EclecticIdealist

1 - Companionship, Cohabitation, possibly a cook, a housekeeper, personal assistant, someone to rear one's children (including those from a previous relationship), potentially a nurse, financial planner, etc. It all depends on who one chooses to partner with. Of course sex would be an expectation in the vast majority (and a requirement in some) of marriage partnerships; however such a partnership agreement typically does not explicitly state or imply sex at any time, but rather, mutual genuine consideration and accommodation of one's partner's sexual needs and desires. 2 - That a law is practically never used to prosecute does not make it a bad law. Congress rarely engages in impeachment of Presidents, and even less frequently of Judges, but that does not make impeachment a bad law. It may simply be poorly prosecuted and enforced due to difficulties in obtaining a conviction, not because there isn't merit to the charges. 3 - Sexual intercourse that occurs as a result of assault and battery can be presumed to be non-consensual, and therefore, rape. If you can prove assault and battery and sex, you can presume, despite an existing marital relationship, the lack of consent to sex.

Unless I'm missing something, I'd say this is a matter of semantics and that we're on the same page on this. Context is extremely important in this regard. I am not advocating the wanton destruction of objects for the sake of destruction the way some are prone to throwing dishes or general destruction of property (especially that which belongs or has been given to another person). I am also not advocating such behavior in the presence of a child, or at the very least not without prior explanation and reassurances to the child that they are safe and loved (which the child must be capable of understanding, or they must not be witness to it). Destruction of objects in the way you seem to be inferring from my comments in order to intimidate or harm someone is NEVER okay in my opinion except under the circumstances of self-defense you described. I also agree that generally, such amplified anger or rage is the result of an accumulation of anger and resentment, not usually a single incident of anger. Nevertheless, I disagree with your notion that the only time it is appropriate to break or harm an object is in life threatening situations. I simply agree that such destruction should not be done to harm or manipulate others or their property except in self-defense. I don't think it is ever appropriate to smash a child's toys or other property under any circumstances other than self-defense. If there's more to the story, and you feel like sharing, please do.

The parts of the brain that give us the faculty of empathy, the ability to place ourselves in the experience of another, do indeed appear to be what separates normal people from psychopaths. Sociopaths appear to have damage done to this part of their brain through repeated trauma affecting the development of or harming the normal functioning of these areas of the brain. Actually, that's not quite correct. Psychopaths and sociopaths don't lack the mechanisms for internally "punishing" or "rewarding" certain types of behavior; they lack the empathy that allows them to relate to another person's experience in such a way that would prevent them from engaging in certain behaviors that cause harm to others or prompt them to engage in behaviors that would benefit others. In essence, they lack the sense of oneness, connection, or kinship with other people or other living beings. I completely agree. Whether the reward is purely internal or external, doing "good" for the reward one gets or expects or hopes to receive is a self-serving behavior. Doing good is its own reward only if what is termed "good" is internally generated or motivated or consistent with one's ideals. IF what is termed "good" is not consistent with one's own ideals, but is only consistent with society's ideals, doing good is NOT its own reward for the person doing it; in such a situation, only external rewards or the avoidance of punishment will prompt such behavior. Justice is an ideal, not a principle. Nevertheless, as you correctly state, a psychopath will or won't support justice based on the desirability of the outcome; certainly not out of empathy for the victims of injustice. Compassion is synonymous with or has its origins in empathy or "feeling with another". One feels good when the actions one engages in causes the other to feel good. It's self-serving while simultaneously benefiting others (the family or tribe) and is thus perpetuated generationally. People who lack empathy or compassion for others will not experience the empathic reward of "doing good to others". Dehumanizing others through prejudice and bigotry furthers the lack of empathy and compassion for others. Racism and bigotry only foster the decrease in empathy between people, especially between people of different races, ethnicities, countries of origin, etc. If one truly desires to reduce crime and increase a sense of brotherhood and cooperation, one should focus on increasing empathy for others, not decreasing it, fostering unity, not division, focusing on the similarities not the differences, fostering nonviolent communication, cooperation, and reconciliation; not force, compulsion, and punishment for real or perceived wrongs.

How does this differ from a government envisioned by the Founding Fathers of America? If Thomas Jefferson is correct that all governments derive their JUST powers from the consent of the governed, and that government has no just power that is not possessed by the individual, then the only problem with the American system of government is that We the People have allowed elected and appointed individuals to unjustly usurp powers not delegated (or delegable) to them. And if this is the case, how does the American system of Government, when faithfully executed, differ from the Anarchist philosophy?

