Search the Community

This morning I was challenging in my mind Stefan's definition of culture, which is to have a group of people that have the same definition of what is right and what is wrong. For example, in my culture, the waste majority of people agree that it is wrong for an adult to marry a 8 yo child, yet in Asia, in countries like India and many Muslims country, it is not considered wrong. I was trying to make a parallel between this definition of what culture is and the dichotomy between collectivist culture and individualistic culture. I came to the conclusion (and I know that many people will challenge this affirmation) that individualist culture do positive reinforcements and collectivist culture do negative reinforcements. Lets try a few examples. Where I live, it is good to like poutine, it is good to like traditional music, it is good to be frank and overly honest. But it is not necessary. No one is going to come and kick my ass and I wont be publicly ostracised if I dont like poutine. They wont force spoon it down my throat. Now, lets take a tribe in Africa. In this tribes, people do dances collectively. When it is the time to hunt, it is wrong if you do not join the group in the dance of ... the lion... or some shit like that. The group will be upset if you stay in your corner. They might wonder what is wrong for a while, but they will eventually give up and reject you from the group. When you are in Pakistan and you scream out loud ''this woman just burned a Qur'an''. People will lose their shit, beat the woman to death and burn her alive. If you do not join into the frenzy, you might be considered as an accomplice and burned to death as well. This is an other example where it is considered wrong, by the group, to not join in the collective activity. Notice that when you are in a collective culture, you do not get a reward for conforming to the collective. You only get punished when you dont join in. This is why it is negative reinforcement. In an individualist community, if I am open minded and welcoming to stranger, people will say ''wow, what a great guy''. I might get a few smiles and even a pat on the back if I'm lucky. But I will not get punished if I am not welcoming. Positive reinforcement. I often hear people coming from collectivist culture saying that my country doesn't have a culture. I believe that they say this because they have a difficulty understanding what an individualist culture is. And if Stefan is right, that people who have an IQ under 90 cannot function in a free society, this means that these people will never be able to function outside of a collective. Knowing this, does this help us deal with low IQ migration. I believe it does. We could create fake collectives inside of our borders in which the ''rights and wrongs'' do not infringe upon our liberties. This would provide the migrants with the group think they desperately need to function and ensure the liberties and freedom of the host population. I'm really interested in hearing you guys thoughts on the subject =)

https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 Found this paragraph to be particularly interesting:

I had to read it several times and I still can't grasp it fully. Sigh. So the time has come to start 'abandoning the sinking ship'? We don't deserve it anymore it seems. Here's the article about the European Union's escalating push for a Dublin reform Why did we allow our EMPs to vote with 390 yes, 175 no votes and 44 abstentions? I'm awestruck and starting to notice my thoughts regularly wondering towards seeking out a new place where people have integrity and actually 'walk the walk' the opposite direction. How can we be so removed so that now 'there's actual plans being drawn up to sell our houses from above our heads'? Well, I guess the security and public sector gonna boom for a short while at first from all that 'wellcoming and smooth-integration'. I haven't seen many outlets bringing this issue up. 'Is it a duck?' I hope someone corrects me. Barnsley

We all know how socialism is changing the west today (the welfare state reversing natural selection, the importation of low iq high crime voters, the destruction of western culture and values etc.), but I know very little of how it has affected socialist/communist/collectivist countries of the past. Some of the ones I know about: Communist China: if you visit China you see how the polite buddhist culture (you normally see in high iq asian countries like Japan) is gone, people are very rude. I have been told by several chinese it changed under communism, anybody can confirm? They wanted to get rid of the old "evil" religion and also got rid of all the good traditional values in society. Another thing: the population exploded under communism from less than 560~ mio to 1265 mio in only 50 years. I have been told the communists heavily rewarded people who got lots of kids, and since there was mass starvation a lot of people got many kids. I bet it wasn't the most high quality people that followed the government's incentives, so that probably affected the genes in a negative way? Yugoslavia: seems like a lot of the same stuff goes on in europe today also happened in Yugoslavia back then. The high iq christian serbish group was the producers, the low iq high crime muslim bosnien group was the receivers. During the communist regime population changed, muslims got lots of kids and outbreeded the serbs. Serbs got pissed and went on a killing spree. Check some of the last replys in this forum post. Soviet Russia: don’t know much, but I bet the same stuff happened here. Just look at the chaotic impolite high crime culture of russia today, was it really always like that? Looking at Russian culture before the communists it seems very different. And shouldn’t the tough winters have created a different gene set, i.e. only the smartest and toughest can survive there, you would had to work together to survive, etc.? Any other places people can think of where collectivism fucked up culture and genes and how it happened?

