AustinJames

Yeah, 'lack of moral significance' just felt too wordy. And I wanted to express the possibility of some arguable nuance regarding participation in or tolerance of an industry that is morally corrupt, i.e. meat industry/porn industry.

Great sex is like a fantastic meal; best enjoyed with the one you love most in the world. Porn is McDonalds-- but sometimes I still eat McDonald's, mostly because it's quick and convenient. I think the principle of moderation applies to McDonalds as it applies to porn; and partaking of both have similar moral significance.

If you've been in an elite ensemble in the midst of competition, you can most likely relate with the paradoxical nature of artistic improvement that is explored in this film. The controversy of the mentor/student relationship when it goes to extremes is a very real issue; one rooted in our sex drive, triggering some primitive element of our nature, to perform at our maximum potential. I enjoyed the movie very much, perhaps because I can sympathize with it so well.

I don't think it's possible to have great business relationships with people who have bad relationship skills. If I were to invest in a business, I would make sure the owner was very skilled in cultivating and maintaining relationships in general, on principle. I don't think it would be productive to "move on" before gaining some insight as to why RTR is difficult/not optimal for you. What is your aim in pursuing this endeavor? How will your life improve by it?

My initial reaction was, "why would he do a comedy show? He already does something BETTER than a comedy show." Upon further reflection, however, I came to think it would be a good idea to get a half-hour together purely for the sake of humor. If Stefan did a standup "special," it may very well expand his audience and donorship. It should be easy to compile material from existing shows. Perhaps some volunteers could submit jokes for a concentrated comedy presentation.

I responded 'too far' for the reason I don't go to comedy clubs, but the political correctness of the audience is a big factor in the overall quality of modern comedy. I recently heard Joe Rogan and Kurt Metzger talk on their respective podcasts about how today's hypersensitive audiences and social media scandals are ruining comedy. They cite other comedians that are outspoken on the issue, such as Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock. Things like the Daniel Tosh rape joke outrage, or the Ari Shaffir "bullying" have a strong chilling effect. I suspect (and hope) we can look forward to a backlash of radically offensive, no-holds-barred, hilarious comedy, with nothing too sacred to make fun of. If that happens, I'll be sure to frequent my local comedy club more often.

I've heard Alex Jones rave about a specific iodine product. I promise I'm not plugging Infowars; it honestly might be worth looking into. He boasts about a revolutionary and patented means of extraction or distillation or whatever the method is. I can't speak from personal experience, but I would be interested to hear about your experiences with various supplements. Iodine deficiency has historically been a problem, much like scurvy or malnourishment. That's why salt companies started to include iodine in their products some time ago. Do you suspect a conspiracy? Or is this just an example of irresponsible oversight?

The earth is flat, too, ya know... http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Can hunting, even for sport, be considered an effective and ethical method of ecological conservation? It was difficult emotionally for me to explore this possibility, but eventually I found the idea that hunting as an optimal tool for conservation, and a boon to humanitarianism, to be irrefutable. Thoughts?

But why? Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeee??? Reading through this stuff is like eating a word salad made of recycled tires. You have not provided adequate reason to even justify redefining these terms. What could we possibly gain by accepting your definitions? What would it change in philosophy? What problems does it solve? I know, you say that there are inconsistencies inherent in the implications of the current definitions, but that's like saying that the word "up" needs to be redefined because if someone is upside-down, then up is down, or in a zero-gravity state, "up" is completely relative. In reality, these redefinition attempts are asinine. They are not at all useful, nor are they true, nor do they improve anyone's understanding of philosophy. On the contrary, your arguments work as a grand obfuscation for anyone that intends to apply philosophy in a meaningful way. I'm sorry that you've invested so much thought in this, but you're really wasting your own time, along with the time of other people who have engaged with you hoping for a reasonable discussion.

It makes me sad to hear about your struggle with this divorce, even so long after it happened. I can sympathize with this, as I have had to deal with some ambiguity in my own childhood. I have given up the notion that my parents will ever give me the truth; whether because they honestly don't know, or because they don't want me to know. With the level of dysfunction displayed by your parents, I doubt you will ever get any clear, honest answers about what happened. It may be good to talk to your parents, though I'm not sure. Doing so may give you some kind of closure, but it may only frustrate and confuse you further. I would recommend pondering what the implication of their responses may be. If your dad said it was all your mom's fault, and your mom blamed your dad, what would that change for you? What if the opposite happened and they both blamed themselves? What if they had a somewhat nihilistic viewpoint, saying something like, "who's to know what should have been? What happened has happened, it's beyond our control, what good does it do to find fault?" What would these responses mean to you? Would any of them change anything? I suspect not, but it may be something to consider when planning your next step in attaining self-knowledge in this matter. Good luck! I hope you update us here on the forum when you make progress on this.

I would recommend free-writing. It's kind of like journaling, but you purposefully avoid self-censorship. Just sit down with a pen and paper (or a computer, or type-writer, or whatever your preferred medium) and record thoughts as a flow of consciousness. Try not to stop writing, whatever comes out, and however sloppy it is. This is not a solution, but it is a tool that has worked for me. Good luck!

But... Do you guys even lift? Like, seriously... do you even lift, bro?

Sure! I would be interested to hear Stefan's take.

I can't speak for any women, but I agree with MMD that Sex at Dawn would be a disqualifier for me, and may also be for quality women. I agree that it is an interesting read, but placing it first on your list is risky if you intend to attract an intelligent, healthy, and emotionally-balanced partner.