Shaeroden

Trump was also on the Savage Nation the day of the election. no disrespect to stef, but i think there's more people who listen to Michael Savage than to Stef. and Trump has been on the Savage Nation since before the primaries. did Stef ever ask trump to come on the show? Trump was on the Savage Nation for about 6 minuites. Is it within the capacity and ability of The Great Stefan Molyneux to produce a show with a duration of less than 10 minutes? I'm not even sure that's even within the realm of possibility. A brief FDR podcast is like... a liquid gas. a space-breathing mammal. formless consciousness. a male female. a 5-pointed flat-head screwdriver. a pressurized vacuum. a sphere with 8 vertices and 6 facets. a fifth reverse gear. a sale purchase. a supply demand. a gamma infrared wave. consensual murder. stagnant progress. (i can do this all night.)

hell, even northern nevada or west oregon. i don't even care if you live up in the panhandle. anyone? anyone? *radar boops*

isn't a state kind of a lifeboat scenario though?

So on another podcast called relationship alive (yes, I know, shame on me for practicing polyamory with podcasts) there was a guy that ran through the basics of polyvagal theory, and I was wondering if anyone else on the freedomain radio boards knew about it. Basically from what I remember, the vagal nerve is responsible for our involuntary physiological responses that aid in fight, flight, or freeze, and in some cases, defecate. I'll have another listen to it when I find the time and post more in the comments. It's truly fascinating.

well, i'll give you the background on why i'm asking this question. you know how you're not supposed to take puppies away from their mothers until they're at least several months old, otherwise they develop extreme personality, behavior, and attachment disorders? well, i had seven hours with mine. she was not allowed by the state of Virginia to keep me, or even visit me. so my grandparents stepped up to adopt me, and then moved clear across the country to Idaho three weeks later. the reason my mother couldn't keep me was because my brother and sister were confiscated by the state of Alaska. my father was physically abusive, (so was his father) and my mother sexually molested my sister. so i came along after the state took them away, and my mother did the legal research and drove all the way from Alaska to virgina to legally hand me off to my grandparents. history of my mother: when she was 12, my grandparents (maternal) lived in Thailand. my grandpa was a public affairs diplomat. they had a gardener, about 16 years old, who would forcibly kiss her, shove his tongue in her mouth, and eventually escalated to rape. one of her sisters found out and told my grandmother first, who told my mother to "speak to the bishop" (Mormon) because she "didn't know what else to do" my grandpa, when he found out, actually did something. he cornered the guy and basically told him that he would make every attempt at getting him in prison. from what i heard, he was unsuccessful at landing him in prison, but he told the officials at the american embassy about this guy and they made sure no one working with the embassy hired him. so meanwhile in the future, since my brother and sister were taken away and put in to foster care, both my parents went to extensive counseling and worked out most of their major issues. they eventually reached a point where my brother and sister were allowed to contact them, and when my brother turned 18, he moved in with them and finished high school. from what i hear of my brother's and sister's foster family experience, in my opinion it was worse than being with my parents. his foster father would smack him daily. my brother wouldn't be allowed to even talk to my sister. they were like harry potters. anyways, that's getting off topic... so i grew up with the helpless grandmother who "couldn't do anything" when her daughter was being molested, really concerned with the frowns of strangers, and a grandpa who involved himself in very high status positions in the mormon church. he pretty much had a job with the church, even though he was retired and never got paid. for those of you who know about mormon church hierarchy, he was a stake president for 9 years. and he did not do anything to stop my grandmother from hitting me and holding me up by my hair and screaming and yelling at me. so, these are the differences i've noticed between me and kids who grow up with parents their own age that i attribute to growing up with my grandparents > i get along really easily with most adults. but have a hard time getting along with people my own age. > i didn't get many of the unifying experiences my peers got such as movies and summer camps, (maybe due to mormonism, but i'm constantly running in to "what do you mean you have never seen x movie? how have you even lived? how can we be friends now?") > i have a larger vocabulary, than most of my peers and have an easier time learning and spelling new words than my peers > i worry about the future more > i have a hard time getting along with active and determined people. i have an easier time getting along with stoners because i believe retired people are less active than working parents, and stoners are generally less ambitiously and physically active than not-stoners > i'm more conservative than my peers, which i can attribute to my grandparents being born before the baby boom. i'm not entirely sure these can all be attributed to simply being raised by my grandparents, and i'd love to hear any reasons on how these speculations might be incorrect. because i sometimes wonder if the kids i grew up around were simply weird.

what could be some of the effects of being raised by your grandparents? costs? benefits? is there data to show any significant differences at all?