Culture cultivates. What does it cultivate? Proximately, we can say culture cultivates that which is valued by the people from whom the culture arose, be it songs or smart phones. But these are phenotypes -- not replicators as are memes and genes. It is a popular cowardice to deny responsibility for the evolutionary consequences of our cultural choices -- to, in effect, declare all that happens is "natural" selection. This puerile denial of responsibility for consequences of our cultural choices results in phenomena such as "Being on the right side of history." when all that is promoted is the entropic indulgence of high time preference. They may as well say, "Being on the right side of entropy." But every choice we make that impacts the evolutionary viability of people in society is a consequence for which we bear moral responsibility. So what does culture ultimately cultivate? A race of people. It is in this sense that the cultural determinists are correct but for the wrong reasons and on the wrong time scale. Moreover, it is in this sense that cultural determinists lay claim to the moral high ground that belongs, not to them, but to the morally responsible adults in the room they accuse of being evil.

Hi there, I just started a flair/pin company and it's been interesting going around selling my first pin. As I hoped, it has sparked discussions with people about philosophy and current events, due to the nature of it being what it is, but mainly being a mysterious green thing on my lapel I designed this enamel pin as a reference to the meme wars that thew the MSM down onto it's haunches this year . Have a look and share it if you would. I'll be making more but this is probably the only "Pepe" niche one I'll produce. And because I have gained so much from FreedomainRadio and the community built around it, for every pin sold to a FreedomainRadio member I will donate half the payment back ($3.50) to Stephan @ FreedomainRadio. Just message me your order confirmation # and name, or you can email me @ [email protected] with your FreedomainRadio username and reference your order number. I'll post back to you the donation receipt, and you can confirm that with Mike! I'm also into giving away a few of the for FREE to those with tighter wallets but can share pinbit.club with their friends! Pin image Attached!

