Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List:

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Spenc last won the day on July 18

Spenc had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

1 Follower

About Spenc

Contact Methods

  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Ontario, Canada
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

397 profile views
  1. On the surface, she considers herself normal and stable. Her true self, buried deep under all the nonsense, understands that she's nuts and not normal at all. The reason she cannot experience her true self judgment of herself is it is obviously horrible and painful to have to admit that about yourself. The theory I considered is that your mother is lashing out at you because she knows you will raise your children better and prove that her whole experience as a child and her subsequent choices as an adult were rotten and corrupt. She's desperate to harm you so that you will feel helpless as she did when she made the horrible choices that she did. It's going to hurt her deeply when she has to experience you being a good mother. So of course, if you should choose to de-FOO, she is going to practically lay down a red carpet to show you the way out of her life so that she can avoid that experience. Just my theory.....
  2. Okay then. I asked about the happiness because she's irrational and won't accept rational arguments. So you need to dig around for some sort of core principle that exists inside her that you can base a rational conversation off of. Maybe you can just try what Stef used to do, and ask a lot about her childhood and how she felt about the way she was treated, and to empathize with her child self and hope that she can connect to that little girl and empathize herself, and then hopefully empathize with you. I'm reminded of a really interesting podcast i heard recently. I don't know what evidence supports the claim, but I'll assume that Stef's wife, as a psychologist, has a greater understanding of how this works. Or at the very least it's an interesting theory: People will inflict on others the very insults that would hurt themselves most So, as an example. If I'm really vain about my appearance. I might call someone ugly, because to my own mind that is the worst insult. As a pretentious fool, I might call someone stupid, because for myself to be seen as stupid would harm my self-image the most. If I'm effeminate, I might call someone a pussy because I am myself so invested in appearing masculine that that insult would harm me most. If someone farts in a crowd, they point to the person beside them and blame that person. I'm sure you get the point..... Your mom is fucking batshit crazy! She's totally irrational and living an unhappy life, and she's sacrificing all this for nothing at all, except she has this phoney delusion of what's "right" or "normal" to rationalize her craziness. She does not call you 'un-normal' or 'mentally ill' because you are mentally ill, but because she is projecting onto people who challenge her self-image the true deep judgment that she has of herself but would also harm herself the most if it came to the surface. She is diagnosing herself, not you.
  3. How much knowledge should a doctor achieve before he is morally wrong? Or a nuclear physicist? Or an engineer who works on a bridge? I might try to question her on her level of personal satisfaction and happiness....She should prove to you that the way she lives her life produces great happiness for her. Would she acknowledge that that is important or meaningful? By what standard would she measure satisfaction with her life? (happiness, wealth, status, health, etc.) And has she achieved fulfillment in those categories that she considered imporant?
  4. How old are you? What are your prospects or what is your timeline for achieving independence financially? There's no chance anyone here can say something that will help you "fix her mindset". In your shoes, I might propose some contradiction between studying and being subservient to popular opinion. Like, you could discuss philosophical ideas which discredit being subservient, non-questioning and accepting things as they are. Like, anti-depressants often have bad side effects of suicidal thoughts. If you STUDY the effects of the pills and determine they are not safe for you, you can apply one of her principles against her. Afterall, if you study this issue she should be accepting of your conclusion. And if not, you can then turn it back on her as a virtue that she once proposed and now is denying. And if she then proposes non-questioning as a virtue, start giving her statements of will. Like, "I'm not taking the pills." When she argues, you can state that her own virtue of non-questioning applies and she must not question you otherwise she would be acting un-normal to question you and not accept things as they are. If she gets upset that youre turning her own principles against her, then you can just reply that it's what you've learned from studying philosophy. Studying is a virtue, thus she cannot question it. But I would think your answers to the first two questions would factor into how well that plan might work
  5. Hey, I sometimes have the same thoughts about myself. In my previous relationship, there were moments or even certain days where I felt truly 'in love' with her. But it wasn't a persisting feeling at all. ANd like you, I find myself to be a generally pretty content person. I don't stress on things too much, I have a generally positive or optimistic outlook. So I don't get great spikes in excitement or happiness. One thing I've realized abut myself is that my family had mechanisms to erase enthusiasm. Enthusiasm and excitement, when i was a kid, was often framed as "being silly", "seeking attention", and otherwise treated as if i was wasting people's time to draw their attention or embarrassing myself, or something like that. I'm wondering if this connects with you at all? Also, you 'accepted', at least for argument's sake, the definition of love as "involuntary response to virtue from a virtuous person". Thus, you have defined both yourself and your girlfriend as virtuous people. Do you mind stating your case for these conclusions? What virtues do you both possess? And finally, in the relationship with my ex-girlfriend I had told her I love her when I was feeling it at the high moments, but when I was kind of stuck in the baseline contentedness of my persistent pleasant state, I also professed feelings of love for her, which I'm not sure was a right and honest way to express myself, given that I was not in touch with the same high moments any longer. Which isn't to say you need to be bursting with joy and pleasure and love 24/7 in order to profess love for someone, but perhaps fleeting moments of a loving feeling don't equate to a true persisting love for someone. I'm curious, how do you describe your feelings to your girlfriend? Do you tell her you love her? Does she tell you she loves you? Have you discussed with her what you have told us about yourself here in your post? What level of honesty and integrity about your feelings have you achieved with her in this regard? I hope some of this is helpful for you to delve deeper.
