DaviesMa

Agree with stMarcus about this being a parental issue. It is also a cold to dismiss these guys as simps, this is an example of not extending empathy to men that they most likely deserve. If men were ripping women off in this way then the whole world would go nuts but I presume that the program makers only intended this to be a bit of morality porn whereby people can claim moral superiority over the women and simultaneously laugh at or dismiss the guys.

Her lesson to her son is that he should be an indentured servant to the world in general and women in particular, as a big fan of Ayn Rands Virtue of Selfishness, this is something that is truly sickening to me. It appears to me that she wants everyone else to be a sacrificial lamb to her agenda and her desires and has rationaised that she is an oppressed woman to justify her narcissistic tendancies. One of her conclusions was that women drop out of the workforce at higher rates than men not because they lacked ambition, but because they found it too hard to juggle work and family life. This suggests that she finds it inconcievable that a woman may actually want to prioritise childcare and home building over her career. She also mentions how virtuous her husband is for the fact that she has uprooted her family 3 times to move across the country for her career. Unfortunately her compassion for women doesn't extend to her son, who has had to give up 3 sets of friends and go through the instablity of settling into a new school 3 times. If he has been neglected and feminised by an overbearing mother, it would not be surprising if he had a hard time integrating at these new schools. Unfortunately she has already set the precedent that the men in her life are there to accomodate her and with the brain washing, the poor boy doesn't stand a chance. He is likely to fall prey to an exploitatative women or women as his father has and to lack the masculinity to navigate the world. I will round off with this quote: We don't like to tell our children about things that are painful and difficult to us, but I began thinking, is this fair to my son? After this she proceeds to explains how heroic she is that she tells her son about her struggles in her career and then talks about how it is his job to put women on in their careers. She sees no contradiction in being fair to her son and telling him that his job is to live for other people. There is a very important lesson in this quote. No one actually thinks they are evil, evil people are just very good at backwards rationalising self interest and packaging it as virtue.

Self knowledge is purely about having an explicit understanding about why you do things and therefore being able to make a fully informed choice. When we make decisions our decision making process often uses the emotional part of the brain and only circles back to the logical part of the brain afterwards for justification. (This has been proven through brain scans.) This is the basis of rationalisation: we make a decision and then we make up reasons as to why that decision was correct. If we are unwilling to admit that we were wrong them our brain has to find ever more elaborate and sophisitc reasons to justify why we were correct. The bigger the emotional impact and the higher the investment in your position, the harder it is to wind in impulses and to apply logic during the decision making process. If you have ever tried to argue with someone who is highly emotional and has never admits they are wrong, then introspection will only guarantee defeat. You can see therefore how this kind of thing would be useful in looking after ones own interests. A lot of these strong emotions come from reactions to of past traumas. People for example may have been aggressive because their family was aggressive and this was the only way to get heard, or as a self defence mechanism because their people in their lives could not be reasoned with. The less unresolved emotional trauma a person has, the more honest a person can be with him or herself as they are less subject to these seemingly random life threatening emotions. I also think it is important to not regard yourself as a servant of others so that you can truly examine your own desires without kidding yourself that you are being magnanimous or self sacrificing when you want to satisfy your own needs.

Attractive women are a special case in the life of men where our principles can be juxaposed to our emotions. If I thought a Mercedes was a beautiful car but I didn't like the company because of some percieved immorality, it is a lot easier for me to put the Mercedes out of my head and eliminate the contradiction as it is not a biological desire. Unfortunately, as a man you do not have that luxury with a beautiful woman so your brain is hijacked into assigning value to an arbitary trait. As the desire isn't under your control your disgust may be a counter reaction to that to keep you safe from dicknapping. It may also be a form of self disgust at your biology contradicting your values.

I think there are a few things that may be defined as possible unhealthy consequences: Possible pregnancy The opportunity cost for the woman of her declining sexual market value The risk of getting hurt by one person developing more feelings and the neediness and loss of self respect of the needy person The break up leading to the person closing their heart to others I think most of this can be mitigated by choosing a person who is emotionally healthy and resilient and maybe even asking how they have handled break ups in the past, etc. For a man in particular, a casual liason with an unstable woman is only a recipe for misery. (I don't see a moral dimension to it if you presume that the other person has free will and they are aware of the level of non commitment.)