This video helped to remind me that we still have a lot to suss out before we can be sure one way or another about genetics and cultural compatibility:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/21/study-of-holocaust-survivors-finds-trauma-passed-on-to-childrens-genes Warning: This is a mix of ranting and observation and sharing personal experience, etc. so I apologize in advance if my thoughts are all over the place. This is one of the many articles you can find about passing on trauma through genes. I am not Jewish but I do live in Israel. This topic has been on my mind lately and now my niece is on a field trip in Poland to visit the Holocaust sites with her class. It's an optional trip, however in high school the kids are taught the Jewish experience of the Holocaust and visit the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, etc. She's sending photos of these sites which are very emotional and haunting. I can tell it's her attempt to connect to the family at a time where she needs her family to be there with her or for her not to be there at all! My kids are still young (1st and 3rd grade) but I have already made up my mind that they will not be visiting these sites with a class or without me. I thought I would chapparone but even that is out of the question. If they want to go, it will be just us, as a family on our own time. I had a suspicion that getting into the details of the holocaust while the kids are in school passes on the trauma. Now, having heard my nieces experience (she is 16), I can tell she is already traumatized AND keep in mind, she is in a foreign country, for the first time, without her parents for a week...which can be difficult enough! Now, you can imagine my legitimate concern added to the scientific research done on the matter (even Israeli media covers this research) is seen by many in Israel as mild nazi'sm or 'concern trolling. I find this highly irresponsible and abusive but of course this is the "jewish" right of passage I guess. I'm not stating this as any judgement because this type of teaching-trauma can occur in any way. This is what the 'black slavery' I believe does to modern black people..... keep hammering on about slavery and suddenly they felt enslaved, etc. I find it frightening and fascinating at the same time. It explains a lot about certain Jewish, especially Israeli behaviors.... especially in context of the current Palestinian conflict. You get the extreme right who just goes into spirals that everyone isagainst them and ...I won't get too much into it now, but in short, but these extreme right that are the biggest drivers behind keeping the Holocaust alive and viscerally palpable, think that if you try to discuss peace and consistancy, that you are a secret terrorist. LIke super weird stuff I can't even describe. They say, "you are a terrorist posting as a peace activist'. I mean... that is a whole level of paranoia I can't even explain. it's a riddle wrapped in a puzzle to understand how these people process information and others who aren't like them. Even to common Israelis they are baffling. I digress. I think this issues of how we can pass on our traumas in our genes either by our behavior from that trauma that is taught or by activating genes in our offspring or by literally TEACHING them the trauma so it feels real and present it hugely underrated. I have tried using this avenue of discussion to see if in my own life I am doing this to any degree unknowingly. But when I speak with others to see if they notice this in their own life or in society as a whole because I think if we can put context to this so people really see it, then it can begin, just like peaceful parenting, undoing a lot of the damage in the world. I am so so sorry that my niece is going through this but there is no way in her situation to even make it a 'bad' thing. They are proud to go through this. Even though it is traumatizing. I can only start with my kids by minimizing the damage and keep our conversations open and frequent. I've already told my hubby that our kids will not be participating with their class on these trips. If later in their life they want to visit these sites, I have no problem whatsoever and we will go together, as a family so we can share the experience and take the time to go at our pace and deal with the emotions together with honor and dignity and care. My niece's trip is 200 children! (some are from the same age group but different schools). I was horrified.... not even on our 'fun' field trips in the US could we get 200 kids, if we included the whole school in the whole county! lol But that many kids for such an emotional, scary, confusing and intensive trip it's outright abuse. And, she is already calling home everyday hysterical and crying and then when she gets home, she will sit for hours with her grandmother who lost 3 relatives in the Holocaust which will hit her stronger in her heart and knowing my mother in law, won't get into the 'how'. It's only the 'what'. My kids will learn the precursors to WWII to put things in context..not that it makes it ok but that's why she's so traumatized. she keeps asking, HOW? HOW? HOW? and no one has any fucking answers for her except: because we are Jews." not because THEY were Jews... but WE...they already put THEMSELVES in the past experience. It's so subtle. I tried once to say.... you know there were a lot of precursors that prepare for a dictator to take over and is preventable if society will read the signs. And I was given death stares and everyone's ears turned deaf...stick to the narrative!! They always say on the Holocaust Memorial Day, "never again'. They say you either have Jews who vow this will never happen again to THEM and you have Jews who vow this will never happen again to ANYONE. That's really true and I try to preach how this can never happen again to anyone and pay attention to economics, recognize propaganda, etc but that's very inconvenient to passing on trauma. If the youths don't feel the trauma, the elders feel the youths will put down their guard and it will happen all over again....which is true because the elders never learned or took the time or allowed anyone else to teach HOW it actually happened in order to read the warning signs. Lastly, don't judge Israel by its leader! lol I've come to the conclusion (and since we are all or mostly anarco-caps here) that when we see a leader of any country, it's probably most accurate to assume that he represents the LOUDEST MINORITY, not the rational majority. I know Democracy is suppose to be the mob rule, but from what I've seen in the 2 countries I've lived in (US and Israel) it's the loudest minority that wins the power seat. ok, I think that's the end of my rant. If anyone has anything to add, please do!