the tags were tied around their middle, just behind the arms. i actually have a different recurring nightmare/dream. usually when i dream, i am running from something. sometimes it's the police, other times it's just other men in tactical uniforms. i think i may remember a couple times they were in suits like the secret service, but what's odd is that i'm always running with someone. sometimes it's with people i have met, other times it's with people i've never met. sometimes i'm leading a group of people running away. i've been dipping my toes in to jungian dream analysis is all. i know why i have these dreams of running away from uniformed men. but this one i had with the mice and crickets was unusual. the dirty clothes are there in my real life room though. that's how i knew i was in my room other than the mattress being on the floor. you may be on to something. i was alarmed a swarm of mice, but i wasn't afraid of 2 of them. i'm also remembering another detail, when i felt exasperated, i remember thinking "oh god, this is going to be a mess to clean up and get all these critters and their droppings out of my room and i'm far too delirious to start right now" i just realized i put this in the wrong board. i probably should refrain from making posts so dang early in the morning

this one is really simple. i had a dream that i woke up in my bed in the dead of night. i noticed there was a mouse in my room, and it had a yellow tag with a number on it. i watched it dart around my room, sitting up in my bed. it didn't take notice of me. after a while, another mouse appeared. then another and another and then some more, all with yellow tags. i also noticed a toad appeared as well. i remember counting about 6 mice at the time. i looked for the source of their entry, and found them coming in from the gap underneath the door to the bathroom, where they were popping in one by one every second. these mice i saw coming in had no yellow tags. i looked around again and now i noticed that my room was now littered with crickets, toads, and lizards. i saw some of them eating the crickets, but at this point i was starting to panic, wondering if the mice were hostile and would try to bite me. i was still in my bed, which sits on the floor with no bed-rails, but none of the creatures had climbed in, so i got the sense i was safe there. i put my head on my pillow in exasperation and closed my eyes, and sleep overcame me for a short time. when i "woke up" from this, i looked around my room again, finding only 2 mice, exploring the small piles of dirty clothes on the floor. i got out of bed, and opened the door to my bathroom, finding it completely empty, however i did find holes underneath the vanity, at which point i woke up from this dream. the night before: my roommates had kept me up very late, talking and laughing quite loud from the living room. i didn't want to kill the mood, but i also wanted to walk out there and tell them to quiet down. so i just put up with it. i've been trying to assert my preferences more recently and usually do so when i'm confronting a single person, but i think i might have been afraid to do so with multiple people. what does this dream mean?

"specialize in fear" actually, i specialize in being devastatingly annoying, thank you very much.

i love how the question of "should" is addressed. one of my biggest pet peeves is people throwing a "should" out there, unattached to any objectives or moral framework.

"without collective judgement, there would be no left" "making emotional noises with their breathing hole"

is this girl in therapy? what's her ACE score like?

i could pull a tom woods and make an entire podcast series of why robert reich is wrong.

while scrolling through my facebook feed, i found out about this ordeal the pop star "kesha" is currently undergoing... so i started to do a little digging. turns out there has been a rally of suits between kesha's family and her producer, dr. luke. so it's no this guy explains the overview. i think this might be some rich presentation material here with some more details...

i was listening to Stef's review of Elysium, and he referred to the hatred of CEO's or "resentment of the rich" as stemming from the idea that "there is money out there, you didn't get yours, so somebody else stole yours." his initial speculation was that it came from dating, in the idea that someone else got the girl you wanted, therefore the somebody else is a thief. or that it's a particular phase of childhood that never gets grown out of where you can't stand the idea of other people playing with your toys, even when you're not using them. but i think i might have a better explanation as to why this idea sticks so strongly in people's heads. when i was a child, my grandpa was a very competent and talented wood worker. he would carve birds out of wood, and paint them with such detail, he almost gave my grandmother a heart attack because she thought a live magpie was on the dining room table on one occasion. of course, when you carve a bird out of wood, you start with a block. there is an extreme disparity between the value of a block of wood, and the value of a beautifully carved and painted bird that would sell for $400-$800. he passed a little bit of this talent on to me. he showed me the basic principles, how to carve with the grain, etc... and after a few months, i was making detailed figurines and reliefs of cars, bugs, bears, and dragons out of wood. i entered them in competitions and won some ribbons for them. i wasn't conscious of it at the time, but now that i think of it, i made $5 blocks of wood turn in to prize-winning artwork worth $20 gift cards. in other words, i did something that added to the total value of myself and the world. at a very young age no less. it wouldn't surprise me if these people who hold on to this idea of "infinitely-constant-value/someone-stole-my-share" stems from the lack of going through a similar process like this as a child. the child never observes themselves adding to the value of anything, so they grow up believing that they can't add value, therefore, in their mind, all value in the world is infinitely constant. just like matter is infinitely constant. (infinitely constant meaning that it cannot be changed in the infinity of time, not space) whereas kids who get involved in value-adding activities like woodcarving, fixing cars, building computers, building fences, welding, etc... real "value adding" tasks become somewhat aware of their ability to add value to something, and therefore don't grow up believing in an infinitely constant value of the universe, because they know they can add to it, therefore it cannot be constant.