Anarchast Tom Woods Peter Schiff Liberty Pen Hoover Institute - especiall Thomas Sowell

The whole video is a self promotional, illogical, wishful thinking mess. I would challenge a few of his tacit and overt assumptions, such as: Huge overvaluations and bubbles in stock markets are a feature of capitalism - i.e. Government interest rates contirbute to an inefficient allocation of capital. Income inequality is not good - i.e. apart from one graph, where is his evidence? Correlation does not create causation. What is his philosophical basis for this Redistribution by tax reduces inequality - i.e. Welfare entrenches poverty for example Corporations have a duty to give to charity in order to be ethical - why? If they have a fiducary duty to maximise profit, what gives them the moral authority to redistribute income without the consent of the individual shareholder? What he is talking about is democracy, not capitalism. As there is no price attached to people expressing their preferences, this is not accurate. There is a Peter Schiff video that illustrates this, where Peter goes into the parking lot of a Walmart and interviews customers, asking if they believe that Walmart Staff should be paid more. When they answer in the affirmative, Peter explains that this will result in higher prices and asks for money to give to the workers. Predictably, they are not too keen to pay with their own money. If he wants to provide information for people then fine, but capitalism in action is choosing who you want to buy from and boycotting those who's values you don't agree with.

If you are talking about extradition, it would most likely contact a DRO to see if they would release the person to the custody of that government however I am guessing that would be a big fat no. I suppose the military or the protection agencies for the anarchist society would be one major area where there may need to be a mass co operation if a country was to become belligerant to the anarchist area, which I could envision quite easily. This would be worked out by a market mechanism, maybe the defence agency would have a set policy, maybe they would (god forbid) have a member vote for different courses of action, it would be unlikely to be an issue if the defence agency had a nuclear weapon. (I don't think a nuclear country has ever been invaded?)

The pill, which was made commercially available in 1960 may have had the greatest impact on female sexualisation by dramatically changing the cost-benefit scenario for women with regards to sex. Women no longer had to wait until the man was committed before having sex so this allowed for her to enjoy sex whilst testing the man for his suitability as a husband and father. This allowed women to see if they could snag the Alpha male by having sex with him immediately and hoping that he would fall into a relationship with her, or else to have dates with the beta male and test his provider skills and maybe settle for him if she couldn't bag the alpha. (Alpha lays, beta pays.) As women could use their sexual appeal to their advantage before marriage, this has turned into an arms race where women increasingly dress more provocatively and sexually in order to gain power over men.

If the question is being herd-like, I would say democrats are worse. (Bear in mind however I am from Britian so I have limited exposure to the US political system.) Democrats appear to be the ones more apt to use character slurs such as racist, homophobe, poor hating, greedy, stupid, etc. from the coverage I see, (although this could be a selection bias on my part.) Once you hate someone, you cease to listen to their arguments and will often go against them even if they are right, just to spite them. Republicans can be blind to particular issues however such as gay marriage and abortion due to their heavy religious base however and these positions become somewhat immovable. I think the majority of FDRers would agree that the Republicans are the least worst party, especially with Hilary (otherwise know as Killary) Clinton appears to be the military industrial candidate this time around.

Killing animals is always to our benefit, whether it is to make way for farm land or habitation or for food. The indirect causes such as pollution are also to our benefit. Just because we don't consume them doesn't make it a seperate moral category.

Why is a species a more significant moral measure than the number of individual animal deaths? To suggest this is to propose that genetic variety is good for its own sake, much as we say that multiculturalism is good because of 'diversity.' Unless I am mistaken there is no argument attached to this. I realise that extinction ends the particular species but this is to argue on the basis of the good of the species rather than the good of the individual animals. As a species is just a collection of animals of similar genetic characteristics, this appears to be erroneous in the same way that nationalism is erroneous. If we argue that humans kill more individual animals than any other species, this is because we are top of the food chain. We can then we must then look at the morality of a lion, who kills many gazelles in his lifetime, or any other predator. Should we sterile all predators to ensure the maximum survival of herbivores? Should sterile all insectivores to ensure the maximum survival of insects? The argument becomes absurd.

I know a bit about IFS but some initial questions I might have asked are... Questions I would ask: If I am a collection of different parts, which one is the real me? How do I tell in real time if the real me is speaking or acting or if it is a part? How can this knowledge help me? What are the benefits? How does this relate to will power and resisting temptation? Can I strengthen my part that wants to stick to my diet for example? What happens when all my parts live together in harmony? How do I know when parts agree or disagree?