...and, "Donald Trump's Immigration Policy: An Honest Conversation." Some of these things are covered in a few other forum threads, so please excuse the uncited references. I am a Philosopher King donor, who has donated almost a thousand dollars to this conversation. I am close to asking for my money back. I listened to their recent podcast, "Donald Trump's Immigration Policy: An Honest Conversation," and felt angry and frustrated at the rightward, Hoppean turn the conversation took. They seemed to paint almost all Mexican ("illegal") immigrants with the same broad brush. "They come from a society that inflicts abuse on their children!" "They don't peacefully parent their kids and grow up all screwed up!" There are people in the US like that! What am I supposed to do, advocate for a phalanx of border guards at the state border to keep North Carolinians from "invading" my state? If not, why not? Because the line on a map is thicker? As an anarchist, the only borders I respect are property lines. Private property lines. Don't people own the land on the other side of the Rio Grande? (Hey, that rhymes!) Or is the whole premise of "border security" that they outsource that power the government? Is that it? I think Mike mentioned that the US government should still obey the immigration laws in this country. Even if those laws are consummately unconstitutional? The US Constitution only give the federal government the power over natualization. Immigration was originally left to the states. (I have a problem with that as well, but that's another matter.) The US government usurped this power with the Page Act of 1875, as a means of stemming the tide of Chinese "taking American jobs." (Some things never change, unfortunately.) Mexicans (or other immigrants) do not "take American jobs." They do not belong to Americans, they belong to the employers. The employers can (or, at least, should) give those jobs to whomever the employer wants. I also felt angry when I realized that they were very supportive of Trump's policy on this. So, let me get this straight... Ron Paul, no, Donald Trump, Hell Yeah! I felt angered when Stef mangled people in this conversation who dared to say that Dr. Paul should be commended for his support of freedom-oriented legislation, and may even be voted for. (Yes, we all know that voting doesn't solve anything.) But Trump, who isn't freedom-oriented on pretty much anything, gets drooled over by Stef and the gang? I'm curious as to the rationale. (Legitimately. I really can't put the proper tone in a written forum post.) Is it because, unlike Ron Paul, Donald Trump doesn't even give the pretense of being a libertarian? Is that it? Yes, I know that no one of the Freedomain Radio staff would officialy support the Donald politically (Stef can't- he's Canadian), but still... I would advise you to please not fall into the same trap I'm trying to avoid- seeing people as homogeneous. I understand that not all migrants are sympathetic, hard-working, conscientious people, any more than they are all money-grubbing, welfare-statist, child-beating, irrational religionists. I don't think any of us are asserting that. However, you know that national "border security" and immigration policies don't work on a case-by-case basis. It winds up being, "ship alla them Moo-slum sand niggers'a right back whur they came frum!" Or worse, as a local radio talk show host said about people fleeing Cuba a few years back, shoot to kill on sight. Which brings me to the "European Migration Crisis" podcast... A lot of the cultural invasion topics from the Trump Conversation podcast were brought up here, with the subsequent trepidations from me. However, I noted, with some dismay, that Stef didn't address the 800-Pound Gorilla in the Room... the Gun in the Room. Another poster on another forum topic addressing this mentioned this, but for those who haven't read it, let me say it. These diparate people from across the Middle East didn't, en masse, get up one fine, peaceful day in Syria (or Afghanistan) and say to themselves, "You know, Syria is great and all, but you know who needs themselves some Syria? Portugal!" They are fleeing these areas because these European citizens supported their governments' involvement in the War on Terror and have sent some of their fellow citizens there to bomb, shoot, and irradiate these Middle Easterners' families and friends, and depose their leaders. Another governmental program that is attracting those people to Europe is the welfare states. Stef discussed this at length on the podcast, and I commend him on this. But reforming (or, preferably, eliminating) the welfare state is the more humane solution to this problem, not shipping them back to a literal war zone or killing them if they refuse. That's what they're there for! They could have met that fate if they'd just stayed where they were. Bottom line, I don't seem to understand the whole issue, but I have some ideas. The best way I think to handle the problem (as far as anyone rational can influence the government) is: end the War on Terror, eliminate welfare and other unconstitutional benefits for non-citizens, and inform these refugees (or "illegal immigrants,"* or whatever you want to call them) that they are on their own. In a truly free area, there would be no honey to attract redistributionist people and all the land would be owned by individuals or organizations, who would be tasked with keeping tresspassers "off'n their propertah." As far as those who are already here, keep anyone you like off your property for any reason you like, but whomever anyone else allows on their land, or hires, or sells to is none of your goddamned business. (As least as far as government force is concerned.) By the way, Stef mentioned that the best thing for these refugees is to stay and fight where they are. All I have to say is, Anne Frank didn't. Sigmund Freud didn't. Albert Einstein didn't. The von Trapps didn't. And most importantly, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek didn't. They knew a sinking ship when they saw it and, like good and prolific rats, got while the gittin' was good. (Yes, I know these people aren't exactly modern intellectuals steeped in Western Civilization and classical liberalism, but their situation is similar.) I intend to do the same thing. Those people in the Middle East aren't exactly fighting an intellectual war. They're fighting the 3rd US Marine battalion- with guns, and drones, and Hellfire missiles, and tanks, and depleted uranium ordinance. please help me *I call them, "unauthorized movers," like someone going from Montana to Colorado, or Ontario to Alberta. What's the difference?

