someone else without their permission. If something is un-owned, and you are the first person to make use of it, it's yours. You can trade it to someone else, but their ownership of it will be contingent on the fact that you who sold it to them owned it, and didn't steal it. Property begins with first use. You use it first, or at least have the best claim to using it first, then for all practical circumstances, it is yours. If there are competing claims over property, there will likely be evidence to suggest which person actually used it first, and other relevant information about that fact (like if he used it first, but then abandoned it, and then someone else used it). It's stuff people have been dealing with since common law with no problems for the most part. If this guy doesn't understand that, I don't know what to say, except to suggest taking his article and posting it under your name and taking any credit you can for it. Maybe then he'll understand the difference between owning and stealing.. jesus christ what a manipulative idiot...

It's brilliant. I'm glad someone has the guts to put a cartoon like this together.

"It is a lack of love provided by women which propels male violence." The women who do not take responsibility for their cold hearts, but chose to blame the other sex, are part of the ruination of males. The women who do not take responsibility for the cold hearts of other women, but selectively blame their male partners to avoid holding their fellow females responsible, are part of the ruination of males. Males will only take so much abuse and denial of reality from females, until they leave society altogether, through isolation or through suicide, or by acting out destructively against females in fits of uncontrolled rage. If females want to stop the cycle of male violence, the data is right in front of them to tell them how. Don't spank, keep a father around, love your male companions and children... negotiate, handle criticism. If you do this, the males in your life will cherish you, protect you, and provide stability to your life, because they will feel loved and appreciated for doing so.

Your past is always accessible. You can think about the past whenever you like. It is with you. Every moment, you will always have a past. That past is always changing; more information is being added at the very least. You can also reprogram to use insights in the present to change your understanding of the past. But there is a pure symmetry between empirical reality and our emotional apparatus. Every "choice" our unconscious body makes is in response to a change in the environment. So in that way our past is with us as long as we are living. It tells us when things are familiar, and what to expect. Our body accumulates "stuff" from the environment. The emotional apparatus is communication of what is going on in our environment and how it effects the body. It is like sense data in that way, as if you were putting your fingers in fresh water to check the temperature, to see if it is fit for swimming. The emotions are chemical processes, so in that sense they are unconscious, and a functioning of the body, not conscious thought. But the crux of philosophy and RTR which is based on philosophy in my opinion, is the focus on the difference between subjective emotions and empirical reality. It is the epistemology of the self, the metaphysics of conscious existence, which necessitates that any unconscious existence is just a manifesting event in empirical reality, which you potentially can become aware of. Emotions are brought up in RTR, but not to dominate the conversation, but as potentially useful information for the other person. In conversations, the focus of RTR is not necessarily to be present, but it is to be empirical. Technically, in any conversation you are present. When someone is spitting up emotional volatility like you said, they are refusing to engage in empirical examination, and instead would rather try to dominate to have their expectations of reality met. Reality didn't work out the way they wanted it to, and instead of realizing that and admitting their mistake, they use other people as an excuse. They are responding directly to misfirings in the brain to direct them off course, and their anger will propel themselves into this maddened state of reality deflection where everything is everyone else's fault.

I admit, maybe creepy wasn't the right word. I think the word I was looking for was pathetic.

If they're just as big on male issues, why do they call themselves feminists? Why wouldn't they identify as males rights activists? I don't know how or why it's up to you to separate them if they chose to identify with a movement which is inhabited with lots of insane and violent people. It seems cowardly for them not to clearly and openly differentiate themselves from such a lot of people. How well do you actually know these good feminists and do you know why they chose such a cringe worthy label?

Well, what type of men does the media show as getting all the babes? Usually pretty boys, liberal men, and manginas. The media is such a devil in this regard, as it chastises men with a spine and embellishes the type of men who look like women, act like women, and white knight for women.

At 30:35 he seriously says "Trump is not a man with high IQ," which is an insult so immature and blind to reality that it's creepy.

I appreciate you sharing the study, but you are not making arguments, and are making claims about this community and the credibility of the show that you haven't even provided evidence for.

How long did you spend on this post? I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, but it doesn't seem very committed to this topic to reply with two sentences towards such a well written post, given all the context she provided.

You may not have suggested such. Sorry if I was wrong when I claimed you did. I'm going to reflect a bit more before responding, but thanks for your counter arguments they were helpful.