Successful memes or groups of memes develop self defence mechanism. In the same way that 'god moves in mysterious ways' alleviates the need to explain why god appears to not interfere when needed, the bad type of feminism has had a long history of creating such self defenses but in a more aggressive manner. The idea of the semi mystical patriarchy and the subjective oppression that comes from this is one of these catch all self defence mechanisms. This allows them to seek out offence both as a means to strengthen their own belief system of oppression and to aggressively silence those that criticise them through guilt and unfounded accusation. It is dangerous for radical feminists to have facts spelt out without leaping to the narrative first as this puts the truth in plain view, whatever that may be.* When logic is applied to the facts, this not only shows reality to be significanlty different to their narrative, but it also shows the inadequacy of their methodology. It is therefore a sensible act of self defence for the meme (and the movement) to label logic as oppressive. *I came across a good example of the data being embarrassing the other day when watching a debate on whether men were under attack in society. A man quoted that men disproportionately commit suicide in the UK compared to women, to which his point was dismissed by stating that many women are killed in domestic violence. Statistically however 150 women are killed in the UK though domestic violence each year, (and about 20 men) however there were 4590 male suicides verses 1391 for women, making suicide a much bigger problem. (3199 verses 130.) Unfortunately, as it was MSM no such statistics were produced and the woman won the point of the argument.

This is a free documentarly available on YouTube from Anarchist documentary maker, Richard Heathen. As with Stefbot, he has a voluntary model of contribution for his work. The link is: -- The Youtube Blurb is: Hidden Influence: The Rise of Collectivism is the first film in a 3 part saga. This chapter documents how the ruling class, through their billion dollar foundations, have infiltrated the public education system in the west and have used it as a tool to indoctrinate children into a totalitarian ideology. This film explores the chronological paper trail uncovered by Charlotte Iserbyt, who was fired from her post as the Senior Policy Advisor for the United States Department of Education in 1982 when she released classified documents discussing the use of technology, specifically computers to psychologically manipulate American students. We will then examine an investigation into the influence of these foundations, launched by the United State congress in the 1950's. Finally we will fast forward to today and look at how the philosophy these foundations have sponsored for the last 100 years has, and continues to effect the education system today, and how Canadian children are being indoctrinated into the same collectivist brainwashing as their American counterparts. At the same time we will examine the role of these foundations in promoting radical, authoritarian ideologies on college and university campuses. -- This is an interesting documentary and quite well done for what was probably quite a low budget documentary. This will be red meat for anarchists so I recommend you give it a look.

SPOILER IN THIS POST!!!! I found the relationship between Norton and his girlfriend interesting. Stef talks about the fear that people have that we are only connected by shared prejudices and so we are afraid to disagree with other for fear that the lack of a true relationship will be revealed. His girlfriend and his friend turning on him when he renounced his views is a perfect illustration of this. I wonder if Edward Nortons character as a reformed character who was full of optimism for the future was a contrast to Edward Furlong who was a victim of the continuing and futile cycle of violence. It is also a form of Karma for Norton that he loses someone to racial violence.

I think Invicta has called it spot on in his first paragraph, although none of us have enough information to really dissect your situation. It is telling to me that you say that she is not into learning and growing. If this is accurate then this wil be hugely destructive to your future happiness. Trying to pursue personal growth whilst in a relationship with someone who wants to stay the same is like trying to run the 100m with a bungee cord attached to your starting block. The more you grow, the more it will be at the expense of the relationship and become uncomfortble for you. I get the sense that your real question is, 'Am I a bad person for wanting to break up with her?' If this is the case then it is healthy that you are reluctant to hurt someone that you care about and it is understandable that you feel an obligation to her, although misplaced. I would be honest with her, if you want to stay with her then tell her that the you have to learn to grow your relationship and I would go to counselling and definitely read RTR together and apply it's principles. I would not use this as an ultimatum or a way to blackmail her into doing it as this would be futile and manipulative, (I am sure you won't.) See if you can work through your problems with her and figure things out and if not, then you will be sure that things won't work. If you want to leave her then honestly tell her the reasons why. Tell her also that you are concerned that she will end up with another bad boyfriend if she does not find out why she has had such bad boyfriends in the past. Advise that she have therapy, find some useful call in shows and introduce her to RTR. In this case, you can only show her the door, she has to walk through it and in my experience, few people do. She has free will and personal responsibility. I get the sense from what little information that we have, that you are both unaware of how connected a real relationship can be, although as with all of this I could be wrong.