You're not indicating an inability to discriminate, but rather, the differences of opinion as to what and how one should discriminate. The Liberal Arts world is hardly a monolithic entity, nor has it separated the sentiment of what is good from the sentiment of what is beautiful and the identification of that which is faithful or true from each other. That art does not depict the truths which you would wish it to tell does not prevent it from engaging in a social commentary or truth telling about the times we live in or our collective past; that it does not depict what you consider to be good does not prevent it from depicting what others consider to be good; that it does not portray things that you consider beautiful does not prevent it from portraying what others deem beautiful. While I certainly agree that much which "passes" for art today will likely not stand the test of time and be regarded indistinguishable from trash or the work of deranged or mentally challenged minds, not all that is out there is like this. If one wishes for the Liberal Art world to have a sentiment more in alignment with your own, such sentiment must be curated and nurtured, and its antithesis possibly even ridiculed - such are the techniques and strategies employed today in shaping the opinions of the patrons of the arts. Collectivist shaming happens. Deal with it or don't, it's up to you. Just realize that denial of a problem, or simply blaming others for what one has the ability and responsibility to address and correct does not absolve one of a current or future guilt. Furthermore, only the weak-minded are cowed by undeserved shame or fear of ostracization from a society that neither wants or values their contributions. Stop blaming Liberals and liberal ideology for the failure of Conservative ideology to counteract its poison. Religion is failing because it has not kept up with modernity and is largely corrupted by old, weak, outdated, superstitious narratives that do not appeal to younger, better educated minds. Science will invariably trump superstition, so when ethics and morality are tied to superstition, they will be abandoned like the baby being thrown out with the bathwater; hence, Stefan's (and the philosophers' who have come before him) vain attempts to tie ethics and morality directly to reason. Ethics and Aesthetics are subjective sentiments independent of reason, they can only be transferred from one generation to the next through indoctrination or by affixing them to a remaining sense of sentiment. Some have tried nationalism, others patriotism, yet others sexism, racism, even tribalism. Some are even attempting to tie ethics and morals to family sentiment. However, if we are to have any hope of preserving ethics and aesthetics, it will only happen by tying it to a sentiment for that which is not under attack -- the sentiment for all of humanity. Instead of looking smaller and smaller and closer and closer to the identity of the self, look outwards to the whole of humanity. Moral sentiment must be tied to a universal empathy for all of mankind based on our similarities and commonalities, not our differences. This sentiment may be expanded further to include all animal life or even to all that exists. It is our capacity for empathy, our capacity to relate to others which must be nurtured and forms the base sentiment for all morality. Instead of Christian morality, or American morality or Western morality, we must strive for a universal morality of humanity and ultimately of all sentient beings capable of moral decision making behavior. UPB strives in this direction; however, I believe it lacks the recognition of non-rational sentiment, as well as failing to sufficiently address positive morality (i.e., what one should do, not merely what one should not) and the sentiments for virtues such as kindness, generosity, fidelity, etc.

I tend to agree with this sentiment and would add that the intent or purpose behind the yelling is what is key or at issue, not the act itself. Yelling may be an act of intimidation, an attempt to control and manipulate by means or methods which work upon the body's natural fight or flight responses to danger. This, in my opinion, is a form of abuse not dissimilar from physical violence (such as spanking) and has a traumatic effect on the recipient. Yelling to express alarm, or to convey one's voice over a longer distance or noise in the immediate environment does not set off the natural fight or flight response (or at least not usually or as severely) and is not inherently manipulative. Yelling, not at a particular person, but at an inanimate object or away from anything at all as an emotional release can be very healthy and is not abusive at all. "Good Parents" may and in some cases often do "lose it" under moments or times of stress, but they do not "lose it" upon another person. They "lose it" at an inanimate object, or at nothing in particular as a means of managing stress. They "lose it" in a manner which lets the child, children, or even adult know that they are handling the stress they feel in a responsible and considerate way and not a way that is abusive towards another person, even if such a person is largely the source or tipping point of their stress, such as a child they are unable to immediately console or is constantly creating a mess, destroying the peace of mind that comes from an orderly environment.