Hey Fellow FDR listeners, I just wanted to get your thoughts on the great Netflix series" House of Cards (HOC)." I think this show is a force for good in getting Americans to question why they put so much faith in these bullying blowhard politicians. And, while I have issues with Trump, I think his current success in the polls is a reflection of at least some of the success of HOC in portraying career politicians as quite disgusting people. Trump is kind of shady in his own ways but I think a lot of people just think it's so refreshing to see a viable candidate that's not a lifelong politician. This show is even more effective than the old British version of this show that went by the same name and even more effective than an old British show called "Yes, Minister" which portrayed members of Parliament as bumbling buffoons and liars. Any thoughts? Do you think HOC is having any impact at all? Having a big impact? Also, many American TV shows are watched by much of the world but I'm not sure if this show in particular has had global reach. I'd love to hear from people outside the US on whether they think this show is having an impact. Christina

From The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness: When mothers stayed home families were better off prior to chasing equality, even financially: Basically a group of unhappy women thought equality to men would make them happy. The people that listened to them neglected to notice that men were not as happy as women. Was any progress made towards equality? Yes! Women are closer to the same level of happiness as men, and those unhappy women that started it all. Good job feminists! Misery loves company.

I listen to The Art of Manliness Podcast every now and then and I came across this interesting conversation about biological origins of male aggression. I immediately thought of the FDR shows I've heard on the topic and wanted to share. What do you guys think? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/173724074-artofmanliness-86-demonic-males-with-dr-richard-wrangham.mp3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvz4nRD131o&feature=youtu.be The Odyssey is one of the oldest literary/oratory works in history and is referenced ubiquitously in literature and everyday culture. Is it any more than ancient propaganda? And what can this epic homecoming story teach us about our societies and our families today? I give you: 'The Philosophy of The Odyssey'.

Today is Superbowl Sunday.. Yet another day of embarrassment for the human species. In tribute to unfulfilled lives and forgotten dreams we dedicate this day to you Sports Celebrities and Corporate Entities whom profit from our Ignorance. We are but Frightened and Confused Peasants desperately grasping for anything to distract us. Today we drunkenly dedicate ourselves to thanking our masters for allowing us an opportunity to experience feelings of excitement and accomplishment. We are unwilling to dedicate ourselves to manifesting and maintaining these feelings authentically in reality, in our own personal lives and communities.

I haven't noticed a Topic where we might informally share our more artistic ventures, so I thought I'd start one. The world is influenced through the arts and creativity is a marvelous motivator. Does anyone have any music, art, writing on all topic life, love, philosophy? Dare to Share! I will lead by example. If it touches you, hurrah, if not, know I'll keep doing it anyway Our Dogwood Trail Beneath a canopy of jade I walk the path Guided by instinct I quack with the ducks I watch the fawns They watch me watching The eagles come with their demands of flesh I wave them away and bang my drums Like a woodpecker I tap out my territory I howl through the night and crow through the day I never dream that time will pass away Beneath a canopy of emerald I walk the path Guided by intention I am the salmon against the current Destiny depends on me The bear on shore hasn’t got a chance I swerve to the side The fool in the Fiat will be the one today Not the threat of a viper’s pit would stop me Mastery morphs into flow The muse comes and goes and comes again But the story never ends Beneath a canopy of amber I walk the path Guided by knowledge I still burn the hours in quest with the ferocity of a lioness I gracefully hold the jackals at bay Having learned to surf the current like a butterfly I feel the air shift as the breeze sweeps from the North The pine needles crushed beneath my feet A jay bolts down and startles me He screeches and when I look back cross-eyed and yell “I do not understand!” he only screeches again and flies away Beneath a canopy of blue I walk the path Guided by faith I confront the turkeys with hardly a squawk My mere presence sends them scattering I laugh as they squabble together Circling then in their warrior’s dance I laugh again If only they could see the sky like I If only they could follow the forms of light that skip between the clouds Like glitter spinning through space and time Particles of fairies or ghosts or cosmic dust Do they also watch me watching? Beneath a canopy of white I walk the path Guided by wisdom The turkeys have established their pecking order The ducks shake under the fountain The fawns graze absentmindedly right in front of me But the dogs then bark and scare them away I don’t mind though We will live to see one more day Before the light fades and the sky turns gray The stars come out and call me near The chirping of invisible life sonorously surrounds The scent of eucalyptus drifts before the final sound A glow pierces through the shadows and falls across my breast And in a ray of infinite knowing I lie down and beg the light enchant me I pray the stars play for me the greatest mystery of all things They merrily oblige They sing a festive song as I pass along No more mysteries for you now strident one The ducks the fawns the turkeys are all gone The wind whispers your last words in silence To the gods our Dogwood trail moves on.