  6. One thought that was occurring to me earlier today--I was serving a client who had previously created various difficulties for me and my staff--was that people will try to project into you their own emotions. So I obviously have no evidence to the contrary, but I find it interesting that you just assume the other person in your story was unaffected after your exchange, whereas you were still stewing for an hour after. It occurs to me that this person is so vain and insecure that they were going to be perpetually re-experiencing the embarrassment of their inarticulacy that they were similarly trying to produce a negative feeling for you that would fester for a long time as well. In regards to Drew's experience, I am thinking an apt metaphor might be like a snowball, where it has been accumulating for a long time and then a single roll further adds one thin layer more of snow on the surface which draws your attention and conceals the greater mass of snow beneath that has been packed together for a long long time. You look at this hefty mass and the only part visible is the surface layer which is overall insignificant to the full mass.
  7. i actually just listened to an interesting podcast Stef did from his car in Volume 2 (about FDR400 timeframe). he talked about how people with principles aren't concerned by minutiae, whereas people without principles are slaves to minutiae. Like, if we raise the minimum wage, is $1 too little, is $5 too much? what about the student minimum, how should that be changed in comparison to the regular minimum wage? Do you phase it in over 2-3 years or just set a January 1 in-effect date? So much bullshit to exhaust yourself with, but if you have a free market principle you don't have to argue about $5 being too high and trying to prove that $3.50 is the optimal increase with intensely detailed graphs and projections.
  8. which are those, and how are they distinct from the principles of the first 200?
  9. Sorry I think the bold lettering caused a confusion as to what information I was seeking. It was RichardY who bolded "concern trolling" and that was not the part I was asking for clarification on. I was actually wanting him to clarify the first part of the post about having a footbal/soccer league/clan system. I have no idea what he's talking about with that comment.
  10. Could you clarify this? I have no idea what you're referring to.
  11. Like I said, if the goal is to equip people with the ammo to defend against the lies of the mainstream media or something like that, it is useless by Stef's own previous core assertion: that people do not determine their sociopolitical ideologies based on reason and evidence adn therefore they cannot be argued out of those beliefs through reason and evidence. It's like equipping people with NERF ammo. We may want to fire it off, we may run out and re-stock, but we're going to be forever firing it without significance because it's just NERF and has no capacity to inflict impact on the enemy.
  12. Naturally, we get callers into the show like that guy a couple weeks ago who talked with Stef for a pretty long time about the virtues of stability in Christian families and then made up a bunch of bullshit about spanking being fine and how the studies were flawed (when he didn't seem to know that there were close to 100 studies collated) and couldn't retrieve his sources, etc. He also accused Stef of conflating terms in order to tie 'spanking' to 'hitting', when he was doing the exact same thing, trying to conflate it to 'swatting' a fly. Is this person participating in philosophical discussion, or is he just a right-winger who likes that FDR has been home to criticism of the left? In 2006-2012, maybe even into 2014, Stefan would argue that you can't change a person's mind with facts and reason when it comes to issues of freedoma nd politics because they are just acting out their family traumas in broader society. But lately, there's hardly any discussion on personal freedom issues and a whole shit ton of podcasts/videos in "The Truth About..." series detailing an exhaustive chronology and collation of facts and reason. So has Stefan recanted his position on that issue in the past couple years? I've heard him recant about participating in politics and accepted that it could be useful and valuable at this point in time with this particular candidate (Trump). I have not heard him go back on his claim that facts and reason do not change people's minds though. If someone is a conservative, and Stef is going to enter the political realm and produce videos to criticize the left, the right will join in and follow. But they wont be imbued with principles and philosophy, and as soon as the worm turns and criticism is targeted against the right, those people will turn on FDR, Stef and "philosophy".
  13. In the beginning, Stefan used the forums to reach his audience and build his brand. If you're saying that Stefan doesn't need the forums anymore in order to grow the show, gain donations, etc. I think you're likely correct. However, in terms of the forums serving a purpose for discussion among all people serious about ideas, I don't believe social media has supplanted the forums' necessity and purpose at all. On Reddit, r/FDR is very quiet. The facebook group is an alt-right shitposting disaster. Even to the extent that there are some interesting videos and articles posted on occasion, the format of how comments are displayed on facebook is garbage compared to simple forums like this for making lengthy posts and having them easy to read, find, respond to, etc. Twitter isn't even worth mentioning, as 140 characters is not sufficient for exchange of philosophical ideas. The Discord group is pretty dead as of last week when I checked in on it.... Where exactly are people having great philosophical conversations on social media that I'm not aware of?
  14. If you're interested in more focus on the content of the earlier shows, I had made a topic a month ago or so about starting a skype chat (or similar group chat) and reviewing and discussing the earlier FDR podcasts, from FDR001 and working our way thrugh the whole catalogue of classics. I had 3 positive responses, of which one person gave me a skype SN. I added and messaged him to state who I am and why I added him. No response. Another person seems like they might be interested, and a third person was interested, contingent on how much time it would take to listen to old podcasts. (Really, listening to the podcasts in advance of the chat would be ideal but not even necessary to contribute to a discussion that extrapolates from the ideas covered) I'm still willing to coordinate a skype chat, or google hangout or whatever, but I need people to show me that they are actually going to give it a serious shot. I wouldn't even mind if I was the only one to listen to and summarize the episodes, as long as people commit to the chat times and show up for the discussion based off of my summaries. I think that would at least be a productive starting point.
  15. I'm not overwhelmingly confident about this. According the what is implied in the show, anyone can (with a reasonably articulate e-mail) get on as a call-in, and they are dropped into the queue. People who want to argue a counterpoint to Stefan are the only people who move up in the order. Since the call-in show is drifting away from the 'personal freedom' issues,as well as the videos/podcasts that they produce, the content isn't there to create a feedback loop wherein those people out there looking for that sort of content won't find it in FDR because it is not featured here anymore. Thus they will not listen, will not call-in, will not join the forum, etc. And thus the shows will reflect less of these concerns in a constant feedback loop. So I hope if there is something you want to hear on the show, that you get in line as a caller, otherwise you probably won't be hearing it.