Altruism, in practical or physical terms in easy; you can simply donate anonymously to a charity for example. Being altruistic in emotional terms however is impossible. You are saying, "I want to do something that I don't want to do" You cannot do something that does not have a perceived benefit to yourself, however deeply buried that may be in your freudian subconscious. It could be positive, such as the fuzzy feeling of making the world a better place or it could be more dysfunctional such as the benefits of fulfilling the need to ease guilt, avoiding self attack through martyrdom or other destructive emotions. Either way you wanted to do it, so it is not just for someone else. (Unfortunately, statists and leftists in particular try to portay altruism as an act of self erasure rather than an act of love and kindness. Maybe because guilt is a tool to control others where as self esteem is a tool to control yourself.)

I recently watched the Railway Man with Colin Firth and Nicole Kidman. Whilst was not necessarily functional as Colin Firth was traumatised by his time as a POW, Nicole Kidman did a huge amount ot help him get through this trauma and you did get the sense that they deeply loved each other. Neo and Trinity from the Matrix had the pretense of love for each other and were prepared to sacrifice, but this seemed to be a sentimentalised 'destiny' rather than a basis of shared values, compatibility, or virtue. Other than that, I think I am out of luck.

One very big warning sign for me is when a girl doesn't get why I like her or puts herself down. If she doesn't know why I might like her then she is very unlikely to have any degree of self love (or self knowledge.) It has been discussed before but I have never spoke to a girl with tattoos who did not have some kind of dysfunction such as passive aggression, a history of spanking, a child of divorce, etc. (Sorry if you are the exception to this.)

I was assessed as 155 by Mensa when I was 13. This was judged as top 1% at the time so I think the scale is a little different to the one that Wikipedia uses which would put me at something ridiculous like 0.0003 percentile. In practical terms, I am the smartest person I know, (which is kind of depressing.) Interesting to see most people here are above 120 odd. I expect there is a selection bias as the smarter you are the more you are likely to have tested your IQ (no one likes bad news.) It is a bit worrying that if you do need quite a high IQ to get philosophy it is going to be might difficult to convert enough people to freedom.

Society has to attribute random labels to children such as 'psycho' and to pass moral judgement because to do otherwise provides a huge red flag about the quality of parenting. It is easier to assign full moral responsibility no matter what the child has encountered in the past. It is an irony that the original poster is defining the child as a psychopath, when they don't seem to be able to express empathy with a very troubled 5 year old. I would keep talking about it. Maybe find some articles on the link between anger and child abuse, although I am not sure if that would help if they don't want to change. I wouldn't stop speaking out however, as the denial of cause and effect in parenting is exactly what abusers want.

I would ask what is the goal when having people apologise? Presumably it is to have them to realise the consequences of their actions and to adjust their behaviour in the future. If you force anyone to do anything then you are just addressing the symptom rather than the problem. As a practical solution: If you are trying to talk to a child (or adult) when they are angry, you will get no where. Find out the source of the conflict and try to agree why it happened. Stay calm when you do this, the biggest example you set for your children is emotional rather than verbal.Children aren't inherently 'bad', they have good reasons for their emotions, it is up to you to understand them. Encourage both sides to be empathetic. Put in place a way of resolving disputes in the future and if necessary, act as a mediator for disputes.

One premise of your argument is that the 'state' has property rights, despite the state being a collection of individuals of a given country. The state is a concept, in the same way that a forest is a concept but a tree is real or a herd of sheep is a concept but the individual sheep are real. A concept can't own property, only individuals can. Therefore 'the state' does not have the right to prohibit him from trespassing as it does not own the property. Even if you said that the state was an entity, with the same capacity to own as an individual, the property that the state had homesteaded had been done by force by taxing people and paying for workmen to build the roads from the proceeds. It is the equivalent of saying that a thief is the legal owner of the property he owns. If he has stolen it, which the state has done so with 100% of it's property, then it forfeits its right to ownership.

The child is owed protection under the standards of UPB as they will have the potential to exercise UPB in the future, as opposed to animals or objects, which will never have that ability. There is definitely and element of fraud as Rainbow Jamz mentioned, as presumably, the 10 year old would not know what they were consenting to and the full consequences of their consent. If a child doesn't have the brain maturity and life experience to understand what they are doing then they cannot give informed consent, the same way that selling something to a brain damaged adult could not be deemed as consent. In evolution if an adult had told a child not to eat a particular kind of berry or not to wander off into the bush, those who disobeyed would have been poisoned or attacked by predators so it was advantageous for children to take at face value what adults say. This is how we are able to convince children of the tooth fairy or Santa, despite the notions being logically absurd. I would be very surprised if this wasn't an inate feature of a developing brain, which would further erode a childs capacity to consent. I am also toying with the idea that children are a coercive relationship with all adults, regardless of whether it is explicitly stated, but I am not sure if this can be proven or is correct.