So as I've stated before I'm starting my psychology practicum soon but I'm taking a Social Psychology course first to defer my student loans and also avoid entering into the practicum totally emotionally raw from therapy. I haven't slept in four days and I'm currently trying to write a response to a group discussion. I'm really trying not to be a complete dick in my response but I'm finding it difficult to write/not to be. The class was surprisingly receptive to my last post on the origins (nature/nurture) of aggression and the statistics concerning child abuse. However, with this discussion the arrogance and collusion with evil that often appears to be omnipresent in the psychology community is really wearing on me. I know quite a bit of it is sleep deprivation but also many are leaping to defend blind obedience to authority, familial and political, in response posts. Although I am well aware that rebellious souls are few and far between within the field of psychology, I still get frustrated encountering all of this nonsense. What does everyone else think? Any suggestions on how to proceed while avoiding heavy sarcasm and aggressive language, particularly when answering questions 1 and 3? Am I just stressed or do you find it difficult to not want to respond in a condescending or angry manner too? Original Post: Discussion Question: Obedience In our culture it is fairly normal to see a parent socialize their children to obey authority figures without question. We teach them that because they are a child if they question the authority figures in their life that they are being disrespectful and often punish them for this kind of questioning. Now consider the outcome of Milgram's research into obedience in which many participants followed the request of a perceived authority figure and administering shocks up to 450 volts to a person who simply got the answers wrong. Read the following article by Thomas Blass about Milgram and his research: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200203/the-man-who-shocked-the-world Additionally read the article at http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=1297922 about the prank call at McDonalds that lead to the false imprisonment and sexual assault of a young employee all because the assistant manager blindly followed the instructions of a man on the phone. 1. Discuss, in general, why children are socialized to obey authority figures. 2. Does the way we socialize our children set them on a possible path toward this kind of obedience? 3. What benefits come from our children blindly following the authority figures in their life? 4. What negative consequences can come from this kind of socialization? 5. Is there a better option in the way we socialize our children? If so, what would be a better strategy? 6. Should this strategy change as the child ages? If so, how would it be different for older children versus younger children?

My thoughts are that it is the job of parents to shape the identity of there children and if that is the case then the family truly is the biggest influence on a persons identity. If a carer is not active in the persons childhood then culture and peers will shape the persons identity. Culture is a constant, so if parents decide to not be active then generally depending on where they are situated they will be blended into that. What are some ideas? I am doing an essay tomorrow for English about this. Some of my ideas and questions: Is identity formed only in childhood? If the parents are not active and culture creates the identity of the child is family still the biggest influence because it was there decision to not be active? Without relationships, identity doesn't exist What is learned from family? Such as empathy etc... Are factors like language and knowledge from the outside world for work or whatever important concerning our identity? Thank you so much! Sorry, is it possible to move this to self knowledge?