No, I am not repulsed by all or even most caucasian women. I am nevertheless much more sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex who share physical traits common to most asian, and many black, and mongolian phenotypes and hardly attracted at all (except in a general "they're women" way) to most caucasian women. To be clear, there are some caucasian women whom I am also attracted to; however, these are generally the exception rather than the rule and typically share many of those same qualities often more commonly found among these other groups (they may even be nominally mixed, as such women tend to be of Eastern European origin and may have some Mongolian genes adding to their dominant caucasian phenotype). I believe I am among a small group of people that tend to be found among all racial groups that are genetically inclined towards that which is different, rather than that which is similar. From as early as I can remember, I have been more attracted to women of different racial background from myself; in fact, the more different from myself they are (to a point, while still possessing the aspects of proportion and symmetry which are commonly agreed upon as markers of physical beauty) the more attractive I tend to find them.

If one fails to correctly identify the problem, one is likely to implement an incorrect solution to the problem. In failing to identify the problem with an incorrect solution to a problem, one may be prone to supposing that there wasn't a problem to be corrected in the first place. The problem is not, nor never has been discrimination. Those who think it has been have sought to eliminate the distinctions between different things or people in an attempt to eliminate the detrimental effects they imagine to result from discrimination. The problem is not distinguishing between different people and different things, but rather in the unjust and inequitable treatment which often arises from unprincipled individuals engaging in prejudicial bias and bigoted behavior towards individuals on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, religion, national origin and various other categories by which individuals may be sorted into groups. In seeking to replace the necessary and proper identification of distinctions and differences between things, one ought not to neglect the reason which prompted the incorrect action of seeking to remove such discrimination in the first place.

I would imagine that really depends largely on what one considers to be a FUNDAMENTAL difference, as well as the belief as to whether such differences are determined by race or genetics rather than culture and environment. The differences between the sexes, from a genetic standpoint, are far greater than the differences between the races. With as different as men and women are, if the sexes can learn to live peacefully with one another, surely the different races of mankind can learn to do so as well. I maintain it's largely a matter of education and culture, neither or which are dictated by race.

Damn hippie douches. Now the astronauts that live on the moon won't be able to jump around as high anymore.

Yes. But for some reason it's not. I blame the Republicans for not paying enough attention to the environment.

RoseCodex, you know it doesn't hurt to be called a racist or a sexist who unconsciously contributes to and benefits from colonialism and rape culture if it's not true.

You really need to put a trigger warning on the title of your post, and not put "Microaggressions" in the subject line. I almost had a micro-panic attack seeing it. Your behavior is not making this board a safe space for me to talk about my privileged white, heteronormative, libertarian, natural-born citizen experiences and how they make me feel. Please, if you do not take action not to post such triggering words, I will need to have the Board Admins cleanse your posts of the micro-aggressive hate speech. Also, I find your avatar depicting evolution to be patently offensive to my Judeo-Christian heritage, even though I no longer embrace the religious traditions of my youth. It makes me feel personally violated to see it. You need to take it down so I'm no longer offended by seeing it.

Abolish the notion of "public anything" that isn't owned, operated, or subsidized by the state, and allow such owners to regulate their facilities as they deem appropriate. If it is owned/operated/subsidized by the state, make the laws such that only intentional or grossly negligent indecent exposure, lewdness, sexual assault, or any other such reasonably objectionable offense is illegal; no more ridiculously absurd laws where there is no initiation of the use of force involved. Quite right, and they should be allowed to do exercise their right everywhere except in common public spaces, just like everyone else. No, nor would I be okay with a bearded lady, or a clean shaven man or lady going to the bathroom with my child, whether my child is male or female. If my child is old enough to use a public bathroom without my presence, then they're old enough to use the stall on their own without an adult going to the bathroom with them. As to your claim of seeing bearded men who identify as women, such individuals are not the typical transgendered individuals being targeted by these laws, and quite probably require professional intervention for a mental illness or disorder significantly more serious than a gender identity disorder. As such, I would not trust them alone in the bathroom with my son where you seem to be suggesting they belong any more than I would trust them in the bathroom with my daughter.

