Matthew Moran

I changed my position on this post for sure now after hearing Mike's recent call-in (check it out! FDR343) The error I made in this post was assuming that a different debate performance than Trump gave would have been best for his public perception. In my opinion, the most important factors about Trump (elaborated on in that call-in as well as many others) remain true, and these important factors indicate not only is he serious about his positions on immigration and foreign policy, but he also has the best chance one could envision in the current system to act on his beliefs. It is very appealing to become a frustrated brat and take your support away from Trump because he isn't the anarchist ideal, but when we're thinking about the long term prospects for the world we need to act in a bit less haste than to disregard evidence and reason because we were personally unsatisfied with his debate performance. If his debate performance were less restrained and this caused him to go down in the polls, then my personal preference being met would have been potentially worse for the future state of the world - and that's downright selfish.

23 minutes in and great so far! Good point about if he were such a power hungry sociopath, why did he wait until 70 to run for president? His statement over the years that he didn't want to run, but would if he felt he had to, is consistent with his actions now running at the end of his life. Loving it!

I am reading headlines of people praising Trump for "restraint" he showed, and that pisses me off because that is the complete opposite of what made Trump so appealing in the first place. He specifically decided not to say things he planned to say about Bill's rape accusations, and that is troubling in terms of what it might indicate about his conscience. If he goes into the next debate and shows less restraint and is more focused on what specific and clear points he wants to make to the American people about the truth of the Clinton's, then I will be more hopeful, but at this point I am also disappointed he did not do this as effectively as it seemed he maybe could have in the first debate. The moderator was clearly biased but Trump didn't seem to have any trouble saying whatever he wanted because of his impressive command of the conversation. The fact that he chose to focus on minutia with the command he was capable of makes his strong assertiveness sort of aimless and somewhat empty.

It's predictable and boring. He invents a scenario that is specifically designed to horrify your conscience, not to reason from first principles, and then suggest government intervention. The purpose of the scenario is to get you to abandon reason. That's why there are no empirical data about what actually eliminates poverty. Singer himself admitted he doesn't live according to the principle. The guy is the definition of a fraud. Anybody who claims to care about poverty should care a lot about what has lifted 800 million people out of poverty in less than a generation, and it wasn't any of the two solutions listed in the video. It was however mentioned in the podcast I linked. One of the solutions in the video (more power and resources to government) actually has lead to famine and genocide of the poor, so I guess that is just a teeny tiny overlooking of his. What a morally atrocious statist crook who is getting paid from people at gun point to spout this crap...

I don't know why it matters if there is a coordinated plan or not. If there is an incentive for politicians to disintegrate white western culture, because it's small government and pro-liberty, then politicians are going to respond to those incentives. It's probably a lost cause for me to mention the truth about slavery presentation at this point since you've shown no interest in digesting new arguments, but slavery effected whites negatively as well (and the irish had a brutal experience with slavery in this country), and so did jim crow. I would continue this conversation, but you have twice now repeated emotional rhetoric absent any arguments while claiming others are doing just that, so I don't think a third time of suggesting you actually refute arguments provided on the show will be productive.

FDR 3387 "Bald Ape Meat Puppets," first call

"By "genocide" we mean the destruction of an ethnic group…. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups…." - Raphael Lemkin, Polish-Jewish man who coined the term genocide in the early '40s. There is a lot of overlap between what he characterized as the objectives of genocide (disintegrating the culture, institutions, economic existence, etc.) and what is happening to white/European culture today. Another definition by the UN adopted around the same time also includes measures that are intended to prevent births of certain groups. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46173-central-immigration-forced-multiculturalism-topic/ It is seamless and common for white people to live as if the other cultures around them are not generally taking them for granted; and to live as if their government is not using this to destroy their culture for short term political gain. What you said sounds more like emotive rhetoric to me, so you might be projecting. Please check out the many arguments and data and respond with counter arguments if you disagree, at least in humility that you may be adding fuel to a really dangerous fire if you don't.

definitely. I am donating $20

In case I helped make things more confusing here, I wanted to confess I'm not sure self-therapy is even a valid term. Since therapy is an institution where a professionally trained individual is paid to help benefit the mental health of their client, I'm not sure how this could possibly be replicated on one's own. I think introspection is a better term for what is often called self-therapy. I also have a tough time imagining how the more intense emotional breakthroughs that happen in therapy could be replicated on one's own. In that sense, the delicacy and expertise required to further these breakthroughs makes self therapy analogous to the impracticality of self surgery. And with regards to what a friend or family member could provide: this has already been addressed in post #14. Those who are considering therapy and are feeling poorly probably wouldn't be in the position they were if the people around them could perform the healthy and supporting roles they needed. Even if they could, it might not still be comparable to the attention and expertise a therapist could provide. Hopefully that makes my thoughts more clear, whether I'm right or wrong.

It is towards the end of that call. I think her question/concern starts at about 53 minutes in, and then Stefan's response/speech is what you're talking about (I think). I agree it's a great call Also "Is there evidence for God?" is one of my new favorites of all time, in case you haven't seen that one.

5,600 pages of pure free trade... I'm just a tiny bit skeptical....

There's apparently a huge lack of evidence for EQ. Podcast FDR 3228, "Why Emotional Intelligence is Nonsense" goes over this just in case anyone is interested.

I think there is a misunderstanding about the argument contained in Kathryn's post that is being repeated. It's perfectly fine to misunderstand something for whatever reason, but as new evidence is being presented, it is not just to simply repeat the initial misunderstanding as if no attempt to clarify Kathryn's position was made. Kathryn is making an argument that therapy can be beneficial even if the patient is smarter or more well informed than their therapist. This wouldn't be true in many other disciplines, because of the nature of the professional relationship. If you were a world renowned investor, there would be absolutely nothing to gain from a simply above average investor. If you were one of the best economists in the world, again, there is absolutely nothing you would gain from an above average economist. But on the other hand, even if you were a fantastic doctor or psychologist, there is benefit in seeking an objective third party doctor or psychologist, even if they were generally less informed or intelligent than you. This is because the subject of observation in these disciplines, unlike economics or investing, is the self. Even if you were the best psychologist in the world or had read plenty of books on the subject, what you would always lack is the ability to step outside of your own internal experience and observe yourself objectively. It is incorrect to say this point includes the premise that therapy is always beneficial. The entire point of the article in my opinion is to make clear what particular reasons are invalid to claim therapy from an objective third party, as opposed to self therapy, is not potentially beneficial. No one can guarantee therapy will be useful for anyone, but it stands to reason that since it is part of a professional discipline with about a hundred years of research behind it, that it is appropriate to discuss the nature of its benefits for some people. For the same reasons it would be inappropriate in most if not all cases to receive medical attention from your non-doctor neighbor, it would be likewise inappropriate to receive therapeutic psychotherapy from a non-therapist neighbor, family member, or friend. There is a reason therapy is a specialized profession: not anyone can be a therapist, and not all relationships are capable of that level of objectivity. Before anyone is going to repeat the assertion that anywhere in this article is the premise "every must go to therapy" or "therapy is good for everyone at all times," they should respond to one of the three attempts to clarify, or else for them to post on a forum is pointless. For what it's worth, I thought Kathryn made this all clear as could be expected, but maybe I'm taking for granted a point I was already mostly aware of, though she did make it extra spiffy