Howdy, everyone! Just wanted to introduce myself and two of my major philosophical interests, hoping to get some feedback and discussion going. I'm on the west coast of Canada, have formally studied philosophy in university as an undergraduate (Minor in Philosophy - diverse coursework in the philosophy of: ancient Greeks, Medievals, ethics, politics, religion/metaphysics, art/literature), and am a Roman Catholic. Two of my major interests, at present are explored in these posts by me on my writings blog: "The Gay Identity Today" - basically, that most people get the concept of "gay" wrong, classifying it in the same character trait categories as gender or race... it is different, there are psycho-sexual issues, cultural identity-issues, and political issues at play, and that changes the discussion in a big way. "Exploring the Legitimacy of Society, Alternate Societies, Religions, Cults, and Antagonistic Subcultures –draft–" -- my brain-storming page, a post-in-progress, but basically I am trying to explore the difference between primary society (i.e. - the state) and alternative societies (e.g. - the mafia, religions, cult communities, etc.) and the compared moral legitimacy of them. Philosophically, I am also interested in and trying to explore the topics of: morality's role in state legislation (e.g. - should all vices be criminalized?), the myth of the secular and religion vs. ideology, Canadian politics, global politics, business, culture (the non-formal public sphere), and society (the formal/political/legal public sphere). One major issue that I think affects modern morality discourses today is the use of the Rights framework, and I think it is a horrible language for talking about morality, because it is a haphazard and incomplete moral theory... I explored this topic here: "The Errors of 'Rights' and Political Religions" Anyway, that's a good start for what I am interested to engage with here... feel free to message me, or suggest threads that I should check-out... if you're on the west-coast, let's grab a coffee and pick a topic! Cheers!

The idea of "country" is also what keeps freedom fighters fighting, rather than just moving and emigrating. Why fight militarily against governments when you can just move to another country? Sure there are costs, like having to learn another language, etc, but is it really worth dying or fighting? (For me personally, it's just not worth it. Just take your family and leave. You can't sway the outcome much, and there is huge personal risk. The potential prize is what, a better government for one country? If it was to rid of all governments, maybe I might think about it.)Why do freedom fighters fight? I'm sure a large part of their bag of reasons is nationalism, combined with ethnic pride. Having some moral and emotional stake in the geography inhabited by their own ethnicity that contains the traditions, culture, and maybe even physical monuments significant to history. The way I see it, they stand their ground and fight mainly because of the same lingering loyalty to their "country."So yes, the governments are bad, and they propagandize, cause wars, predate on their tax farms, etc. That's a given. I want to make a point beyond that, and shine my little light on the motivation of freedom fighters. If they didn't fight, then there would be no war (granted, it would be so much easier for governments, etc, but lets put that issue aside).As far as the motivation of rebel freedom fighters, the lingering idea and belief in "their country" is probably the biggest reason they stand and fight.

I got to discuss parenting as I walked into the refinery where we work with my colleague the other morning. We got to talk about our grandchildren and I was mentioning the interesting parenting techniques my daughter is practicing (teaching baby sign language, playing calm music before bed time etc. etc.). My colleague made the comment that it is interesting how things have changed, as he said: "When we were children, we were ignored". I agreed with him that was exactly my experience growing up, with the mantra "children should be seen but not be heard" often repeated in conversation. I found it quite interesting that he, an Assyrian from Iran would have such a similar experience of childhood as I, a white protestant boy growing up in the back streets of Johannesburg. He commented that it was interesting that despite these drawbacks, we are both working as highly paid engineers and we were lamenting the great achievements that probably were denied us, had we had the advantage of skilled parenting (on the other hand it does not escape my attention that some of the great achievers seem to be those with the worst parenting imaginable). I wonder if the modern parenting ideas are also spreading as far and wide as those old-fangled ideas seems to have spread in the past? I do not know whether it is my prejudice based on my upbringing, but I still retain some of the skepticism regarding modern parenting ideas as I remember when raising my own children having contact with liberal parents (typically of anglo heritage), proclaiming to everyone who would listen how they never hit their children and then notice how my children grew to be independent, well behaved and courteous with others whilst their children turned into the proverbial "spoiled brats" who's anti-social behaviour was evidently self-destructive and disruptive to order in their own lives (but I guess you can never tell what was in truth happening behind closed doors in those children's lives).

I saw this video and thought it should go here. It is very interesting. It talks about how we learn facial expressions to survive in our specific culture. I wonder what effect this has if any on our internal emotions. I have to say, jump to 23:42 if you want to see the very creepy, good stuff. Its called "microexpressions". Tell me what you think! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m72bqvf_qDg I also wanted to add this short video about it. If you don't have time to watch the long one, this one is good too. He says how people can learn to spot microexpressions on the internet and it only takes about an hour to teach someone how to do it.