Actually the real problem is that the Religious Right ensured that laws were in place to make sure that those who use a restroom that is consistent with their public appearance but not their private plumbing may be arrested as sex offenders for doing nothing more than using a public restroom in conformity with the gender they identify with (not for indecent exposure, public lewdness, sexual assault, or any other such reasonably objectionable offense). SJWs sought to correct such laws nationwide. In point of fact, it was the lack of empathy for such Transgendered men and women on the part of the intolerant Right which needs to be improved. Most who dress as the sex they identify with have no desire to use the other bathroom for the sex they do not identify with unless there is a ridiculous line for one and not the other; but then the same can be said for non-TG men and women as well in such an instance.

I've never understood why it is so difficult for some Christians to understand what the Bible teaches. When it comes to boasting, the Bible teaches it is sinful vanity or pride, except when one is boasting about the greatness of God, in God's power, mercy, forgiveness, and other Godly qualities. Boasting in one's supposed morality is considered vanity akin to the sins of the Pharisees which are soundly condemned by Jesus. As for judgment or judging, "Judge not lest thee be judged" is a commandment against hypocritically condemning people, not about condemning bad behavior. The Bible is very explicit that certain behaviors are sins and must be eschewed. It is also very explicit that a person, particularly a Christian, should be principally concerned with their own sins and sinful behavior, not the sinful actions or behavior of their neighbors. This is not to suggest that the person ought not exhort people who are sinning to eschew their sinful behavior; but rather, that before one seeks to do so, one gets their own houses in order--that they pluck the proverbial sty from their own eye before seeking to pluck the mote from their neighbor's eye. In short, according to the New Testament, to condemn others for their sins is to be like Satan. To condemn sin and forgive others is to be like Jesus.

No More Mr Nice Guy! by Dr. Robert A Glover - is a book that helped me recognize many of the dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors I learned about dating and relationships. Why You're Dumb, Sick and Broke... and How to get Smart, Healthy, and Rich by Randy Gage - wasn't so much a revelation as a confirmation of what I have learned over the years with respect to causes of dysfunctional behavior and what and how to change.

Another thing to consider is the prudence of building a supply of food that can help you sustain temporary earning setbacks or food shortages due to inclement weather or other natural disasters. One should also consider, in addition to storing food, storing potable (drinkable) water... at least enough for 30 days or longer for every member of the household (including pets) and including whatever may be necessary for cooking or re-hydrating food. If you live in an area where there are laws against "food storage" or "food hoarding", I recommend investing in storage systems that conceal the food in a secure manner that is not susceptible to compromise by insects or rodents. Thick, hard plastics are typically the best, followed by metal tins (such as the tins for cookies and crackers) as rodents and bugs cannot get into these as long as they remain tight fitting and rust-free. Canned goods are also a good item for storage. If you own your home, you may consider creating a false wall that can be used for food storage or even an entire closet or cupboard with concealed access. You may also consider building furniture such as platform beds couches, chairs, etc. with concealed pockets, floors, drawers, etc. Again, it is imperative to avoid storing seeds or beans, etc. in nothing but the bags or boxes they were purchased in, as these may simply attract and be compromised by vermin and various other pests. If one has pets, remember to plan for them as well with a 90-day supply or more of food for them as well. Dry food, if kept in well sealed containers can last years, just like grains and cereals for human consumption. Additionally, if any person is dependant upon medication (such as insulin, steroidal inhaler, medication for hypertension, etc.), one should consider obtaining and rotating through a 30, 60, or even 90-day supply (depending on the storability of such medications at room temperature). One should also consider basic medical supplies and first-aid supplies including bandaids, alcohol wipes or the like, gauze, bandages, antiseptic ointments, anti-fungal creams, sunscreen, pain relievers, caffeine pills, coffee or other mild stimulants, anti-histamines & decongestants, cough suppressants, etc. One should consider a 90-day or longer supply of personal hygiene products including soap, shampoos, conditioners, anti-perpirants & deodorants, feminine hygiene products, toilet paper, baby wipes, sanitary wipes, baby diapers (if needed), toothpaste, safety razors, etc. Finally, one should consider renewable sources of electricity, such as solar chargers and thermal-electric or gas-powered generators for cell phones, weather radios, and other personal or handheld electronics, flashlights, batteries, and radios. One should also consider water collection and purification, and potential weapons for self-defense and the defense of others. Lastly, one should consider other items which one might readily barter with for items one might need, including extra matches, extra toiletries, flashlights, batteries, nail clippers, personal or feminine hygiene products, OTC medication, etc.