Once I posted something about gun control along with one of Stefan's presentations. I actually got a few up votes, but my dad saw it and was upset because I started off the post with "the conversation about gun control in america is disappointing." Never mind how many arguments I made after to prove my point, he still said "it's like you're saying you're disappointed with people." Well obviously some people, but why did it bother him? I guess he was too frail to handle being in the circumference of my disappointment. Apparently my justification which I spent about an hour on meant nothing to him, and apparently his disappointment in me was far more important than any disappointments I had. He had no regard for me at all. If someone has so little respect for me that they will chose to be immediately offended, and not offer even 5 minutes to listen to the content of what I am saying before going on the offensive, then those people have a free ride on the "fuck you" bus right out of my life. I can have a more productive conversation with myself than with people like that. I don't want to enter into a conversation to baby sit someone else's emotions like they're my responsibility. One question came to me is "do people have any idea how brave it is to talk about something really important and controversial?" Do they take any notice of that before asking questions? Is there any regard for how cool it is that you spoke out on a huge philosophical podcast? Just because someone is asking questions doesn't necessarily mean they're curious. People do ask questions to try to poke at others and make them look bad out of spite.

You're begging the question what makes a fetus not a child. It is dependent like a child. It is chosen like a child. What makes it not a child? You're also suggesting giving birth is a moral choice. But giving birth is not a choice at all. It is an unconscious process of the body. The choice, and what could be evaluated morally, is the conscious decision to become pregnant. Between a conscious decision which will lead to involuntary processes in the body, and the involuntary processes themselves, what do you think is the moral choice? To point to the involuntary spasms that occur as a result of this decision 9 months later and say this is the beginning of moral culpability does not jive with the fact that positive moral obligations are chosen.

Clipping toenails has nothing to do with my argument. Long nails have nothing to do with a man's investment in a woman to grow a child. Gifts are not the same as resources for investment. A man is not gifting resources to a woman when she is pregnant. He is investing in her to produce his offspring. If she wasn't producing his offspring, the resources would not be there for her. However, I will concede that just because someone has made an investment does not entail the person to restitution if their expectations aren't met. There would have to be fraud involved. So an example which would include fraud is if the woman had an abortion without telling the man, and then continued to take his resources. Or, if she lied to him about it being his sperm which produced the baby. I concede that a woman simply having an abortion would not entail the man to restitution. If a woman decided to have an abortion out of the blue after the man has been providing resources to her, that is shitty to him, but she is not initiating force or fraud against him as far as I can see. It would be more like a broken promise. Wouldn't abortion be a denial of the obligation to nurture and protect the child though?

The main has some claim over whether the women has the child based on her consent to have him fertilize her eggs. That was his investment, agreed to with her consent. If she destroys his investment, she should be responsible for the damage she has caused. If the man is not acknowledged to have any part in creating the child, then he has no obligation to take care of the child. This is basic property rights. If the man shoots some sperm and then runs off, clearly he is not invested and the woman can say he was negligent and abort without his permission, or file for child support. However, to the extent the man provides any resources (including any time spent with her) to care for the child besides his sperm, for the woman to be able to unilaterally take action to destroy the value of his investment is a sort of resource rape inflicted upon the man. She should be liable to return any resources he invested plus some. The only other option I can see is if neither are liable for taking care of the child. But for the women to have a get out of responsibility free card when she has a partner who has invested in her specifically to have the child is fraudulent towards the man. It would be like if I entered into a contract with someone to build an apartment complex, and as soon as they got my money they decided they're not going through with it, and they're not returning my money.

Most parents are so laughably fragile to criticism that you have to lie to them to get them through the article... And who are the children again? How about erase all 6 and replace them with one simple rule: Don't send your kids to incredibly abusive environments.

Does anyone have a source where Stefan explains this approach of his in more detail? Just from watching Stefan, I think the rule is more about the form of the conversation than the content of the conversation. It doesn't make sense that if someone says something false, that I should then say something false back. But it does make sense that if someone is being careless, ignoring my statements, or otherwise being abrasive, that I am justified in treating like with like. I do not have to refute their false statements more than once; if they ignore me, I can ignore them. If they are abrasive to me, I can be blunt to them. And if they are being careless with their facts, I don't mind bringing up something that I might have heard but not fully confirmed. Why should my standards be pristine, when the person I'm talking to has flies swarming around their arguments? It's harmful to think you have to hold yourself to higher standards than the person you're talking to. They will see it, and exploit, tire, and fool you over and over.

People who don't have empathy don't care about being right. They care about getting away with their temper tantrums and projected feelings of hatred and anger whenever they can, to whomever they can. That's why it is so confusing to the guy in the video and people like you and me who have empathy, because we assume personal responsibility, and couldn't imagine sadism behind the veil of "social justice." The girl in the video is a racist and has no rational justification for her initiation of force. And the cultural marxists who gives excuses to sadists are almost worse than the sadists themselves.

The only way America could lessen its debt is if the whole word became significantly poorer for the benefit of America. I don't think that's going to happen with other major developing economies which want to grow. However, with a strong backbone and K personality traits, I imagine Trump will fight hard for the long term interest of America. An R president will cave under the pressure of having to deal with the debt, and do something incredibly stupid like print endless amounts of inflation.

please delete posted in wrong section and need to revise post