if you don't own yourself, then you don't own the arguments you are making either. but instead of directing my rebuttal to various objects on my desk, i am making my rebuttal to you. which is acknowledging you produced an argument, which makes it your argument. the very act of argumentation implies that you own both yourself and your arguments. no. objects can own objects. anything made of atoms and their parts is an object. humans are made of atoms. therefore, humans are objects. humans, through control of their own bodies, own themselves. humans are objects, therefore, objects can own objects.

you know, i'm glad you asked. i looked up the definition, and i noticed that it included the word "abrupt." which indicates to me that an emergent emotion occurs spontaneously, and not dependent on a particular trigger. whereas an emotion is always dependent on some sort of trigger. is this the right way of looking at the difference?

i know there's at least one other guy out here who has heard of freedomain radio through someone other than me. are there any others out there at all?

the reason i ask is that when i read up on "read flags," a lot of the lists say that mood swings are a dangerous sign.

How do you tell the difference between mood swings and the hurly burly of the human emotional experience? and especially if you're the one that you suspect has mood swings? or are mood swings just a symptom of asshole proximity disorder?

this is an excerpt from my blog i've been sitting on for a while preface: i will be using the terms “man” and “woman” in a general sense, though i understand that there are some exceptions, just like a horse by definition has 4 legs, but sometimes they are born with 3, however that doesn’t make that animal not-a-horse. so please, contain your exceptions until the end. theory: the use of the word “objectification” (labeling) is a woman’s way of saying she feels uncomfortable in the face of the fact that a man is sexually attracted to her, or another woman. but instead of being honest about her own discomfort, she uses the term “objectification” to turn the blame on the man. just like how a priest uses the term “sin” to turn the blame on other people when his prophecies and predictions don’t come true. the words “sin” and “objectification” are nearly identical in practice because neither are rationally defined by an external method, and instead are used to absorb anything that the user feels uncomfortable in response to, and then masquerades this as a universally applicable concept, not a personal preference. there is, of course, nothing wrong with being uncomfortable. i encourage everyone to speak up about things that make them uncomfortable, with the understanding that your discomfort does not generate an obligation in other people to cater to it. what is wrong, however, is lying. claims of objectification are dishonest, because objectification is not defined by any objective standard, just like pejoratives. since there are no objective standards for detecting objectification, any claims of objectification are dishonest because no proof is possible until there are objective and testable hypothesis for determining the presence of objectification. for a better explanation of why it is a lie, see my article about the dishonesty of pejoratives. so if claims of objectification are dishonest, what is the incentive for their use? here is a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis: benefits: 1. causes man to feel moral dilemma over being attracted to a woman, thus pausing his pursuit. if he is a good man, he will take a while to process this moral dilemma, or he may disregard the claim, because he does not know what is meant by objectification. 2. woman eliminates what she believes to be the source of her discomfort in the short term. 3. woman discovers a short-term degree of power to mitigate the amount of attention she receives. costs: 1. a good man will continue to be confused about whether or not his own attraction is objectification or not, possibly causing long-term harm to other romantic investments. 2. man associates the confusion with the woman, instead of the foggy concept of objectification. 3. the woman drives away good men who can detect this strategy. after this strategy is foiled, she must either invest in a new social group or a new strategy for mitigating male attention. what are your thoughs? do you have anything to add or correct?

so is looking at someone or insulting or disagreeing with them not binding then?

Whereas "you ought to change the oil in your car" isn't internally inconsistent. so the "if" when talking about morality is perpetually implied?

so i understand Hume's law states that you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" but when i throw an "if" at the beginning of a sentence, well... things like this can happen: if you want to have a working car, you ought to change the oil. the "is" is implied because it *is* true that failing to change the oil will cause your engine to weld itself in to a useless steel paperweight, which happened to my Mitsubishi last month. so it *is* true that failing to change the oil regularly will ruin the engine. and *if* your objective is to have a working engine, then you *ought* to change the oil. and a failure to change the oil would indicate that the if-condition was not met. we can even put this in terms of UPB. it *is* true that theft is not UPB. and *if* your objective is to be moral... then you *ought* not to steal and a failure to refrain from stealing indicates the if-condition was not met. is this a logically sound method for getting around Hume's law? has someone already figured this out and i'm just late to the show?

hello everyone, i'm shaeroden. i'm 23 i'm from idaho. it's basically canada 2.0 without the socialism. i have a technical degree in electronics. i inventory and repair medical equipment for a living. i was born in to a mormon family. i stopped being mormon at 20. i was an agnosto-misotheist for about a year after that, until i met stefan. i was raised by my grandparents. i was effectively an only child, but i do have a biological brother and sister. however they went in to foster care, and i was born after the fact. it's a long story, but i'll tell if anyone asks. i live with my brother now. we're great friends. my pastimes are writing, dismantling electronics, guitar, chainmaille, and astrophotography-taking photos of planets and stars, and of course philosophy and psychology. i hope to have some challenging, clarifying, and deep conversations here. i have a blog full of rich content that i can't wait to submit for analysis by fellow freedomainers.