barn

236. Bonobo - Don't Wait 237. Davi - Delysid

... A great majority of women seek out / choose to keep their child(ren) out of mostly selfish reasons, against all the associated high risks. They rarely consider THE part concerning the consequences their choice imposes upon the start of the new life; the ramifications the child will have because of that, (more importantly imo) the child will be brought into without a say/choice ... To paraphrase someone: 'There's hardly anything women do accidentally ...let that sink in.' Your mother had you (even if one-night stand as you so eloquently explained it above), you are here because of a reason, otherwise we wouldn't be communicating. You wouldn't exist. But you do! Hello @Jersey. You're real, however blatant it might sound... you are nothing like a probability, since you were born. Many a summers ago, right?! (perspective...) Man, (or woman) do you know what chances it took for you to be conceived??? A rough estimate is 1:1*10^9 = 1:100000000 for ONE individual .(not mentioning diet, age, menstrual cycle... etc.) You'd have more chance winning on two separate lottery twice on a lazy Friday with random numbers, than... you get me, right? Life is a precious gift. I think it is morally wrong, squandering it... but I do respect free-will. (food for thought, for later) Consider this: - It's not that how much time, or what set of circumstances we find ourselves in... It is, what we choose to do with the time we've been granted, that matters. - When I first read through your post, I thought of: 'If I (he) got the answer to this question, it'll... ' Then, I got stuck. Now, I'm not asking you for coming back with the missing part of the sentence, still I would be curious to know if you had thought of something along the lines. {It'd tell me you went for the cause rather than the consequences.} A simple yes/no would suffice. (...if you didn't mind, that is) Barnsley

Hi @Add984 (In short: I think the human mind is fully primed, we know enough to transition into a full-fledged free society in some parts of the world...the rest is going to fall in line, can be shown a good example for their likely, future joining. It's just, no one society is "intelligent"/"got the balls" to pay the otherwise very high price of initial investment for a gargantuan and lasting return/strong inoculation against misery in general. All this multiple century long postponing is taking an ever increasing toll, raising the price if not bust, the first to leap will definitely have to pay. It's what we currently have to work with. Nothing good or bad about it. It's just, it is.) Now, can I be "cheeky" and ask you to answer a few, really simple (yeah, right) questions in regards to your poll/post? 'How will a free society come about?' 0. Is De facto always preferable (objectively) to De jure if free-will is preferable on the long run? 1. Why hasn't it? (soooo much groundwork has been done, been available for soooo long, wh.. how it hasn't... ?) 2. For how long would it last if we had achieved it yesterday? Why? What would it take? 3. What's the difference in the underlying principles between the fall of ANY statist society and the breakdown of ANY family unit? 4. Can we use things like "how many people from those losing weight do keep it off forever", to gauge the level of a society's preparedness in regards to deferral of gratification, intelligence put to productive use, keeping to principles? 5. If we replaced our society's main focus/our current guiding principle (whatever it might be) with the unapologetic and dedicated striving for the wellbeing of our children, looking at maximising their present (ought to) and future prosperity... How'd that affect our society's approach to freedom in general? Thanks, Barnsley

Hi @tymophy I don't intend to nitpick, being constructive here, is my aim. (For the future - Please use quotations, while it's fairly easy to assume what part is the paraphrasing; it can make things even more clear if you did so.) If I understand what you highlighted, it stands for people who use other people's framework of belief, to predict what they'll be able to to exploit without them being able to resist much. The exploited most likely won't be able to reassess/change heading during the process and therefore those who wish to take advantage face the least resistance possible. (it's a trap, premeditated, set in advance, based on understanding and careful observation for a clearly defined goal) It's easy to see, why determinists would want to "play this game" and "fall for it continously" too, while it's clearly (imho) not true they wouldn't care about Morality. Here's why I think they actually do care about Morality : Say I wanted to steal something from you, it wouldn't be possible if you gave it to me. Likewise, I wouldn't be able to keep what I had stolen if you thought stealing was good in the first place, neither. (because you'd steal it back sooner or later and nobody would be actually keeping the object, endlessly.) Now, to get around this I might say stealing is bad (to dupe you) but act in an opposite manner... (lying) Still, I have a moral frame of reference just it's different than of those who I wish to exploit. (and I'm fully conscious of all of this = I'd be evil/harmful, in this example) The contradiction would simply lie in me stating one thing, while enacting and/ expecting another. (That's why, 'an unexamined life isn't...' The actions of such people makes them a liability or a threat in one way or another. Not NAP compliant.) Have I positively contributed to your question? Barnsley p. s. (R u sure it's not Jordan B. Peterson who you paraphrased?)

234. Lazerhawk - So Far Away 235. Philip Glass - Pruit Igoe

Indeed. 'Bring your own chair.' p.s. (highly thought & chills provoking, a must watch imo)

Methodical, well-thought out. The propaganda is strong in this "one". Not sure the American public knows both sides of the coin. Here's the mainstream think-tank, helping people to... (_insert narrative_)

232. Bobby Mcferrin & Yo-Yo Ma - Stars 233. Parsley Sounds - Ease Yourself And Glide

Hahaha... from the "study" : 'The percentage of mothers employed part time was fairly consistent at approximately 25% of mothers. Although not reflected in Table 1, most mothers changed employment status over time. The percentage of mothers who were continuously employed part time across these seven time points was 1.8%; comparable numbers for fulltime employment and nonemployment were 11.2% and 2.8%, respectively.' ... are you kidding me?!

Hi @Rafael Ritter The study is soo going to get decimated by reason and evidence imo that it'll be joyous to follow. (in my estimation) I'll be going through it, thanks a million for your link and "batsignal"... meanwhile the first inconsistency I stumbled upon (many more, I'm sure there'll be) couldn't find the definition and "zero argument for happiness" or whether it is inclusive or dependent on the levels the children have... also... 'The analysis found that mothers employed part time were just as involved in their child's school as stay-at-home moms, and more involved than moms who worked full time.' ... impossible to be true (or parenting is a weirdly defined concept here)Furthermore skewed standards were applied when comparing. ... gonna have to read it through.

H.A.W. / 18. Trade Secrets - I Know you Got Soul (Acen remix)

229. BADBADNOTGOOD - Sustain 230. Ken Nordine - Cerise by Julia Vandenbeukel 231. Armand Van Helden - You Don’t Know Me

Hi thinkers and alike, Paul Joseph Watson has made a great video about the least discussed aspects of interaction with social media, some of the symptoms I have experienced myself... not good. Deeply thought provoking summary, I'm currently sharing it with everyone/everywhere I can. It would be interesting to see a video on the same subject from the FDR team, adding new and powerful insights (as usual) on the topic.

Hi thinkers and alike, Big homework, not for the faint hearted... (I wish to become more than a faint hearted individual... sooner, the better...) If it's just 1% true that "ideas have people" and NOT the other way around, much of the approaches (rooted in individualism) are in vain. Couple that with transcendental values and you are looking at a way longer conversation that a mere lifetime can offer you... So, yeah... sophistry is always going to be a temporary phenomenon.

227. Ben Onono - Badagry Beach (Lexicon Avenue Vocal Remix) 228. Aram Ilyich Khachaturian - Adagio Of Spartacus And Phrygia

last comment in the "Fuschia zone"...

@MercurySunlightI'm sorry, I have missed your last two posts here due to me not following it automatically and you not using @handler Remedied. Thanks a bunch, I really enjoy kaleidoscopic imagery too , nice pairing. Gonna watch them now... edit: Hahaha... I've already seen them both.

225. XTC - Rook 226. David Snell - Crab Apple Jam N.A.H.A.L.T - e.g. some harps are jazzy

Don't mention it, I usually read what you put out.

Something else, that's been bothering me about the 4th caller, it's something that I would appreciate people's input on... (still, the 'pound of flesh' is partly an overarching motif, here also.) I am going to go out on a limb and guesstimate that her available mental processing ability is akin to someone in the vicinity of 130-140 I.Q. wise. (very well could be more, I'm not that smart to notice maybe... ) I'm also guessing that she is a strong willed individual who is nevertheless brave to confront resistance when it's to further her objectives. Additionally, I'm theorising that it is 100% (yes, to me undoubtedly solid) sure, she had positively identified and pursued the partner to be married to anno. She consciously chose. What bothers me the MOST OF ALL is this. When I would be naturally sympathetic, she's neutral or superficial. When I would be suspicious of her thinking process, she immediately overflows with "bru-hu-hu" , sorrow. Eerie. She scares me. I'm not being dramatic or theatrical... it's been eerie to hear her, "see" her choice of leaps while listening to the convo. Confused, less gifted individuals don't reproduce patterns of "implied" misfortune so consistently, they CAN'T drop "smoking gun" in-between comments as 'Stefan, you're not going to hold me personally responsible for...' Man! It's like she's studied NLP. Currently, I am scared of such women in general as they seem selfish, unemotional, almost "succubus" - like. What do you think, thinkers and alike? Barnsley

Hi @PillPuppetPoet Having read what you provided... Sure, in most cases 'blind leading the b...'. Also, divorcing agents of cause while trying to justify the constant experimenting of chemical concoctions in general, is objectively a risky and just mental approach. I would like to not endorse the book, but re-iterate a plain and simpler reminder instead. (arbitrarily, my personal preference) Philosophy, philosophy and philosophy. Real conversations, aiming at not lying at least, THE LEAST! p.s. Have you seen this post, probably not much difference over the Atlantic neither... Barnsley

"Marginally",.. I suppose, from a certain angle. Agree, my thinking the same... no worries, just the references you were supplying are more political/moralistic/libertarian. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Have a good one, Barnsley

Hi @J.L.W Could you help me understand why your topic is self-knowledge related?

Hi FDR team, Thanks for the very interesting podcast, the myriads of references, for the "real" conversation in general. Again, for the 4044th time, still going strong... I thought, some might not be familiar with the 'pound of flesh' reference, and so... The Merchant of Venice also, there's been a movie produced, quite good. Must read/watch, truly a character building experience.